Agenda and minutes

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 David Johnson, the applicant.

Mr Johnson stated that having read through the Planning Officer’s information pack, he is conscious that no mention is made of the historic use of the land in relation to Supporting Letter 1 and Supporting Letter 2.  He stated that he feels that the recent historic use of the land is particularly important in this case and added that both letters are eyewitness statements describing previous use of the land in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

Mr Johnson explained that one was the contractor who hard cored the rear land for parking, and latterly in addition at the far end constructed a pub garden complete with ornamental pond and seating areas and the other witness, himself a past owner of the attached Elm Manor and long-term Elm resident, details the previous use of parking and beer gardens on the land too.  He stated that it should be noted that that the land was not maintained when Elm Manor was purchased in 2007.

Mr Johnson stated that in his supporting statement he mentions a photograph of the pub hanging in the front dining area and that previously he had stated that the land appeared to be used for growing vegetables, but in fact it was the land behind Elm Manor which resembled an allotment.  He added that since then he has studied the photograph with a fine-tooth comb and taken it out of its frame for a proper look and the photo was taken circa 1981 as dated by John Munro, the owner of the red Morris Marina parked nearest the front door.

Mr Johnson added that the picture depicts a well-worn vehicular access to the rear land and even shows a vehicle parked on the rear car park beyond the electricity substation. He stated that the pub is open, there are five cars parked on the front and one at the rear, and that he has visited the pub for 37 years since the age of 8 when he went every Sunday before lunch and Alan and Val Williams, the then owners, were close to his family and when they left to move to Wales, their guard dog Tia came to live with him at Friday Bridge.

Mr Johnson explained that for the last few years Alan and Val were in residence, they had a field gate installed to section off the rear land to enable Tia to have full run of it during the day, before putting her in the downstairs of the pub to guard overnight.  He advised that it was only the subsequent owners Pam and Ray Clements that allowed the rear land to become derelict, having failed to make work their huge wooden beer terrace they had installed on the land and both himself and co-owner Peter Golding removed the redundant terrace.

Mr Johnson informed members that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P74/20

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 Mr Ted Brand, the Agent.

Mr Brand explained that the proposal is to join an existing residential annex and aholiday let, with an extension linking the two, to form one dwelling which are 3.8m apart and both two storey. He stated that the annex, to the north, iscurrently occupied by the applicants, one of whom is the daughter ofthe elderly occupant of Nene House and is his carer who has power of attorney. The annex was previously a holiday let but has now beendesignated by the Council as an annex, withthe access being from a private road off Creek Road and this dwelling relates mainly to a group of houses offthis road.

Mr Brand stated that officershave given 3reasons forrefusal, firstly the effect on the character of the area asthey say it would not respect the predominant character of the area due to itslocation; secondly, the orientation and scale, as it is also considered to detract   from the host dwelling, Nene House, eroding its historic formand setting and, in his opinion, this is not correct or justified as he feels the Council’s case is based on an assessment of the characterof Nene Parade, but this dwelling and Nene House are close to,and relate to, a group of houses on the private road off Creek Road, Nene Parade end just before Nene House and thesite, with only a footpath to the south, with this proposal being 33mfrom this path and is screened by the many trees and shrubs in  the garden and fronting the path, which has no effect   on the character of Nene Parade. He added that regardingthe relationship with Nene House, this schemeis only 0.9m higher, in part, than the existing annex and holidaylet and is low chalet in appearance, much lower andsubservient to Nene House, with the eaves height of Nene House being6.2m and the eavesheight ofthis proposalbeing 3.5m and theridge height  of Nene House being approximately 9m andthe highest part of this proposal being 6.6mwith a lowerridge of5.0m.

Mr Brand explained that most importantly the proposal is 12 to 15m away from Nene House compared to a Council approved, large, 5 bedroom house,only 9maway, as canbe seen on items1 to4 on the screen.  He added that the location plan shows adjacent houses clearly closer than  thisproposal and approvedby the Council in2018, with the large-scale site plan of the 2 approved dwellings showing the  relationship to Nene Houseand theirsize.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the photo of plot 2 house, with the space in front is plot 1 isdescribed by the Councilas a“5  ...  view the full minutes text for item P75/20

To determine the application.

Nicholas Thrower presented the report to members.

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

Mr Edwards explained that he is speaking in support of this application for an infill dwelling at land south of 12 High Road,Guyhirn and the application has the support of the Parish Council and  allother consultees other than oneobjection from the neighbour.  He explained that the site is within Flood Zone 3, however, it is no different to many otherdevelopments within the village and district and the submitted Flood RiskAssessment demonstrates that the scheme can be made technically safe from flooding, and it should be noted other than the host property the client does nothave anyother land in thevillage.

Mr Edwards stated that he has checked on Rightmove earlier that day and the only land available in Guyhirn atpresent does not have planning approval, so sequentially is not    available for development.  He added that with regard to the finished floor level of the development it should be notedthat he is required to lift the dwelling 300mm above the existing land levelwhereas a development approved by the committee a couple of meetings agoin Guyhirn required the finish floor lifting considerably higher from the existing  ground level than is required, and as the report states the EnvironmentAgency haveno objection to theproposal.

