Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gillian Bean, in support of the application. Ms Bean stated that she is a resident of River Drive, and she has spoken to every resident in the road and is addressing the committee on their behalf. She explained that numbers 8 and 9 of River Drive are in favour of the application and the proposal will, in her view, reduce the issue of vandalism, drugs, vermin and due to the lighting in the road, it would ensure that people could walk through the entrance way safely.

Ms Bean added that the Council’s core priorities are to improve the environment and street scene as well as giving residents a safer neighbourhood by reducing crime and anti-social behaviour and, in her view, by accepting the application and letting the application develop the site then the committee would be satisfying the Council’s core responsibilities. She stated that the applicant is trying to improve the area where the District and County Councils, in her view, have done nothing in the area where she has lived for the last six and a half years and feels that the area does need something doing to it, and it is down to the committee to make that decision.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that Ms Bean has referred to two residents who are in support of the proposal and she questioned whether they have officially written to the Council opposing the application in the first place. Ms Bean explained that not to her knowledge and they have both advised her that they have emailed the Planning Department to state that they are in support of the application and she also obtained their signature to state that they are happy for her to speak on their behalf.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated from the presentation slides, it does look as though the area is ripe for anti-social behaviour and he asked Ms Bean whether she can provide any statistical information with regards to the instances of anti-social behaviour which have taken place? Ms Bean explained that she does not hold any statistics, but she made the point that she knows that the resident from number 8 took it upon themselves to ask some individuals to leave the area after playing loud music and drug taking earlier in the week and she added that it is not what the residents in any road wants in their area. She added that many of the residents in the road are elderly, and it is a quiet area with the residents just wishing to get on with life and to help each other out. Ms Bean stated that residents are finding rats in their gardens, and the residents want to see some change, adding that whilst the proposal will not look as though it is part of River Drive, it will look considerably better in her opinion.

·       Councillor Benney asked whether Ms Bean is aware who the landowner is for the application site?  Ms Bean stated that she is aware but has never met him prior to the meeting today. Councillor Benney asked Ms Bean whether she has considered approaching the landowner in order to try and get the site tidied up as when he undertook a site visit the brambles were so high that he could not reach the garage, however, the site was padlocked and, in his view, if Ms Bean would like to see the site tidied it would be worth contacting the landowner. Ms Bean stated that as far as she is aware before the applicant purchased the site it is her understanding that the Council owned the site as she believes the garages were rented out from the Council.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the Council sold its housing stock in 2009, and she does not believe that the garages are something that the Council would own. She added that she does agree that the site is in a very bad state which she saw on her site visit. Ms Bean stated that is the main reason that the residents want something done about it.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that when he went to the site he walked from The Drive to the main road through the alley way and it would appear that number 8 uses the alley as an access. He asked Ms Bean whether that is correct and also whether any of the other residents also use that access? Ms Bean stated that there are no other properties who use that for vehicular access but there is a number of people from the road who use it as a walkway.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that there several garages which appear to be padlocked even though they appear not to be used, and he asked whether Ms Bean knows who owns them. Ms Bean stated that they are likely to be used for anti-social behaviour purposes.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nicholas Underwood, the applicant. Mr Underwood stated that the site sits 50 metres back from Deerfield Road, River Drive and Cotswold Close which are dead end cul-de-sacs only used by residents. He added that due to the back land setting and the existing building lines the site can only be glimpsed when passing directly in front of the three restricted view points and the proposal will have very little visual impact on the wider area but it will have a positive impact on the character of access road and improve the safety of the public realm for the benefit of the wider community.

Mr Underwood made reference to the presentation screen and added that the officer’s report makes reference to comments made by the Inspector at the appeal, but they all relate to the previous scheme and are not relative to the revised proposal before the committee which has completely been changed to address the objections. He added that the report also fails to convey that four out of the six previous grounds for refusal were also dismissed by the Inspector and that that the Inspector’s comments with regards to harm to local character all relate to the previous design being two storey which led to a concern over the bulkiness of the dormers on the first floor and also concern of overlooking into the garden of 29 Cotswold Close.

Mr Underwood made reference to the presentation screen and stated that by deleting those, the issues fall away and references to the linear form and cramped area all related to the car ports which significantly extended the building mass up to the south east boundary and this has also been deleted which reduces the building by a third and allows for a greater separation to all the boundaries. He stated that the points made with regards to overdevelopment and contrived layout related to the amount of private amenity space and that was also dismissed at appeal, with the Planning Inspector praising the innovative and novel approach and concluded that due to the quality and usability of the spaces, a reduction below the one third guideline was deemed to be both appropriate for the development and compliant with LP2, LP15, LP16 (h) as well as the March Neighbourhood Plan (h2).

