Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from the applicant Mr Zane Watson.

Mr Watson stated that the property has been in his family’s ownership for 78 years and was his great grandparents’ home with his parents living at the adjacent property. He added that, in his opinion, the footprint of the proposal is not more excessive than in its current form and will be higher as the property falls within flood zone 3 so the bedrooms will need to be off the ground floor level. The garage proposed conforms to Council’s policy.

Mr Watson stated that the existing bungalow is suffering from structural issues which are due to it being next to the drain and why he is proposing to move the dwelling nearer to Jillendy which will also allow for easier maintenance of the drain.

He stated that to make use of all available space it was considered to make use of the attic space rather than leave it as empty space.

Mr Watson concluded by stating that he wants to be near his parents who fully support the proposal and added that with the current situation and worldwide pandemic it has been reiterated that family is important and we need to be there to look after each other.

Members asked Mr Watson the following questions;

·         Councillor Benney ask for clarity that Mr Watson lives in his great grandparents’ home and his parent still live in his grandparent home? Mr Watson confirmed that this is correct.

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarity with regard to the track and outbuildings which are in the vicinity of the property? Mr Watson explained that the track is a roadway, which runs to farm buildings and sheds. A new roadway will be installed to the right hand side of the property to access the buildings.  Mr Watson confirmed that the land and farm buildings are owned by his parents but rented out to tenants.

Members asked officers the following questions;

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarification with regard to the replacement increase of the new dwelling which is shown in the officer’s report as 257% and asked what the normal percentage that would be expected. David Rowen stated that the policy in the Local Plan talks about it being similar. The percentage increase in the proposal is significant and the scale is considered as inappropriate in this particular case.

·         Councillor Hay asked for clarification with regards to ridge heights for 2 storey dwellings? David Rowen confirmed that a normal 2 storey ridge height would be 7.5 metres.

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

.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the proposal is for a 2 and a half storey dwelling and he is of the opinion that to utilise the loft space is a good use of space. He does not feel the proposal will be a blot on the landscape and in his opinion it will be an attractive building and be a beacon to the Fens. Larger families,require larger homes and officers have recommended refusal due to the scale of the development and apart from the bungalow next door, it is open countryside and he welcomes this development.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that it is a big plot and should be replaced with something larger than what is currently on the plot and the reasons for refusal are subjective. He added that, in his view the proposal needs to be approved on its own merits. He does not feel it is out of character and nor not out of character with Fenland as a whole. He will be supporting the application. The bungalow currently on the plot has major structural defaults and for it to be moved away from the ditch will also allow better maintenance of the ditch.

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed with Councillor Benney and Councillor Sutton and stated that there are large houses in other areas of Fenland, which started off as small dwellings and are now very large properties. She stated that she will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Lynn stated he cannot see any reason to reject this application. There have been no objections to the application. The applicant has enough space to build the property for his growing family.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he concurs with all the comments made by the other members and he will be voting in favour of the application and going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Nick Harding stated that he hopes members of the committee can understand why officers have made the recommendation to refuse the application. He explained that under policy LP12c it states that any replacement dwellings have to be of a similar size and scale to the original dwelling, hence the recommendation. Nick Harding added that if members are considering going against the officer recommendation then the proposing member needs to demonstrate why the particular element of the policy should be outweighed by the benefits that the development brings.

·         David Rowen clarified that the Parish Council has objected to the proposal. 

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion, that the officer’s report is recommending refusal because of scale and referred to the Local Plan. He stated that the policy is a guideline for members to consider and not a rule. He expressed the view that the proposal will be of a benefit to the community and he will be happy to propose the application to go against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the development does not quite fit with policy, but the benefits do outweigh the consideration given to a particular area of the policy and he will be happy to second the proposal.

·         Nick Harding stated that that if Councillor Benney were to approve the development proposal he would ask that he considers giving officers delegated authority to apply appropriate planning conditions in respect of the planning permission.

·         Councillor Mrs French added that she would want reasonable conditions applied and not onerous conditions.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he would ask that the conditions are decided in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, along with the proposer and seconder.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sutton and decided that the application be APPROVED, against the officer’s recommendation.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; Councillor Benney stated that it is a subjective reason for refusal and the proposal is a benefit for the area and a benefit for Fenland.

It was decided that the conditions imposed on the planning permission be agreed in conjunction with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, Councillor Benney and Councillor Sutton.