Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr David Broker, the Agent.

Mr Broker explained that the application has been re-submitted in its previous form following a delegated decision to refuse adding that at that time the Town Council supported the scheme and were surprised by the decision. He explained that the application is before the Committee today with support from the Town Council and 9 Lettersof support, one letter of objection and no Comments from County Highways or ConservationOfficer. He stated that CAMBS Historic Environment have no Objection ormodifications..

Mr Broker stated that the applicant has lived at 30 Park Lane for over 40 years and has recently found it necessary through failing health to form anannexe to the house forherself enabling her son and his family to occupy the main house and be on hand for her future care. He added that the applicant’s son has young children and has the front garden which is enclosed for their recreation making it visually secure from the very many people who use the road en route to Park Lane School. He stated that the rear garden to the property was the subject of intense scrutiny for bio diversity when the extension was approved and as such is only suitable for the applicant herself who is a keen ecologist; young children playing are not conducive to frogs, newts and other species that exist in the garden.

Mr Broker stated that the fence is on a particularly tight bend in the road and theprevious over grown hedging and dilapidated fencing overhung the road obstructing forward visibility around thebend. He expressed the opinion that the new fence is an overall improvement and is certainly no more prominent than the 1.8m high common brick wall which dominates the back of the footpath to the North East of the application site.

Mr Broker added that it has been suggested that the height of the fence be reduced but this is not an option which can be practically achieved and still retain the visual security required.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she has known the applicant for some considerable years. She added that she disagrees with the statement at 2.2 in the officer’s report, which states that the site forms the edge of the Whittlesey Conservation Area, and it is also adjacent to the Grade II Listed Building of 7 Horsegate which is around the double bend from this property and it is only the north east corner of the applicants garden which is actually anywhere near 7 Horsegate. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she has noted that only one property in Horsegate has responded as part of the consultation process and number 7 has not raised any objection at all. She added that the property who has objected to this proposal, also objected to the extension which was mentioned, due to ecological reasons.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor explained that 2 of the consultees who have responded are not local residents anymore; however they are the next of kin of a resident who used to live in Church Street and were brought up and raised in the property and locality. She added that she is surprised that this application has been brought back before the committee.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion that the fence improves the visual impact and the street scene.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with officer’s that the fence in its new form is stark and very prominent. He added that in his opinion it is not any worse than the brick wall referred to by Mr Broker, but he added that it could be improved. He referred members back to a previous application at Yarwells Headland which was refused on the same grounds and then consequently approved by the Planning Inspector. He added that if the application was approved, then he would like to see a condition added, which would state that the fence should be painted a different colour to soften the starkness.

·         David Rowen stated that the Yarwells Headland comparison that Councillor Sutton had made reference to, is a different to the application before members today, due to this application site being in a Conservation Area and therefore having a deal of greater protection and regard to design appearance whereas the Yarwells Headland application had an area of land infront of it, enabling a small amount of planting to be accommodated. He continued that with regard to the suggestion made by Councillor Sutton concerning the possibility of treating the fence to soften its impact, although this is something that could be conditioned, over time the agreed colour is likely to fade and any subsequent re treatment of the fence, may not be as sympathetic as the colour agreed as part of the condition.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that if a condition was added to that effect, it could state that it would need to be kept like that in perpetuity.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor agreed with the point Councillor Sutton made concerning the addition of a condition and stated that with regard to the comment that David Rowen made with regard to the differences between the Yarwells Headland application and todays application  that whilst she appreciates that it is in the Conservation Area, it is only the area of 30 Park Lane, where the fence is positioned that falls under it.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor questioned why the Conservation Officer at the Council was not consulted on this application as she had noted that the Historic Environment Team at Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) was consulted and they came back with no objection. David Rowen clarified that as a general course of action; the Conservation Team are not consulted on smaller scale issues, and normally deal with more complex heritage matters. He added that the Historic Environment Team at CCC deal with archaeological matters and therefore they are commenting generally on whether the proposal will damage what historic remains are in the ground.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor queried that officers are saying that the Conservation Team are not important enough to look at this application, but the Planning Committee are.

·         Councillor Sutton responded to Councillor Mrs Mayor by saying it was quite clear why the application was being considered by the committee as the Scheme of Delegation required this, and it was not down to officers. He stated that he had noted that there were existing bird boxes in the trees around the application site which he was pleased to see and he added that he would like to propose that this application be approved against the officer’s recommendation with a suitable condition added.

·         Gavin Taylor added that although a condition could be added, the difficulty with enforcing it with regard to perpetuity is that over time the colour will change due to natural weathering and then a decision needs to be taken as to whether enforcement action then needs to be considered.

·         Councillor Sutton agreed that Gavin Taylor does make a good point and over time the condition of the fence  will change and therefore perpetuity maybe too long a period to stipulate. He added that the condition could state 5 years.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation  It was agreed that the conditions imposed on the permission be delegated to officers, but include a sympathetic treatment of the fence within three months.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that as long as the fence receives a sympathetic treatment within three months, it will enhance the street scene.

(Councillor Cornwell declared an interest in this item as the applicant is known to him and he took no part in the discussion on this application and voting thereon).

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared an interest in this item as the applicant is known to her, she took part in the discussion on this application but took no part in the voting thereon following advice from the Legal Officer)