Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Steve Dubois, an objector. Mr Dubois stated that he lives at 31 Norfolk Street, the Listed Building that borders the proposed development and he opposes the proposal and welcomes the officer’s recommendation to refuse. He stated that whether or not committee agree with the heritage assessment, when it comes to evaluating the recommendation, everyone is bound by the same guiding principles in that great weight should be given to the assets conservation, that the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its settings, and whilst these are a matter for the committee, the NPPF also states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, as is the case with 31 Norfolk Street, this harm should be weighted against the public benefit of the proposal.

Mr Dubois questioned what the benefits of the proposal are, increased housing stock, opportunity to monetize an underdeveloped parcel of land and consideration of the key themes from the 23 letters of support, which need to be weighed against the harm to the Listed Building and the loss of green space. He expressed the opinion that there would an increased fire risk, it is a thatched property, and there would be a loss of privacy and there is a lack of community support as evidenced by the 78 letters of objection.

Mr Dubois stated that he appreciates that the Council is working on a new plan but as a designated growth village Wimblington has reached nearly three times its target set in 2014 and, in his view, there is no economic merit in building a further five homes and there is a significant development in Wimblington and the wider March area to keep much of the local construction industry busy for quite some time. He feels that building in what is an area favoured by older residents has no educational merit and the proposed development would do very little to address the undersubscription of the Thomas Eaton Primary School.

Mr Dubois expressed the view that the proposal also has no social merit, it has no affordable housing and potentially compounds already stretched medical services. He stated that he has lived in the village for 25 years and when he moved this house it could be seen from March Road, hedges were much lower and looking west he could see the big skies and Fen sunsets from his patio and that is the traditional context in which 31 Norfolk Street should be appreciated.

Mr Dubois referred to the presentation screen which shows the growth of housing and the erosion of green spaces within the heart of the village and he showed an aerial view of the proposed site as it stands today, the modern Morley Way development to the west, the green amenity to the north acting as buffer between the old and the new in line with Wimblington and Stonea design guidance and codes which stipulates “new developments in proximity to designated and non-designated heritage assets must propose green screenings to mitigate any unpleasant visual impact whilst also preserving key views”. He expressed the opinion that in light of this statement the impact of the proposal need to be considered on 31 Norfolk Street, many letters of support reference the scheme being an extension of Morley Way and there is no disputing that access is from Morley Way but viewed from the air the photo clearly shows it to be a standalone development.

Mr Dubois stated that supporters also place significant weight on having the same developer as Morley Way and when a buffer between old and new is mentioned Construct Reason Ltd were the ones responsible for siting of the green amenity now an asset of community value between Morley Way and the heritage part of the village and that same developer is now proposing to develop a site that is closer to the Listed Building than the very buffer they created some 20 years earlier and, in his view, is incongruous and not a benefit. He continued that supporters of the scheme believe that there is a need for more bungalows in Wimblington, with the proposed development being for five three-bedroom bungalows, however, the Wimblington and Stonea Housing Needs Assessment of January 2023 stated that the village far exceeds the national average for built bungalows and suggests that the greater proportion of dwellings be delivered as two-bedroom dwellings with an emphasis on affordable housing so this is not a benefit.

Mr Dubois made the point that the Fenland Local Plan calls for a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it talks of growth that is not for its own sake and, in his view, the only true benefit of this proposal is the monetization of an undeveloped parcel of land and that is not a public benefit. He expressed the opinion, in line with NPPF guidelines, there is no clear and convincing justification or public benefit that outweighs the harm to the setting of the Listed Building and to draw any other conclusion would be irrational.

Members asked questions of Mr Dubois as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the word ‘harm’ being used a lot and everybody has a different interpretation of what harm means and asked if Mr Dubois could state what this term means to him with regard to what he thinks it will mean with this development next to his property? Mr Dubois responded that he is not a planning expert and he would defer that question to the planning experts, the same people who have made a recommendation of refusal. He expressed the opinion that there is a heritage asset and a legacy in that this property has stood there for over 200 years in an open space and this proposal would enclose this space. Mr Dubois stated that there is a connection between his property and the other Listed Building at Addison Road and that is the field that separates them. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she appreciates that there is a technical aspect but was asking the question to obtain his own personal experience. Mr Dubois responded that his house has been in existence for 200 years, it is a Listed Building and it does not have the modern amenities in terms of things such as soundproofing, double glazing and it is a one and a half elevation building, with upstairs being plasterboard and thatch so you can hear everything outside. He expressed the view that it is dependent upon its isolation to modern living and it is not conducive to being in an environment with a housing density that you have as part of a modern development.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he assumes that Mr Dubois bought this house many years ago and asked if the field was ever part of the land that was associated with that house? Mr Dubois responded that not in his lifetime, it was always part of the farm behind the house but does believe there was a relationship between the land and the house at Addison House. Councillor Benney reiterated was this house ever associated with this house, has somebody sold the land off separately? Mr Dubois responded that it was always a separate piece of land but whilst ownership was different the location has always been in the context of that land.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the photo which shows the proposal imposed on the land and asked what distance from his property he believes the new development will be? Mr Dubois responded that the plan is marked up and from memory he believes it is 36 metres.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the proximity to the other buildings surrounding his property were at the same distance? Mr Dubois responded that the road to the right is Norfolk Street, formerly the High Street, and the nearest building is about 25 metres away and that is the back of the garage and is probably around 30 metres to Norfolk Street.

