Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nicholas Underwood, the applicant. Mr Underwood stated that the proposal matches the character of River Drive in terms of its block massing and is comparable in scale to the adjacent properties in Cotswold Close even though the proposal is slightly smaller and narrower, with it following the existing precedent set by the other corner plots such as 1 and 2. He explained that the street scene slide demonstrates that the height has been reduced to be comparable with adjacent buildings and the outlook from Cotswold Close falls well below the BRE 25 guidance even when standing at their rear fence which dispels any claims of prominence.

Mr Underwood stated that at the previous committee the officer’s report refers to comments made by the Inspector in the appeal decision but the comments all relate to the previous scheme and not the revised current proposal which has been completely changed to address each objection. He explained that the Inspector’s comment with regards to harm to character related to the previous design being a 2-storey building being next to a single storey, the scale and prominence of the dormas and concern over potential overlooking at a garden of 29 Cotswold Close from the bedrooms, making the point that the second storey has been amended, and the issues are no longer applicable, and references made to linear form and cramped related to the impact of a carport.

Mr Underwood referred to the presentation screen which showed the elongation of the building massing right up to the right hand side of the south east boundary, explaining that this has also been omitted, and the buildings overall length has been reduced by a third to match the smaller plot size of River Drive and allow an increase in separation to all boundaries. He stated that the previous claims of overdevelopment and contrived layout related to the amount of private amenity space being provided but were dismissed at appeal by the Inspector who also went on to praise the layout as being a novel and innovative approach, adding that the Inspector also stated that the quality and usability of the resulting spaces, the reduction below the one third guideline was appropriate for the development and fully compliant with all local policies.

Mr Underwood explained that, in the previous application, the Inspector had previously accepted 60 square metres for a three bedroomed house whereas now there is the provision of 82 square metres for a one bedroomed bungalow which meets the one third guidance. He added that it is disappointing to see that the officer claims that the design is out of character as the Inspector specifically highlighted that there is not prevailing architectural style in the area and that it is evident that many of the buildings in the area have been poorly modified and altered over time.

Mr Underwood stated that the Inspector also agreed that the contemporary approach to design and architectural detailing is entirely appropriate for the location. He referred to the presentation screen and stated that with regards to the claim of overlooking the garden of number 9, it was highlighted that the proposed 2 metre high timber fence would be heightened to 2.4 metres using a continuous bamboo screening, referring members to the photographs on the presentation screen and explained that by using a clumping non evasive bamboo such as grassilus or arrow it quickly forms a solid effective barrier preventing any views through it, with it growing incredibly quickly and up to 8 to 12 inches per month and he has advised officer’s that the plants will be supplied as 2.4-metre-high plants from the outset.

Mr Underwood referred to the presentation screen and explained that the yellow view cone shows how the screening will prevent any views below the 2.4 metres, and he added that even if any contribution from bamboo was completely discounted the fence itself still provides a restriction on the views, with their only being a very narrow gap left between the existing tree and their extension where any potential for a view could even occur, and number 9 has written into support the application. He referred to the overlooking concerning number 8, with the photograph demonstrating that the boundary is already screened by mature bushes on their side of the fence which means that those neighbours have full control over their privacy and any potential view from the top step into their garden would already be obscured and even if the hedge was not there, the fence height from the top step is still effectively 1.6 metres high.

Mr Underwood explained that utility rooms are non-habitable space, and a path is a transitory space which is only used briefly and with low frequency because all of the primary space is located on the other side of the building, with there being no windows in the façade facing number 8 so there is no possibility of a view into it. He stated that the consultation process resulted in seven letters of support and no objections, and this has now been increased to 15 letters of support through a petition initiated by the residents and there are no objections from any of the statutory consultees.

Mr Underwood expressed the view that the proposal improves the character of the access road and the safety of the public realm. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that he has taken steps to clear the site of brambles following the comments made by Councillor Mrs French at the previous meeting.

Members asked Mr Underwood the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French thanked Mr Underwood for clearing the site following the comments she had made previously, and she stated that the site now looks far better.

·       Councillor Marks stated that part of the presentation featured the planting of trees at the side of the property which he welcomes but added that the photographs appear to have been taken when the leaves were on the trees and he questioned what will happen during the Winter when the leaves fall from the neighbours planting. Mr Underwood explained that bamboo will not be affected, and the neighbours’ bush he believes is a perennial plant. Councillor Marks stated he believes it is a plant which would lose leaves. Mr Underwood stated that he had tried to submit drawings to the officer who declined to accept them, but he has incorporated a trellis to make sure that there will be no further issues, however, the photographs displayed are the only ones available.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney asked officers to clarify whether the application accords with the required minimum space standards? Officers confirmed that it does.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is apparent that the site has had some alterations to it and she welcomes the fact that the applicant has taken steps to tidy the site. She added that the site is an old Council garage site, and she now feels that the proposal would be a community benefit and would mean that the anti-social behaviour complaints that are received by the Town Council will stop if the site is developed. Councillor Mrs French added that she will support the application as she feels that the changes will be of a benefit to the area.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he will support the application as he recalls when the application came before the committee previously a supporter to the proposal explained how the anti-social behaviour was having an impact on the lives of the residents.

·       David Rowen drew the committee’s attention to the Inspector’s comments when the previous appeal was dismissed, where the Inspector stated that ‘the proposal would remove dilapidated garages which may currently attract crime and antisocial behaviour, nevertheless the benefits do not outweigh the conclusions I’ve reached regarding the main planning issues’. He added that those issues were considered by the Inspector who then concluded that they were not sufficient to justify granting the application and that is a significant material consideration given the fact that it is an appeal decision within the last couple of months.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the benefit to remove the anti-social behaviour by putting something in place of the garages will be far better for the residents who live there.

·       Councillor Marks stated that the Inspector made his comments on the previous property, and the applicant has stated that he has taken on board the comments of the Inspector and made changes to his proposal. He expressed the opinion the new application brings with it more of a community benefit now the site has been cleared and by the changes that the applicant has made to the new proposal and asked officers whether they agree. David Rowen stated that he does not agree with that viewpoint and added that it is clear from the statement made by the Inspector that the proposal would remove the dilapidated garages which may attract crime and antisocial behaviour. He added that the Inspector has identified that as an issue and considered that at the appeal and concluded that it would not overcome the harm that he has identified with the failings of the previous scheme. David Rowen added that if members are of the opinion that the application is an improvement to that of the previous scheme and that is does not have the same harm in terms of the visual impact and that of overlooking then that could be looked at, however, he does not feel that the committee could reasonably say that given the Inspector’s findings that the community benefits outweigh any harm.

·       Councillor Connor stated the current application has been reduced from two storeys to one storey and is, therefore, a different application altogether and the car port which was originally on the side of the dwelling has now been removed and has reduced it by a third, meaning that there is more amenity space. He expressed the view that on planning balance he does not see that there is anything wrong with the application.

·       Matthew Leigh explained that the application is for a self-build dwelling and taking into account what Planning Inspectors are stating in relation to self-build applications then if members are to support this application there will be delegation to officers subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether it is something that can be conditioned? Matthew Leigh explained that it cannot be and has to be subject to a legal agreement.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with conditions delegated to officers in consultation with the proposer and seconder.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel by bringing the site back into use there will be a community benefit, and the applicant has taken the Inspector’s comments into consideration making significant alterations to the scheme.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with the Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Murphy left the meeting following the determination of this item)