Mr Underwood added that the private amenity space has also been increased to meet the one third guidance to add another twenty square metres and expressed the view that it is disappointing to see in the officer’s report where it claims that the design is out of character, with the Inspector highlighting that there is no prevailing architectural style that is evident and many of the buildings in the area have already been modified and altered over time. He explained that the Inspector also agreed that the contemporary approach of design and architectural detailing is entirely appropriate for the location, referring to the presentation screen in terms of prevailing character, with River Drive consisting of two block types with various setbacks from the road and the proposal has now been revised to match the same scale and massing of the smaller block type and follows the precedent which has been set by the other corner plot such as one and two in the bottom corner.

Mr Underwood referred to the screen and stated that the outline of number 33 Cotswold Close is shown in red and when that is overlaid onto the ground floor plan, it is comparable and is slightly shorter and smaller. He explained that the street scene view can demonstrate that the height is now comparable to the adjacent buildings, having been reduced and the outlook from the properties in Cotswold Close falls well below the 25-degree rule from BRE, even when standing right against fence and dispels any claim of prominence.

Mr Underwood added the presentation screen shows that the previous application did not include the bamboo screening on the drawings for clarity and instead just relied on the description and the images in the design and access statement, which as a result failed to demonstrate to the Inspector that this will form a continuous barrier rather than just isolated plants. He explained that in the current application shown on the presentation screen he has made it clear that the 2 metre high fence is extended to 2.4 metres high and uses the continuous bamboo screening and the sight line has been shown which demonstrates the prevention of any views below 2.4 metres and certainly not into the properties garden.

Mr Underwood made the point that when the appeal decision was issued 5 weeks ago on the 12 August, it raised concerns based on the previous scheme that planting would take too long to mature and it was only seen as a temporary measure. He added that he disagreed with that view and emailed the planning officer the following day reconfirming the intent to provide a 2.4-metre-high planting on day one and even when disregarding the contribution for the bamboo, the fence itself would also provide a restriction to any views.

Mr Underwood explained that drawings were provided to the Case Officer which demonstrated the change in height of 2.2 metres, but officers would not accept those drawings, even though it does resolve the problem. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that he was only aware of the massive hedge along the fence when the agenda was published.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Underwood to confirm when he purchased the site and did, he purchase the site from the Council? He explained that the Council sold the site to Clarion Housing, and he purchased the site from Clarion.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Underwood to confirm when he purchased the site? Mr Underwood responded 18 months ago when he commenced the planning application, he anticipated that permission would be sought quickly in order for him to demolish the garages and make the area better but he did not anticipate the process to take as long as it has done.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Underwood to confirm why he has not chosen to tidy the site up as the Council could have chosen to serve a Section 215 notice on the applicant because of the condition it has been left in. She further asked Mr Underwood whether he will be living in the dwelling or is it something he is looking to build to sell on? Mr Underwood stated that the intention was for him to live in it and following his father’s passing earlier this year, the original plan was to move his family in and now the intention is to move his mother in and have it for his retirement.

Councillor Marks stated that he would like the Legal Officer, Stephen Turnbull, to provide some advice and guidance to the committee. The Legal Officer stated that from the answers to members questions provided by the applicant this is not going to be a self-build in the sense that somebody else is going to be living in it. He added that consequently there needs to be a bio net gain assessment and obligations which have not been submitted by the applicant and, therefore, the application cannot be determined.

Councillor Marks asked the applicant to return to the public speakers table for further questions to be asked of him by the committee:

·       Councillor Marks asked Mr Underwood to provide further clarity with regards to the points made by the Legal Officer. Mr Underwood stated that the intention is for him to live in the property in the first instance and then his mother will reside there.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that members will be aware that appeal decisions have been quite clear that the only way to ensure a self-build is through a legal agreement. He added that there is now the requirement for applicants to sign an agreement and if that is not undertaken then that would result in a significant breach of the law.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there appears to be a lack of information which has not been provided to officers and as a result of advice given by both the Legal Officer and Head of Planning, he would like to suggest that the application be deferred in order for the correct information to be provided to officers.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the officers report states that there was an objection from River Drive and the public speaker has stated that there was no objection, and she would like officers to provide further clarification as, in her view, it would have a negative impact and an application should not be approved should it be detrimental to somebody else. David Rowen stated that with regards to the representations received from River Drive contained within the officer’s report on Page 99, it states that there are seven supporting comments received from the residents of River Drive and then a further comment received from a resident of River Drive which has also been summarized. He added that he does not believe that there is anything within the report that indicates that there have been objections received from residents in River Drive.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion if the applicant is not going to reside in the dwelling then the committee have the wrong application in front of them, with a self-build dwelling being a different type of application to other housing and because of it being the wrong application there are several uncertainties. He added that whilst he appreciates the concerns of the supporter to the proposal wishing for the site to be tidied up, planning is concerned about land usage and whether the land is suitable and, in his opinion, the right application is not in front of the committee to determine.

·       The Legal Officer stated that there appear to be too many question marks with regards to what the application involves and, in his opinion, a deferral would be the best course of action to ascertain whether it is actually a self-build dwelling and then deal with it appropriately at a future committee.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be DEFERREDin order for further information to be obtained concerning the application. 

(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)