Agenda item

To determine the application

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

Sheila Black presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated. As a result of the revised plans which have been submitted, there has been a requirement to change the wording for the second reason for refusal, which is on page 28 of the agenda.

The amended wording is: Policy LP15 of the Fenland Local Plan 2014 requires all development to provide a well-designed, safe and convenient access. The proposal by virtue of the access and its relation to 18 Deerfield Road to the west would result in substandard visibility splays in that direction for traffic leaving the site. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to highways safety and would be contrary to the requirements of policy LP15 in that respect.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Robert Wickham, who spoke on behalf of the Agent.

Mr Wickham commented that it is disappointing to see the application is recommended for refusal. The site is derelict and contains asbestos and the proposal for four homes is similar to those, which were built in Elm Road, which were well received in the housing market.

He stated that he has concerns within the officer’s report and mentioned that In 10.9 of the report it shows the description of the site and highlights a criticism of the width of the gap with the adjoining property, which identifies a detrimental impact of light and he added that the gap is similar to size to other properties in the road.

He mentioned that at 10.10 in the officer’s report it states that with regard to privacy, the scheme utilises windows on all four main elevations from a mix of rooms with the main bedroom windows being located on the side elevations and secondary ‘office’ windows to the front and rear. However this is incorrect, as it is the other way round and the small office window on the side of the access could be a high level window.

At 10.11 in the report, it mentions concerns over car parking at the rear of the site, however this location was recommended by Officers in an email exchange from the 26 February 2018.

Mr Wickham added that with regard to 10.12 in the officer’s report, it states that the proposal is out of character with the road which predominantly has 2 storey properties; however there are 7 detached houses, 6 bungalows and 3 pairs of semi-detached dwellings, along with 6 terraced houses in the road.

Mr Wickham concluded that the issues raised could be discussed with officers and an acceptable scheme could be achieved which would also be agreeable with highways in order to achieve a small development which has market appeal.

Members had no questions for Mr Wickham.

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

1.    Councillor Hay commented that in her opinion a smaller development of two homes would have been preferable rather than the proposal for four. She agreed that the street scene is now better placed with the proposed dwellings being brought in line with the existing properties; however the gardens for the front two properties will still be adjacent to the main road, which in her opinion is not satisfactory. She added that following the previous refusal the applicant should have contacted officers to discuss what solutions would have been acceptable in order to achieve an agreeable resolution.

2.    Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees with Councillor Hay, that the proposal is over intensification of the site and she has concerns  regarding amenity space particularly for the front two properties.

Proposed by Councillor Hay, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and decided that the application be REFUSED; as per the officer’s recommendation.