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 advised them that she had received a late objection relating to the level of housing in the general Mill Hill area, and that the development represents intensification of housing and that the access for the dwelling is inadequate.

Members received a presentation in support of the applicant, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Matthew Hall stated that the proposed dwellings will be bungalows on a site which is situated in flood zone 1. He added that contained within the officers report under item 11.1 its states that the principal of the proposal is in accordance with planning policies and the proposed access would not result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety. There have been no objections from the Environment Agency, Environmental Health or Highways and March Town Council support the application.

Matthew Hall added that a neighbour who is adjacent to the development has written to the planning officers and advised them that he has no concerns over the development and fully supports it. Mr Hall stated that number 7 Mill Lane is the applicants own property.

Matthew Hall identified to members on the presentation screen the proposed development including the access point and he highlighted the recent dwellings which had been built in the vicinity, clarifying the access drive, its proximity to other dwellings and the location of the bin stores. He clarified the third garden areas of the plot and pointed out the neighbouring existing dwellings garden area along with the applicants’ garden area.

Matthew Hall informed members that the site layout is indicative and there is a layby for additional parking, a block paved area and if needed a hammerhead could be incorporated for a refuse vehicle. The plot sizes are similar to those that have been approved previously. The proposal is for bungalows resulting in no overlooking, as opposed to 2 storey dwellings that were approved on the other side.

Members had no questions for Mr Hall.

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

1.    Councillor Murphy asked for clarification as to where the 18 responses from the public which had been received had originated from. Sheila Black stated that they had been received from within the ward and any received from outside the ward had been discounted. Councillor Murphy asked for further clarification with regard to specific addresses of support and objection to the proposal which Mr Nick Harding ascertained and provided to members. There were 9 letters of objection and 7 of support.

2.    Councillor Murphy asked for confirmation as to how far the residents would have to move their refuse and recycling bins to the designated collection point. Sheila Black confirmed that plot 3 would have to move their bins 110 metres and plot 1 would be 75 metres.

3.    Councillor Hay stated that she has concerns over the reduction in amenity space for number 7 and although it is currently the applicants address that may alter in the future and for a large property she does not feel there is enough amenity space. She questioned that if it was a fresh planning application would the land that was left be classed as adequate amenity space. Sheila Black responded and said it would be looked at to see if it would fit a third of a plot which is the requisite size and the agent has confirmed that he considers it is a third of a plot.

4.    Councillor Benney stated that upon the site visit, the issue of the bin collection point stood out for him and he understood the normal drag out distance for bins is 30 metres and the closest property is almost twice that distance. The reduction in amenity space to a very nice property is also a concern.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Hay and decided that the application be REFUSED, as per the officers recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Davis declared a non pecuniary interest in the fact that she knows members of the applicant’s family)

(The Chairman registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he has been lobbied on this application)