·         Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that the new proposed buildings would be 36 metres from the back as well? Mr Dubois responded that this is incorrect as 31 Norfolk Street is set back in its plot whereas every other house along Norfolk Street is running adjacent to the street. He stated that the one house that is most effected and nearest to the development is the Listed Building, the thatched property at 31 Norfolk Street. Councillor Marks requested clarification that the existing properties are 25 metres from his property and the new proposed rear of the properties would be 36 metres. Mr Dubois responded that his neighbours to the front of his property are roughly 25 metres in line with the road but this development is at the rear his house and that would be effectively 36 metres. He added that one of the things about having a thatched property is things like Guy Fawkes night are not the greatest time of year and in his insurance they are not allowed to have any incineration or burning within 100 metres and those back gardens will literally be the other side of the hedge and he cannot stop people from having barbecues, setting off fireworks or from incineration and potentially he has two if not three properties that would be incredibly close to his thatched property. Councillor Marks made the point that he also has existing properties within 25 metres who could also have barbecues or fires so this problem already exists. Mr Dubois agreed and the owners of the land have had bonfires on the land but they have been set much further back than this proposed development and they did have to call the Fire Service on one occasion. He added that it would be incredibly concerning and this proposal is a lot closer than 50 metres away where the owners might have previously had bonfires.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Amy Richardson, on behalf of the agent. Ms Richardson stated that they have worked closely with the planning officer throughout the planning process and dealt with any issues proactively and as noted within his report the scheme complies with Policy LP3 of the Local Plan, provides a scheme that is in keeping with the surrounding pattern of development in Morley Way and Waggoners Way and does not give rise to any unacceptable amenity impacts in accordance with Policy LP16 and LP12. She made the point that the officer refers to the fact that the plot sizes are generous and avoid a cramped form of development while still making an efficient use of the land.

Ms Richardson expressed the opinion that the main issue is the impact on the Listed Building at 31 Norfolk Street and as members will be aware from the officer report the previous scheme for 8 bungalows was withdrawn to try and address the impact of development on the listed property, with the scheme being reduced to only 5 bungalows with frontage development onto a private road, which will remain private and not be offered for adoption. She expressed the view that all issues around drainage have been addressed and the LLFA have no objections

Ms Richardson expressed the opinion that the original listing of 31 Norfolk Street only referred to 3 windows which face east, the front elevation of the property towards Norfolk Street and part of the original rectangular shaped cottage, with more recent additions having been added to the western side of the property together with a detached garage. She stated that there are no first-floor windows in the Listed Building facing towards the application site and the nearest bungalows are over 36 metres away.

Ms Richardson stated that they have added photos of the Listed Building which confirm there are no windows facing the development, taken from estate agents particulars as the property is currently on the market. She stated that their heritage consultant has tried to address the concerns raised by the Conservation Officer, noting amongst things that the village of Wimblington has significantly changed over the last 100 years from a much smaller village to a growth village, noting there is nothing to suggest that 31 Norfolk Street has had a direct functional connection with the site, such as grazing or farmland, and the site is not known to have ever been grazing land and the asset is not located within the open countryside or on the edge of the village but is surrounded by residential development within the heart of the village.

Ms Richardson expressed the opinion that the grounds of the Listed Building primarily extend to the east towards Norfolk Street where the majority of the bedroom windows face suggesting that the property is clearly orientated towards the east and this has formed its primary amenity space. She feels that Conservation Officer has given undue weight to the contribution the site makes to the setting of the Listed Building and has failed to acknowledge the current setting asset as experienced is one of residential built form.

Ms Richardson stated that the proposed layout was amended to offer a single line of dwellings to the far west of the site and provide greater distances to the Listed Building within the spaces between each dwelling, helping to ensure that the dwellings do not appear as a solid wall of development and with a variety of roofscapes helping to break up the massing. She made the point that the District Council is looking to sell the open space in Morley Way that the applicants provided as part of the original Morley Way development and this will take away the nearby public open space and, in her view, will be subject to residential development removing current green space.

Ms Richardson asked members to look at the benefits of this scheme and what it can provide, with the largely supporting nature of the planning officer’s comments and go against the Conservation Officer’s recommendations.

