Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Phil Clark, a supporter of the proposal. Mr Clark explained that he was in attendance on behalf of his father who was not able to attend the meeting due to illness. He stated that the application is for a considerate bungalow at the bottom of the garden of 108 High Street in March which has been the family home for 43 years.

 

Mr Clark stated that the existing house is now becoming impractical due to his parent age and the fact that the house is split over three storeys and the size of the house is becoming too big, with the purpose of the bungalow being to provide them with a more suitable home within the town where they have lived for the last 43 years. He made the point that his parents understand the concerns which have been raised, and he added that nearby properties have access with lesser widths than their driveway one of which is the pub next door which has a car park, with the High Street remaining unchanged from the time he has ever lived in the house including a 30mph speed limit.

 

Mr Clark explained that his parents raised him and his siblings in the property, and they have grown up, lived and worked from the house which have meant multiple cars leaving the house daily. He stated that to the best of his parents’ knowledge throughout the 43 years that they have lived in the property there has been no serious accidents or incidents on the High Street.

 

Mr Clark explained that his parents feel that the application does not have any impact and there have been others approved on the road. He added that his parents have tried to take all the advice which has been provided to them concerning the design to reduce any impact that the proposed bungalow may have.

 

Members asked Mr Clark the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would like to take the opportunity on behalf of the committee to pass on their best wishes to Councillor Clark.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked Mr Clak whether he still resides in the property? Mr Clark stated that he does not reside there currently, but it is where he grew up and he lived there up until 2004 or 2005.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Clark, from his experience of having lived in a Listed Building, how suitable does he feel that it would be to renovate or modify to include stairlifts and is the house on more than three levels if it has any further steps inside? Mr Clark explained that there are various steps inside the building and one main wooden staircase which is partly timber frame and part masonry although he is unsure how old the building is. He explained that it is a solid wall construction and there is no insulation, and it has single pane windows, and he recalls that he remembers as a child that the floors are all creaky.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the Highways Team are concerned with regards to the 2.9 metre access point and he asked whether Mr Clark is aware of any difficulties when taking vehicles in and out of the driveway. Mr Clark explained that he is aware that there have been concrete lorries who have used the access for deliveries, and he is not aware of anybody having any issues entering and exiting and the only issue would be if somebody parked across the driveway which is why the white lines were introduced as a preventative measure.

·         Councillor Purser stated that from recollection he believes that the house is 150 to 200 years old and he asked what the intention would be with regards to the current property at the front? Mr Clark stated that he does not know, however, it is his understanding that the house would be sold, and his parents would move into the bungalow and then put the house up for sale.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and stated that one of the photographs demonstrates that there are a number of newer properties to the rear and he asked whether Mr Clark knew how close those properties were located to the boundary of the application site? Mr Clark stated that he does not know the distance but believes the property had an extension added to their property and that is the closest building to the rear.

·         Councillor Purser stated that buildings at the back are located in Stonecross Way.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there have been no objections to the application from members of the public and the site is all located within Flood Zone 1. He added that there have been no objections made by either the Tree or Ecology Officer and at 10.20 of the report it states that that there is no overlooking or overshadowing onto neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Hall explained that the proposed bungalow would not be able to be seen from the street scene which has been referred to by officers in their report for the adjacent site which had dwellings approved, with, in his opinion, the proposal relating more to Stonecross Way and Elwyndene Road at the rear of the site rather than the High Street. He referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the Grade 2 Listed Building and pointed out that two dwellings were passed in 2008 which was a conversion of an existing outbuilding to two one-bedroom dwellings which is set back from the Listed Building and is detached from the Listed Building.

 

Mr Hall referred to the yellow dot on the presentation screen which indicated a building located two doors away from the application site, which is a fish and chip shop, and two additional properties were approved there in 2012 joined to the Listed Building. He explained that the green dot on the presentation screen relates to the pub car park which also has a restricted access and has 15 parking spaces which were approved in 1997.

 

Mr Hall stated that the purple dot on the screen relates to an application in 2024 where seven flats which were 3 storeys high were approved and directly opposite there is, in his opinion, one of the best Grade 2 Listed Buildings in March. He stated that directly to the south of that there is a further Listed Building adjacent at 93 High Street and when you walk up and down the High Street there are further examples which include 38/40 High Street which was the former Minstrels Nightclub and is Grade 2 Listed in a Conservation Area where 8 flats were approved in the rear of the curtilage in 2014.

