Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

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

Mr Hall stated that all consultees including March Town Council and Cambridgeshire County Council Highways team support the application. He added that the proposal is for a modest three bedroomed dwelling to match other dwellings in Norwalde Street and Robingoodfellows Lane with the site area being 180 square metres and the dwelling  57 square metres in size which takes up a third of the site with the remainder for a garden and parking.

Mr Hall added that within the officer’s report between 10.6 and 10.10, there are no concerns raised with regard to overlooking or over shadowing and there are no concerns with regard to any of the adjacent properties. He added that there are numerous types of this proposal in March which have been built out and these include properties in Ash Grove, Hawthorne Grove, Orchard Road, Henson Road and St Marys Drive.

Mr Hall referred members to the photographs being displayed as part of his presentation and identified the properties in Russell Avenue and West Close which he feels are similar to the proposal before members today. He highlighted to members that the properties previously approved do not fall in line with each other and are stepped back, very similar to the proposal before the members today.

Mr Hall concluded by stating that there are no objections, from the Highways Authority or the statutory consultees. The proposal falls within flood zone 1 and matches in with adjacent properties and the applicant is happy to agree materials with officers.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the agent has shown photographs of properties in West Close and added that if you transpose that onto the map of Norwalde Street on page 76 of the officer’s report, the new build properties are almost in line with what would be the equivalent of number 44. He expressed the view that the comparison cannot be taken as like for like and asked officers to clarify.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that essentially the properties in West Close show a step effect arrangement between the existing buildings fronting Russell Avenue, leading back into West Close and the infill actually steps whereas the proposal before members today protrudes beyond the build line, so he does not consider the two are comparable in his opinion.

·         Councillor Murphy made comments regarding the impact on the street scene.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that proposal falls within his ward and added that on page 76 of the officers report, it shows that every property has a frontage and added that if you draw a line from 28 to number 44 Robingoodfellows Lane, the proposal sits way ahead of the building line and is out of keeping with the rest of properties in the area. He added that he has no issue with the design of the building, only the positioning of it and he will be strongly supporting the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application be refused as per the officer’s recommendation which was not supported at the vote by the majority of members.

Councillor Benney stated that in his view the dwelling would not appear out of character as it is similar to the one in his back garden and would have no different an impact to the fence along the boundary. He added that there is no consistent theme to the street as the houses are painted differently and do not look the same and there is the need for houses and to get people out of hostels and this would be an acceptable development in the town

David Rowen referred members to the earlier comments made by Councillor Cornwell and Gavin Taylor and added that just because the application site is in the built form of the town, it does not automatically mean it should be built on. He stated that members do need to look carefully at the character and appearance of what is proposed and how it would fit in the street scene and to draw comparison between fences that exist at the moment and the introduction of a new dwelling into the street scene are not comparable. He stated that in terms of the example that Mr Hall gave in his presentation, the street pattern on West Close is different to that of Norwalde Street and members need to be confident that the development will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and also have no impact on the neighbouring property, who have objected to the proposal, on the basis of the impact on that property.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Skoulding that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation. It was agreed that the conditions imposed on the permission be delegated to officers.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; the development makes a positive contribution to the area and brings much needed homes. It is a sustainable development and has no adverse impact on other houses in the area.