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.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Mrs Jan French.

Councillor Mrs French explained that this application proposes a replacement dwelling which demonstrates the effective use of the land for a residential property. The dwelling will provide a high quality living environment that will not compromise the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. She informed members that the applicant is a local business man who employs 58 members of staff locally. If planning permission is approved the applicant will relocate all of his remaining businesses to Fenland which will both promote economic growth in Fenland and may encourage other businesses to follow.

Councillor Mrs French explained that that whilst the proposed house is large in scale, it will be built to a very high standard and provide a good example of an executive home in the district. She explained that the applicant has engaged with herself in relation to his proposed business relocation due to the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Councillor Benney, being a member of the Planning Committee. She asked members to approve the application and promote the Council’s message of ‘Open for Business’.

Members had no questions for Councillor Mrs French.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Shanna Jackson (Agent).

Shanna Jackson explained that the proposed dwelling has been specifically designed for the changing lifestyle of the applicant and whilst concerns have been raised about the scale and proposed materials being out of keeping with the area, this has been derived from the accommodation needs of the applicant. She highlighted that the site can clearly accommodate this size of dwelling and drew members attention to the varying size of properties located in Bridge Lane.

Shanna Jackson confirmed that whilst there is no strict building line on Bridge Lane, the dwelling will cause no harm to the appearance of the area and the property will be positioned further back on the site. She highlighted the varying pallet of building materials on the street scene and confirmed that the application was welcomed locally and had received no objections from technical consultees.

She addressed the concerns raised by Wimblington Parish Council in relation to the caravans onsite and confirmed that these would be removed post completion of the dwelling. She asked members to support the application.

Members asked Shanna Jackson the following questions;

1.    Councillor Meekins asked for clarification about the proposed building materials. Shanna Jackson confirmed that the dwelling would be built in buff brick and the roof would be slate.

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

1.    Councillor Benney stated that he has considered this application carefully and believes that the proposed dwelling and garage are suitable for the site. Whilst the property will be large it is perfectly in keeping with the plot and the application has support from both local residents and businesses. He said it was commendable that a local business man is in the position to build a home of this standard and if the Council are keen to relocate businesses to Fenland, there must be the properties to accommodate these people. He highlighted that the applicant supports the Council by bringing business through the Port in Wisbech and said the scheme would both enhance the area and bring financial economic benefit to the wider district.

2.    Nick Harding reminded members that the application should be assessed on planning grounds and not on the personal and business circumstances of the applicant as if planning permission is granted, the applicant is not legally obliged to relocate his businesses to Fenland or retain the dwelling for his own personal use. He reiterated that members should not link the planning permission to the applicant’s business activities.

3.    Councillor Benney stated that he supported the application and encourages the development of homes like this regardless of the applicant.

4.    Councillor Sutton agreed with Nick Harding and said support of the applicant’s business relocation is not a reason to grant planning permission. Whilst he is not against the principal of development on the site, he agrees that the character of the area will be affected and is not convinced of the benefits the development will bring to the wider district.

5.    Nick Harding highlighted that officer’s recommendation for refusal is based on the position of the building in relation to existing dwellings, the physical scale of the building in relation to neighbouring properties and the proposed building materials. He reminded members that if they are minded to grant planning permission, they should identify why they disagree with these points.

6.    Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that whilst she has only recently been reappointed a member of the Planning Committee, she cannot recall an occasion in which an applicant’s personal circumstances have been used to decide whether or not planning permission is granted. She stated that members should not consider this during their deliberation.

7.    Councillor Benney stated that circumstance aside, the proposal is not out of keeping with the area and the applicant and agent have worked hard to ensure the design is in keeping with the neighbouring properties.

8.    Councillor Meekins raised concern about the size of the building and did not agree that the scale was in line with surrounding properties.

9.    Councillor Hay said member’s judgement should not be clouded by the potential economic benefits the development could bring to Fenland. She highlighted that the proposal is for a residential dwelling which has no tie or obligation to business use. Whilst she has no issue with the building materials proposed, the scale of the development is entirely out of keeping with the area due to its size and height. She supported officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

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

(Councillor Connor declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he knows the applicant and took no part in the discussion or vote for this item)