Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report and drew members attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the existing property is an out of keeping 1960’s bungalow which the applicant purchased and when the applicant purchased the property, he had a structural engineers report undertaken in August 2024 which concluded under Building Regulation Digest 251, assessment of damage of low-rise buildings, that the damage to the property is severe and it has suffered from foundation settlement and ground subsidence. He explained that the report concluded that the property would require demolition and the purchase was a cash property due to the fact that the property is non mortgageable.

Mr Hall added that there are no objections raised by the Planning Officer or the Conservation Officer concerning the demolition of the property. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the property has slipped off its damp proof course which is something that cannot be remedied very easily and the photograph which shows the interior of the dwelling demonstrates that the whole floor inside the building has dropped, the other photo demonstrated a large diagonal crack in the masonry, and it shows that it has not only cracked through, but it is also distorted quite heavily which would mean the demolition and rebuild of the property.

Mr Hall explained that over the last ten years the applicant has had two major health issues and at the current time he cannot always work full time, with the applicant currently living on Whittlesey Road in March, and he wishes to move to the town centre with this site being the ideal location and being in Flood Zone 1. He stated that there was one original objection to the proposal which was with regards to the unofficial turning head in one of the driveways being lost and he is aware that residents in the vicinity do use it, however, the application will keep that and will widen it.

Mr Hall added that the site will also benefit from a rear access right of way to Lambs Place which then leads to Creek Road. He stated that there is no objection in the officer’s report from the Conservation or Planning Officer with regards to setting two dwellings on the site, but he referred to the presentation screen, pointing out the application site and the row of properties which are on the same side as the application site and immediately adjacent there is a one and a half storey property with Dorma windows which is the same as the proposal.

Mr Hall added that along the road there are various styles of properties, and he pointed out the photograph of the bungalow proposed to be demolished where the large Sainsburys Supermarket can be seen in the background which is a very large building, with there being a public walkway public cut through between the application site and Sainsburys. He referred to the site plan on the presentation screen and indicated the red hatching which is the bungalow proposed to be demolished and the grey hatching to the northwest is the Sainsburys site which is right next door to the site, with the character of the area needing to be taken into consideration as that building is massive in scale and is far higher than the proposed site.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the officer’s report is quite positive and states that there is no impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light, overbearing or loss of privacy. He added that there are no concerns with regards to the amenity space of each plot and the Tree Officer has confirmed that the proposal is satisfactory in relation to all of the trees and all of them are going to be kept as some of them have got Tree Preservation Orders attached to them and they are located outside of the application site.

Mr Hall stated that one of the gardens proposed is 17 metres long and the other one is 34 metres long which is far greater than the third area which is required. He made the point that there are no objections from any of the consultees to the application except from the Conservation Officer.