Mr Edwards explained that the site is in a continual line of development extending throughout the village    on this side of the road, and as the majority of Guyhirn can only be developed onone side due to the river and its bank, sites like this are valuable to providedwellings to sustainthe facilities in thevillage. He expressed the opinion that Guyhirn has a real mixture of dwelling typesthroughout and this section of the village is no different, with a mixture ofdetached and semi-detached, single and 2 storied dwellings of different heights  and styles from the traditional cottages to the more modern detachedproperties, and these are in the main not in a hard and fast straight line and stepthe frontagethroughout thevillage.

Mr Edwards added that the proposal, whilst larger than the neighbouring properties, is consistent with other dwellings being built in the village and may be considered aspirational,but as the client already owns the land and uses it as extended garden to hishost property asked if this is a bad thing, and there should be the need to be encourage a mixtureof dwelling types andthe sitecan clearlytake thedevelopment.  He added that the report states that both the existing and proposed dwellings far exceed the requirements  for garden space and upon inspection of the site there are a pair of semi-detached dwellings beingconstructed three doors along to the south closer to the river, and these look like  large single dwellings and these  ...  view the full minutes text for item P76/20

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 Mr Ian Gowler, the Agent.

Mr Gowler stated that he hasworked withthe officersclosely duringthe applicationto producea sympatheticdesign for thetwo properties onthe site.

He added that he would like toclarify theissue ofparking, which he is aware isa concernof nearbyresidents, with the dwellingsproposed being4 bedroomand shouldrequire 3parking spaces,however, asintheofficer’sreportthisisa towncentrelocationand,therefore,parking standards can be reduced as has been agreed with recent developments in nearby Victoriastreet.

Mr Gowler stated that the fourth bedroom has the flexibility to be used as a home office, whichwould allow the proposal to fall into the 2 car parking standard and with modern home working becomingthe newnormal thisalso inturn reducesthe needfor additionalcars required. He expressed the view thatthe proposalmeets policyand providestwo welldesigned familyhomes closeto theTown Centreof Chatteris.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he welcomes the proposal and expressed the view that it will fit into the street scene. He added that behind the houses in South Park Street there is another plot of land, which, in his opinion, will also be developed on in the future.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she will support the application and she expressed the view that the design is excellent. She congratulated the Agent for working with the officers to bring forward the proposal.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees that officers should be congratulated for working with the Agent for bringing the proposal forward and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he welcomes the application and congratulated the Agent and Architect for bringing an application forward which is pleasing to the eye and will enhance the area and he will fully support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis declared an interest, by virtue of the fact that the Agent for this application is known to them as he is a Doddington Parish Councillor and Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis attend Doddington Parish Council in their positions as elected members of Fenland District Council)

(Councillor Cornwell left the meeting prior to the commencement of this item and took no part in this item)

To determine the application.

Nicholas Thrower presented the report to members.

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

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is often the case that consideration of planning applications comes down to two fundamental elements, which are the principle of development and impact, for example, can I put a development in that location? and if so; would the impact be acceptable?  He stated that with regard to principle, this case is not a matter of principle in terms of whether the development is in the right place, as the case officer acknowledges at paragraph 11.1 the site is within the built form of Wisbech and principle of development is acceptable and in addition, the site has an extant outline planning permission for 2 dwellings on it dating from 2018, which confirms the principle of development.

Mr Slater stated that with regard to impact, the officer’s objection to this application is solely in respect to impact and specifically the front to front separation of the proposal from the adjacent homes and the impact of this relationship on residential amenity. He stated that Fenland does not have adopted design guidance and as such consideration falls against LP2 and LP16, with LP2 being largely a strategic policy in relation to residential amenity refers specifically to LP16 and LP16 criterion (e) seeks to avoid unacceptable adverse impact.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is contended that the proposal, albeit at the minimum acceptable distance, does not cause unacceptable significant adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties. He feels that existing permissions, given the size and position of the site, it is very difficult to envisage an alternative arrangement that could come forward under reserved matters that would not encounter the same issues, however, in granting the outline permission the Local Planning Authority must have been satisfied that an acceptable solution to design and amenity issues exists.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that consideration of the townscape/ street scene along Elm Low Road will show that the form of frontage development similar to that proposed, just set back from the highway edge is indeed characteristic of this street and Policy LP16 criterion (d) requires that development responds to local distinctiveness.  He added that there appears to be a disagreement on a single issue of the proposal; the acceptability of the impact of the proposal in relation to the offset distance from the terrace of 3 properties opposite, which it is noted are built to the back of the highway edge, and whilst the proposal is set back further from the highway than the houses opposite, he would hope that members accept that this is just set back from the highway edge form of development is characteristic of this street and that the level of impact will be within acceptable bounds.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Slater to clarify his  ...  view the full minutes text for item P78/20