Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes from the previous meetings of 20 January 2021 and 3 February 2021.

The minutes of the meeting of the 20 January and 3 February 2021 were confirmed as accurate records.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kirsten McKelvie, the agent.

Kirsten McKelvie explained that the proposal is for a single storey 3-bedroom dwelling to the rear of the applicant’s current dwelling, which is accessed from Spire View to the east, and that the intention is for the applicant to move into this new dwelling as they do not want to leave the area but require a single storey dwelling. She expressed the opinion that there is a highdemand for bungalows in the area, close to the Town centre and stated that Rose Homes, the developer for SpireView, has said that the previously approved bungalows, now all sold, were over-subscribed.

Kirsten McKelvie expressed the opinion that this isrecognised by thefact that thisapplication issupported bythe Town Council and although the proposal lies within the Conservation Area, it is right on the edge and relates more to thedevelopment of Spire View, outside of the Conservation Area. She stated that the proposed dwelling is ‘L’ shaped andeffectively completesthe developmentto therear, continuing theelevation linesof theadjacent plots and added that currently between these dwellings is a short length of fencing accessing into the existing gardenof 54 High Causeway.

Kirsten McKelvie explained that the new dwelling would provide an active frontage to Spire View, therebyimproving the development and providing separation between the new development and this rearcorner ofthe Conservation Area and added that thereare verylimited viewsof theproposed singlestorey dwellingfrom HighCauseway, between 54 and the new two-storey dwelling at 52 High Causeway,constructed within the last 6 months. She explained that the roof of the new dwelling is hipped towards the rear of 54High Causeway to reduce its impact and the proposed dwelling is set further back from the existingdwelling than the current outbuilding by approximately 6m and if planning permission was granted, a condition toincorporate some appropriate planting or hedging at the boundary between 54 High Causeway andthe proposed dwellingcould be consideredto shield theproposal even further.

Kirsten McKelvie stated that the garden to 54 High Causeway is being reduced, but this is negligible given the already approvedand constructed bungalows to the rear which reduced the size of the original garden and stated that the existingdwelling is still retaining a considerable rear garden, 27m for over half the width of the plots and11.5m fromthe singlestorey projection, plus alarge gardento thefront of the property.

Members asked Kirsten McKelvie the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarity regarding the applicants’ name and. following confirmation, he decided he would withdraw from the debate and voting on this item, due to the possibility of the applicant being a member of his family.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the driveway  ...  view the full minutes text for item P70/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Craig Brand, the agent.

Mr Brand referred members to the presentation screen and explained the slides being shown, with slide 1 showing 3 previous garden developments in close proximity to the application site, slide 2 showing the 2 new dwellings in Hawthorne Grove which have side gardens and slide 3 showing the new dwelling in Ash Grove which has a 7m deep rear garden; with first floor bedroom and bathroom windows in the rear elevation overlooking the neighbouring gardens. He explained that the plot is of constant width and 19.8m deep, requiring only a 6.6m deep garden to achieve the minimum one third private amenity set out in Policy LP16 part H.

Mr Brand stated that the committee report gives one reason for refusal; overlooking causing loss of privacy and stated that as shown on the site layout drawing the new property will not directly face onto the back of 7 and 6 Hawthorne Grove only the ends of their gardens.  He expressed the view that overlooking of the gardens will be no worse than the Ash Grove house in Slide 3 and the main bedroom at the rear will be the homeowners; with work and family commitments making it unlikely to be used during daylight hours. He added that generally only when opening and closing the curtains will there be any overlooking of the neighbouring gardens, when they are unlikely to be in use and all gardens do have some degree of overlooking from first floor windows as has been stated in past Planning Inspectorate decisions.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the submitted illustrative house designs depth could be reduced slightly and possibly positioned slightly further forward to give extra garden depth. He pointed out that on slide 4 it shows the original rear bedroom window of No7 and the nearer extension bedroom window, with the original bedroom reduced to a box room study with boiler cupboard caused by the access corridor to the extension bathroom and bedroom, however, the slide does not clearly show the lean-to roof which obscures views into the ground floor windows.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that in 30 years as an agent there has never been any guidance published in any of the Local Plans on separation distance requirements and it has always been the Officer’s opinion on each application. He stated that the illustrative application drawing shows the bedroom window is offset 10.3m from the rear of the neighbours bedroom window and the 15m plus separation that will be achieved by a new house, in his opinion, is more than adequate considering bedrooms normal night time use and stated that you would also have to intentionally look towards No7 to see the window. He stated that if Members have concerns about the separation distance between windows the property could be handed as shown on Slide 5, so  ...  view the full minutes text for item P71/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater stated that members will remember that at the last planning committee they determined a site on the edge of Guyhirn for infill development and it was concluded that material planning circumstances relating to the site and its surroundings were such that spatial planning policy could be outweighed by other material circumstances. He added that in some ways the consideration of this application is similar as it is for an infill plot within a linear form of development on the edge of the village.