 

Mr Hall added that at 36 High Street there were seven two storey dwellings which were approved which are also located in a Conservation Area and in a Grade 2 Listed Building, accessed in the rear of what would have been the curtilage of 36 High Street. He expressed the opinion that many of those examples are far closer to the Grade 2 Listed Building than the current proposal, with the proposed bungalow being 60 metres away from the principal Grade 2 Listed Building which the officer has mentioned in the report.

 

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and explained that the first photo displayed is two doors down from the application site and it is a Grade 2 Listed Building with access off of the High Street, with, in 2012, it having an outbuilding approved to be converted to a new dwelling in the rear and also a new dwelling which was built on the end of that also approved in 2012. He explained that the access is less in terms of width than the application site and two additional buildings were built out there which is also listed.

 

Mr Hall added that in 2008 there was a highways objection to that proposal due to the width in the access and increase in vehicle movements, however, the application was approved under delegated powers. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out the pub car park which is directly to the north of the application site, and explained that it was approved in 1997 for 15 car parking spaces in the rear and the access is also quite restricted.

 

Mr Hall explained that the next photograph shows Norland House and that is located directly next door to the application site and is Grade 2 Listed, maybe Garde 2 Star Listed and approval was given in 2008 for 2 one bedroom dwellings at the rear of the site which converted a barn, with the access point is 2.5 metres wide which is 500mm less than the access in the current application. He stated that the Highways Authority at that time recommended refusal due to manoeuvrability and width of the access and the application was approved under delegated powers.

 

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that he undertook a site visit and along with Councillor Mrs French they measured the access, and 108 High Street was 50mm wider than the pub access next door. He explained that he drove into the pub car park without any issue and then turned around again without any problems, however, they did not look at the other side and he asked Mr Hall to reiterate the widths of the buildings on the other side as there appears to be a conflict where permission was given to one building for car parking for 15 spaces. Mr Hall explained that the presentation screen shows the site which is directly next door to the application site which is to the south and is called Norland House and the access is 2.5 to 2.6 metres wide which is what is stated in the officer’s report. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that the site located two doors away from the application site has an access point which is a lesser width than the access for the current application and two properties were passed in the rear of that building where one was an outbuilding which was converted but the other dwelling was building an end terrace onto what was there.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that nowadays building in the back gardens must be a common occurrence and people do build in the back in order to have a smaller house than they have at the front. He added that the rear garden is 160 feet long which is a long way down and is quite exposed as there is an orchard or garden down one side of it which is virtually the whole length, with the site not being overlooked, is on its own and, in his view, will not cause any issues whatsoever. Councillor Murphy made the point that exiting the site will cause no issues as it stands back anyway and you can see if something is coming and asked Mr Hall whether he agrees? Mr Hall confirmed that he agrees with Councillor Murphy.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Hall  if he is aware whether this has been another Cambridgeshire County Council Highways desk top survey or does he know whether officers visited the site? Mr Hall explained that he does not know, but does not think that they visited the site.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Hall whether he believes that the existing property could be altered and changed in any way to make it more suitable for elderly and disabled residents. Mr Hall explained that it is a Grade 2 Listed Building which is set over three floors, and he is unaware whether there is basement or cellar. He added that the dwelling contains a lot of original features, and explained that he could apply for Listed Building consent, however, it would not be very easy to adapt the existing building.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is reflecting back on a previous committee where a Grade 2 Listed Building was involved and he asked Mr Hall if he could explain how close to the existing house will the bungalow be located should permission be granted by the committee? Mr Hall stated that that application in Morley Way in Wimblington was for 5 dwellings and the Listed Building was 30 metres away from the new bungalows. He added that this dwelling will be 60 metres away which is 180 feet and is a long way from the existing dwelling.

 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that in the Conservation Officer’s report it refers to the fact that a heritage statement has been submitted with the application that just about meets the requirement of Section 207 of the NPPF, and she asked officers to confirm what is needed to complete it. David Rowen stated that his interpretation is that the submitted report is not of a particularly high standard, but it just about does the job. Councillor Mrs French stated, therefore, it could satisfy it.

 

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she visited the site with Councillor Benney and measured the access which she recalls is 3 inches larger than what is stated in the officer’s report. She expressed the view that where the proposed dwelling is going to be located is a long way away from the actual Listed Building and in her view, there was more harm done probably when Stonecross Way was built which was many years ago. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that she cannot see an issue with the proposal as there is the pub next door which has 15 car parking spaces and there are other buildings which are closer to that, and she may consider supporting the proposal.