Mr Hall stated that that the property that is being demolished is a 1960s bungalow, and the report has confirmed that there is no impact on the adjacent properties, with the proposal being a similar height to adjacent properties. He made the point that he is happy to agree the type of brick, roof tiles and any brick detailing with officers and he reiterated that there are no objections to the two properties on the site.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the bungalow was built in the 1960’s and now appears to have substantial subsidence damage and he asked Mr Hall to clarify whether there have been any attempts to underpin the property or has it undergone any other major works to try to correct it? Mr Hall explained that he has seen a Structural Engineers report and the whole building would require renovation as parts of it would need to be taken out and all of the floors broken out. He added that the building is distorted, has slipped off the damp course and it would not be cost effective to repair. Mr Hall explained that when you underpin a property there is a requirement to obtain insurance again and the property could be blighted, and some insurers would only provide specialist insurance could prove to be expensive if indeed the property is able to be insured again.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the bungalow is awful, and she asked whether Mr Hall feels that the drawings provided demonstrate a sympathetic design in a Conservation Area. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that he feels that is an improvement as the heights are similar, he has taken dormer windows off of other properties along there and he added that there are other things that he could add to the proposal such as brick plinths, and he would be happy to work with officers to consider if it was a concern. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she does think that it is an improvement, but she does not think it is enough.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he does have concerns with regards to the condition of the road along Nene Parade and the riverbank. He asked whether construction traffic and delivery vehicles are going to be using Lambs Place or down Nene Parade? Mr Hall stated that at the current time the property has access down Nene Parade, and he is aware that the riverbank is not in the best of conditions. He added that the property has got access off Nene Parade but also a right of way down Lambs Place and off of Creek Road so there would be two access points for construction traffic which would have to be limited to very small vehicles due to the difficulties of getting down Nene Parade.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that with regards to the proposed design which is an improvement but there could be further improvements made so that it is aesthetically better. He asked Mr Hall to explain what further improvements could be made to the design so that it blends more to the Conservation Area? Mr Hall explained that some further brick detailing could be added as well as stone sills, brick plinth and he added that the size of the properties would not need to be altered. Councillor Marks asked Mr Hall whether he worked with officers to come up with the current design? Mr Hall confirmed that he did not submit a pre-application and upon submission of the application and four or five weeks after that he emailed the Planning Officer, and the officer advised that the application was proceeding towards determination.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not personally like the proposed design and she does not think it is sympathetic to the area. She asked officers whether it would be an application that could be deferred in order for officers to work with the agent to achieve a better design. Matthew Leigh stated that the applicant chose not got through the pre-application process and to submit something to the Council for determination, with the NPPF encouraging pre-application advice and engagement which there is a fee for. He explained that by submitting the application officers have provided their recommendation and, in his view, the application would require a large number of alterations and amendments. Matthew Leigh added that the agent has stated that he does not disagree with the officer and whilst there is no official objection to the provision of two dwellings on the site, it is the proposed dwellings and his advice is that members should determine the application before them, however, if it is a case of approve or defer for a redesign then he would encourage members to defer the application for a redesign.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that there is a 1960’s dwelling on the site and he feels as though the application has been submitted for a modern type building which would have been compared to what else is there and is in the vicinity. Matthew Leigh explained that Conservation Areas did not exist until 1967 and then it was different to the current day. He added that any application which was submitted prior to that would not have been located in a Conservation Area and, therefore, the need to preserve and enhance would not have been a requirement. Matthew Leigh stated that planning has changed significantly over the years and the 1990 Act brought in the need to preserve or enhance the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area, making the point that it is well known that there are many Conservation Areas with many buildings that do not reference or enhance the area and that is why sometimes Conservation Areas are imposed as there are instances where degradation starts and buildings start to deteriorate which is when Article 4 legislation could be implemented to remove permitted development rights. He explained that just because there is a building or an example of not perfect architecture included in a scheme does not mean that the Conservation Area should be forgotten and he does not think that the proposal is more of a modern approach in a traditional area.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he recalls attending a meeting some years ago where the Agent made the point that you should be able to read architecture and by looking down a road you should be able to tell the period of when the houses were built due to the material used and the methods of construction that were used at that time. He made the point that the existing bungalow is a very good classic example of 1960’s architecture and unfortunately it is now in a poor condition. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the proposed two houses are in line and in keeping with todays building standards and by making a few additions it will not mean that the footprint of the build will alter. He added that if those additions such as brickwork and sills were added then he would happily support the proposal but he would not be happy to see the application refused in order that the applicant needed to start again and could officers could work with the agent to make the proposed dwellings look more aesthetically pleasing.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that he does agree to some extent with regards to being able to read a property and things are different when you are in a traditional street and in an area where all the houses are the same and there is an infill gap there it would still be expected that a property reflects that character. He explained that even though houses may date from the 1920’s and one hundred years have passed, you would expect to see something very similar to that because that is the prevailing character of the area. Matthew Leigh added that this site is in a Conservation Area, and there is the need to preserve and enhance the special character of the area, with the design of the properties, in his professional view, not being very good examples of architectural design and style at the time and the officer report has highlighted that they have limited architectural merit. He made the point that he would advise members to look at the dominance of the roof scape compared to the ground floor level as it would not be a particularly good sign of good architecture, and the dormers are relatively dominant in the street scene. Matthew Leigh explained that in the officer’s report it states that the pitch is relatively low and extended out and the double garage on the property on the lefthand side is, in his opinion, not subservient and a small addition to the property. He made the point that overall he would struggle to recommend the dwellings for approval in a normal street and in a Conservation Area, in his professional opinion, the proposal does not preserve or enhance the area which the committee needs to consider. Matthew Leigh explained that there is no objection to properties on the site or to the demolition and the provision of two properties on the site, however, it is the design of the properties which members need to consider. He added that Mr Hall made a point of stating that there is no overlooking which is not a problem, however, there is a significant issue with regards to the appearance of the properties in a Conservation Area and the materials do not reference the area.