Mr Slater suggested that, given the status of Wisbech St Mary as a growth village and the level of local services and facilities within the village, is material and that it in Fenland terms this site is in a sustainable and accessible location. He stated that members will be aware that the aim of the planning system as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF), and quoted in most committee reports is to secure sustainable development.

Mr Slater added that it is contended that the range of good and services available within walking or cycling distance to this new development on the edge of Wisbech St Mary is superior to that available to new dwellings that are permitted within the centre of much smaller villages in the district, which have a much lower level of services and facilities, and many new developments have been approved in the smaller villages in recent years. He acknowledged that the appeal decision is clearly material to the consideration of this application and the officer places great weight on this in their report.

Mr Slater stated that the Appeal Inspector gave great weight to the Local Plan in his decision as it was newly adopted and up to date in April 2015, however, in his view, this is no longer the case as the plan is now clearly dated as the Council is now preparing a new plan. He stated that given the weight attributed to the plan at the time, the Inspector took a strict interpretation of LP12 confirming that he did not consider that the site was part of the built form and at that point he concluded that it was not in conformity and dismissed the appeal; there was no real secondary consideration of other issues.

Mr Slater expressed the view that in the interim, the plan is now dated and there have been 2 new versions of the NPPF which have moved the planning agenda on with greater weight placed on delivering new homes and acknowledgement in paragraph  77-78 of the NPPF of the need for rural homes to enable rural communities to grow and thrive. He stated that there are no technical objections to the proposal; it lies within Flood Zone one and has the support of the Parish Council and it is, therefore, concluded that the proposal can be  ...  view the full minutes text for item P72/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the application has the support of neighbouring propertiesand the Parish Council and acknowledged the comments made by them that they support the proposal, but they would prefer a single dwelling and added that his  client would accept this if that would be preferential to the committee. He added that that the layout is purelyindicative with only accesscommitted at this stage, and with the site falling within Flood Zone 3, it is no different to many otherdevelopments within the district and the submitted Flood Risk Assessmentdemonstrates that thescheme can bemade technically safe from flooding.

Mr Edwards explained that with regards to the finished floor level of the development it should be noted    that the dwelling is required to be lifted 1.0m above the existing land levelwhereas a development approved by the committee at the last meeting inGuyhirn required the finished floor lifting higher from the existing ground levelthan required, and as the report states the Environment Agency haveno objection to theproposal. He added that the site is in a continual line of development except for the current site thatmeanders around the road and the stretch from the original impressivefarmhouse of Inlays Farm incorporates two barn conversions both of a highquality andthen thenewly converted former agriculturalbuilding known asthe Stables which has recently been completed as a dwelling and is adjacent to  the site. He stated that the other side of the site is the applicants own dwelling which again is    an executive styled dwelling which sits very comfortably in the street sceneand the plot was approved by this committee against officer’srecommendation.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that this stretch of dwellings is then finished with the replacement bungalowNewbury Lodge, with this and the original farmhouse are the only propertiesthat the applicant has not been involved in and the dwellings in this area are of a high standard and finish adding that the proposal infront of members, whether for one or two dwellings will be of the same quality andwill enhancethe area. He explained that the indicative layout shows two executive barn styled properties whichbecause of the host property could well have existed and reads as a complete farmstead.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is served via an existing access on to Mouth Lane and the site isagricultural at present, but of a size that is no longer commercially viable to  farm and withthe builtform around it lends itself toa residential site. He expressed the view that the proposal makes the best use of the land and will finish off this part of the   villageand thelane.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Edwards to clarify why  ...  view the full minutes text for item P73/20