·         Councillor Benney stated that as people grow older it gets more difficult to live in multi floor dwellings, the applicant owns the house and the land and if wishes to build a house at the bottom of his garden and live in it then he wishes the applicant the best of luck. He added that in terms of access the pub next door has parking spaces for 15 cars and in 1997 a new Local Plan was introduced but the highway requirements have not changed. Councillor Benney stated that when considering the other accesses along the High Street and the fact the committee passed an application near Leonardos Pizza outlet some time ago which also has a Listed Building in front of it, in his opinion, it is a minor reason compared to the earlier application where development was in the open countryside. He made the point that whenever you build something there is always a detrimental side and this will affect the Grade 2 Listed Building but, in his opinion, it will not be so detrimental that it could not be built.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that the dwelling will be far enough away from the Listed Building, and he does take on the board the officers view, but he is considering the human side of the application which does need to be taken into consideration. He expressed the opinion that he does not see any considerable harm and the committee have passed tighter applications compared to this including the building at Chatteris, where there was, in his view, a very unsightly building which had been constructed next to a Grade 2 Listed Building under delegated authority and does more harm than the application being determined now. Councillor Benney added that his opinion is subjective, but he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Purser referred to a house in St Peters Road where he has noticed that there have been bungalows built with a much smaller entrance to them and, in his view, St Peters Road is far more dangerous than the current application and he is considering supporting the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he presumes that the Highways Authority have not visited the site and have only carried out a desk top survey. He added that whilst the access is tight, he does not see much of an issue and a car can still access the access without any issues. Councillor Marks explained that if required a car could pull up on to the frontage and wait there and whilst it would take up some of the pavement, pedestrians could be easily seen. He made the point that the proposed dwelling is to be located in the back and, therefore, it does not detract from the Listed Building and, in his opinion, from looking at the distances you would struggle to see the Listed Building from anywhere around that and he will be supporting the application.

·         Matthew Leigh clarified that the setting of a Listed Building varies depending on the Listed Building, making the point that if you are in a very tight area such as London the setting of one Listed Building would be quite small whereas a large building on its own in isolation the setting would be much greater. He explained that the amenity space and garden areas are generally in most cases part of the setting of a Listed Building and just because it cannot be seen from public views would not impact on the setting of a Listed Building per se. Matthew Leigh added that it is not about the visual characteristics of the Listed Building it is about the legal definition of what would be the setting. He added that Councillor Benney had accepted that there is an element of harm and he does not think that you can argue that there is not some level of harm from building in the garden of a Listed Building but then consideration must be given to the two tests laid out in the NPPF. Matthew Leigh explained that officers have recommended that the harm is at the lower end of the two test and, in his opinion, the two tests wording is quite different, making the point that there is substantial harm which is obviously very significant and is at paragraph 214 and then there is less than which is dealt with under paragraph 215 and that deals with anything that basically is not significant down to almost non-existent. He explained that it is a very broad term but as decision makers whether it is officers, members or Planning Inspectors consideration needs to be given to the level of harm on that scale and then take into account paragraph 215 which states that ‘where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of its designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. Matthew Leigh stated that if members are looking to allow planning permission then members need to be conscious of what the requirements of the NPPF are and members need to balance the level of harm, which cannot be argued that there is none, and he is sure that everyone agrees that it is less than substantial on the scale. He stated that to some extent it is a subjective matter but members need to consider the public benefits, and generally personal circumstances are not considered to be public benefits and should only be considered in very special circumstances, and age and ill health are not normally taken into consideration to weigh in favour of a development.

·         The Legal Officer stated that she totally concurs with explanation provided by Matthew Leigh, and she added that members have the test before them that they need to apply. She added that officers have identified the correct policy provisions in the NPPF and they have set out the tests correctly and provided an accurate explanation of how the tests are typically applied. The Legal Officer added that from a legal perspective there is not much more to be added and this is now a matter for planning judgement in terms of the level of the harm that members assess and then how members weigh any public benefits that they can identify. She made the point that the advice provided by officers with regards to what benefits might be taken into account are correct and, therefore, it is now a matter for the committee to weigh the balance itself.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he is sure that the applicant is aware that it is 61 metres from the Listed Building and he will need to take his bins quite some considerable distance for collection.