Members asked questions of Ms Richardson as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to Anglian Water having concerns and asked if these concerns have been addressed? Ms Richardson responded that they have been addressed and there are no drainage issues.

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

·         Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that this is a difficult decision in respect of the heritage site, with it being a greenfield site nearby and he has reservations about the impact on noise and amenity in the questions that Councillor Marks asked the objector. He feels it is a question of where does the committee value heritage as it looks to be a well thought out designed development.

·         Councillor Benney acknowledged what the objector has said but if this was any other development the distance between houses is 21 metres and there is 36 metres here. He feels the developer has worked to try and mitigate the harm to the historic building and a historic building should not be a block to development, it is a piece of land and well within the built form of Wimblington. Councillor Benney made the point that it is land usage that committee is looking at and is this land suitable to build on and whilst he does take on board the fire risk comments with a thatched cottage that is a risk that is taken when a thatched cottage is brought. He stated that this piece of land, from what the objector was saying, has no connection to this house and, in his view, this has been well planned out and consideration has been given to keep the distance away from the heritage asset, with other applications having been previously passed which are a lot closer to a heritage asset. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that there is sufficient green space left to safeguard the heritage asset and provide the homes that Fenland needs.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed with the comments already raised by councillors and acknowledged that it is a difficult decision as she thinks that the bungalows look a very nice design, they are some distance away but questions whether there is a need for more properties to surround this historic building and she keeps coming back to LP18. She reiterated that it is difficult weighing up the value of this thatched building with the need for bungalows and as stated Wimblington is a growth village but its growth has been reached.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that there seems to be a good break between the development and the Listed Building, which, in his view, is acceptable, it does not appear to be overdeveloped and looks to be good planned desirable buildings, with a need for these types of buildings. He added that whether that field was part of the heritage of that building is not known but it does not make much difference.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he has visited the site and feels there is a need for the development and a need for bungalows but a lot of the people that live there already are older, retired people and the heavy traffic going through there to access the site could have a detrimental effect to their properties. He added that he believes there is the possibility of a flooding issue in this area so is concerned for the people who already live here.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that what Councillor Purser has just mentioned is not a planning consideration. She asked were English Heritage involved in any discussions? David Rowen responded that English Heritage or Historic England are only consulted on certain applications so development within the setting of a Grade II Listed Building would not be an application that they would be consulted on.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that a proposal on this site could be worse and if it is refused today it could come back full of houses. He feels that this is a compromise, with it having a good fire break and a break for sound and with any other development it would be 21 metres. Councillor Benney acknowledged the objector’s point of view but feels these would be nice bungalows and would not be empty long, proving a need and, in his view, it is an application worthy of support.

·         Councillor Marks agreed, he has looked at the application and asked would he want to live there and he would in both properties as he does not think with bungalows there will be any overlooking, they would likely appeal to older people so noise will not be an issue and the likelihood of having fires or bonfires or fireworks is fairly negligible but there is always that risk but there is the same risk with all the other properties in the vicinity. He is leaning more towards supporting this application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to a comment that was made that if committee refuse it and the future of the site and made the point that members have to stick with the application that is in front of them today.

·         David Rowen referred to the separation distances, with some of the separation distances being referenced being amenity standards and amenity is not being looked at here it is the setting of a Listed Building and within the report there is a definition of setting that is given by Historic England and that setting varies from Listed Building to Listed Building so in some instances there will be a new build very close to a Listed Building because that reflects the historic pattern of development but here it is considered that the setting is the open space around that building and that is encroaching into that open space detrimentally impacting upon that setting. He continued that whether that land has been in the ownership of the Listed Building historically is not relevant, land that is in multiple separate ownerships can still form part of the setting of a Listed Building. David Rowen stated that if members are minded to grant the application, he would remind them of the legal duty set out in the officer’s report that within the 1990 Listed Building Act that “Local Planning Authority when considering development should pay special attention to preserving a Listed Building or its setting” so the lawful duty on a Council is to give great weight to preserving the setting of a Listed Building. He added that, if members are minded to grant the application, within that context he would advise that any reason for doing that needs to be clearly articulated and set out in respect of the public interest benefit or balance to ensure it is a robust and unchallengeable decision.

·         The Legal Officer confirmed that what David Rowen has said is correct, there is a legal duty to pay special attention to preserving the setting of a Listed Building so if members decide that this proposal can proceed notwithstanding some degree of harm to that setting then they must explain whether they think that level of harm is low enough to justify the proposal or whether there is a public benefit to overcome the harm that is involved. He stated that setting is not the same as ownership, with the two being separate concepts so the setting of a building transcends its ownership and ownership is irrelevant.

Proposed by Councillor Sennitt Clough to go with officer’s recommendation to refuse the application but no seconder was forthcoming.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel it will not detrimentally harm the setting of the Listed Building with there being sufficient space around it, it is relevant land use for this site and houses are needed within Fenland.

(Councillor Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)