·         Councillor Benney asked officers whether they could work with Mr Hall to make changes to the design to include stone sills or is that something that officers cannot do? Matthew Leigh expressed the view that it needs more than just some minor tweaks including the requirements of looking at the proportions of the garage but should members wish to delegate to officers or defer subject to a redesign then that is members choice, however, in his opinion, members should determine what is in front of them. He stated that the applicant has not undertaken a pre-application and has submitted a scheme that does not meet the architectural standards that the Council require as a district. Matthew Leigh expressed the view that the Conservation Area should not be eroded and the places which actually have value, and he stated that is his professional opinion.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and added that he is finding it hard to decipher the dwellings as demonstrated in the drawings. David Rowen stated that he agrees that the drawing and plans are not ideal and, in his professional opinion, he wholeheartedly agrees with the points made by Matthew Leigh that the dwellings are significantly out of keeping in terms of design in this location. He added that without wishing to critique Mr Hall, one of the suggestions that he put forward was to look at putting brick plinths in. David Rowen referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that none of the dwellings either side of the proposed dwellings have brick plinths and with regards to reference to detail in trying to make the dwellings a little more sympathetic to the Conservation Area that in itself appears to indicate that there needs to be a great deal more thought given to dealing with the site and the design of the dwellings themselves.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not like the design and the committee have two choices, in her view, of either refusing the application or deferring it for the agent to undertake a total design which is sympathetic to the area, and she added that she would like to see the application deferred. 

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees that the design is not ideal, but he questioned how much needs to be enhanced when there is a very large supermarket located on one side and an electricity substation located on the other side.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that that members are dealing with this site and this application, and he added that officers are not saying that the Conservation Area is perfect but, in their view, they do not think that it should be made worse. He added that the proposal is not attractive, and officers are not objecting to the principle, but their opinion is that a better scheme needs to come forward.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is still struggling to picture them in situ and the drawing provided, in his opinion, is very poor and he is having difficulty seeing whether the proposed dwelling match in with the street scene.

·         Councillor Benney stated that normally before development commences the materials need to be agreed including the colour of brick and, in his view, consideration could be given to changing the colour of the brick so that it matches in with the terraced houses at the side of the site. He expressed the view that it would be a small change to make if the actual footprint does not alter and, in his opinion, the street consists of two up two down housing which does not accord to modern living anyway. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that if the application cannot be deferred for the amendments and changes to be made to the design then he would look for the application to be approved as it is.

·         David Rowen stated that there is a greater element to the changes to improve the design of the proposal as outlined by Matthew Leigh who provided a detailed critique of the various issues including the scale, roof pitches, Dorma details, attached garage and the visual dominance. He added that with regards to enhancing the Conservation Area there is a requirement to do that and he advised the committee to consider that rather then trying to bring down the quality of architectural standard to the lowest common denominator and, in his opinion, the committee ought to be using the lowest common denominator as an example of why there needs to be higher quality going forward.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has sought the advice of the Head of Planning and if the committee are minded deferring the application then the officers would be happy to work with the applicant and agent.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she disagrees with the point made by Councillor Benney as there is no way that she is going to support the application in its current form as the design is poor and she would propose that the application is deferred for decent plans to be submitted.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be DEFERRED for the scheme to be redesigned.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent is undertaking work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)