·         David Rowen stated that a number of the access points referred to by Mr Hall, the agent, all have a slightly different context or different history to them. He added that the pub was referenced but historically the yard to the pub has been round the back and, therefore, there would be some vehicular movements associated with that. David Rowen added that the issue with the current application is that there is one dwelling at the moment which is served by the access and effectively the use of the access is being doubled which is where the Highway Authority have raised concerns. He stated that as Mr Hall also acknowledged a number of the decisions that he highlighted were historic some dating back to the 1990s and all of them have slightly different contexts, backgrounds and usages at the time and a decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and stated that there appears to be a modern building behind the roadside and he asked whether officers know the distance of that building from the Listed Building in front of it. David Rowen stated that he does not know the distance but added that it is somewhat irrelevant and he made the point that if Councillor Marks was trying to demonstrate that the particular dwelling was within the setting of the Listed Building in question, each building has its own setting and in some scenarios having a new building within a few metres maybe appropriate and in others it would not be. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that it should be taken into consideration as it is next door and within a very close area.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the design of that dwelling includes the star and the cross and it is an old building and not relatively new.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that he does not know the history, however, Mr Hall did state in his presentation that one dwelling was a conversion which would be completely different to a new building for any material consideration and the weight that it should be given.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if it was a barn previously there are more vehicles entering and exiting. David Rowen stated that having looked at the history of some of the properties and when they were originally granted a planning permission there is definitely a reference in there to already existing multiple dwellings being accessed down the narrow access points. He added that potentially when the actual conversions took place there was no actual intensification of use or any intensification was certainly less than doubling it.

·         The Legal Officer advised members that when making a proposal they need to be very clear and need to identify some public benefits because it is a balance weighed against public benefit.

·         Councillor Benney stated that additional housing is a public benefit.

·         Councillor Marks stated that it is subjective and added that the committee believe that it is keeping with somebody within the curtilage of their own home. Matthew Leigh stated that is a personal benefit not for public benefit. Councillor Marks stated that it will mean that a further property will be made available once the bungalow is developed out as the house will then become available and, therefore, it becomes a public benefit for people to purchase the house.

·         Councillor Murphy stated the proposal is just for somebody who wishes to build in their back garden like so many others have done all over the town and all over the country without any personal benefit to anybody else and they just want to do it on their own property. He expressed the view that there is no personal benefit to anybody else in March and the benefit is only to the person who wants to build in his own back garden.

·         Councillor Marks clarified that the Legal Officer has stated that members need to outline the public benefit the proposal will bring, and, in his view, it is releasing another property into the market and that to him is one public benefit.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is the Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Heritage Committee, and heritage is a concern for her. She added that she has been considering the application with an open mind and at previous meetings members have discussed Listed Buildings. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that Listed Buildings are expensive to run, and they need to be viable and in this case the house is no longer viable for the family who are living in it. She expressed the view that from her perspective the public benefit is that they are offering a solution by building alternative accommodation which allows the building to potentially be sold and, therefore, will not be left to deteriorate in its condition. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that it is not known whether the current owners will be able to continue to maintain the property and it is very important for the building to remain in a good condition and for it to be kept as part of the town of March. She made the point that from her perspective the public benefit is viability going forward.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he understands the points made by Councillor Sennitt Clough and added that the committee are trying to consider what public benefit is there by releasing the property into the open market which, in his view, must be a public benefit. He added that whether the residents can afford to live there is not a planning consideration whereas releasing one property is a public benefit.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that with regards to the point made concerning viability and Listed Buildings, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an issue with the Listed Building or any evidence concerning the viability with the occupiers of the building. He stated that position brought forward by the committee would mean that in theory development could take place everywhere adjacent to a Listed Building because there could be a risk and there is no evidence around that for this application. Matthew Leigh explained normally when there is situation like this it would be classed as an enabling development and there is no legal definition as it is just a term which has come forward through the planning profession. He added that normally a certain course of action would be undertaken in order to raise funding to offset something else and then there would be a legal agreement and that money is then protected to deliver that. Matthew Leigh stated that is the only way he could suggest would work but there is no evidence in relation to the application that would tie into that.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the public benefit is more housing and additional housing is needed.

 

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation.

 

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the detriment to the Listed Building is very much at the lower end scale of harm and they also feel that there is consistency when taking into account the other applications in the vicinity, that will weigh more in favour than that of the public benefit.

 

(All members present declared that the applicant is a fellow councillor, but they do not socialise with him and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(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)