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 Ian Gowler the agent.

Mr Gowler thanked the officers for working with him to resolve issues that has meant this application is presented to members with a recommendation to grant the proposal. He stated that he wished to clarify some points in response to the objections raised by neighbours and added that the layout although indicative has been carefully thought out to give sufficient parking and turning for the new property as well as the existing bungalow and as part of the new access the existing parking for the bungalow will provide turning to allow cars to exit without the need to back into or out of the drive.

Mr Gowler stated that the visibility splays will be improved at the new access improving safety and the design of the dwelling is subject to a reserved matters application, but the indicative bungalowshows itwould complementother developmentin thearea. He stated that thisresolves any overlooking issues and privacy is made no worse than the existing bungalow garden use creates and in summary he stated that the proposal meets policy and provides another much needed small bungalow to March.

Members asked Mr Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor referred to the point concerning the visibility splay and asked Mr Gowler to clarify whether there is any legal agreement in place with the adjacent landowners with regard to the third party land? Mr Gowler stated that it is currently being looked into and he added that the neighbouring bungalow is also using his clients land and there is the need for the site to have a reciprocal arrangement in place between the two owners that the visibility splay will be included into the transfer documents for both properties.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the 45 letters of support and stated that none of them appear to be from residents local to the proposed dwelling, whereas 10 of the letters of the objection are closer to the proposed site, who have raised concerns over visibility and poor access. Mr Gowler expressed the viewthat the letters of support are from friends of the applicant and where they live is not within his control. He added there have been several letters of objection where he has tried to resolve the issues that have been raised, some of them to do with over development, which are as a result of a knock on effect of other similar pieces of land where bungalows have been built on in rear gardens. Councillor Connor stated that the objectors do need to be taken into consideration as they are all in the locality and they will be impacted in one way or another.

·         Councillor Skoulding asked whether the 4ft fence will be removed, which is currently situated at the front of the site, so that there will be a clear view. Mr Gowler stated that a clear visibility splay will be in line with Highways comments and there is a proposed condition for the visibility splay to be kept to the usual height. Councillor Skoulding stated that if you were in a vehicle you would not be able to see cars coming around Jobs Lane. Mr Gowler stated that the fence and brick wall will need to be adjusted to meet the Highways condition.

·         Councillor Skoulding asked whether emergency vehicle access and egress had been considered and whether there would be the possibility of an emergency vehicle being able to turn around and exit forward? Councillor Skoulding added that an ambulance is approximately 4.8 metres long and 2.4 metres wide. Mr Gowler stated that he is unsure whether an ambulance would be able to turn around. Councillor Skoulding expressed the opinion that there is no possibility that you could drive in forward and exit forward and that does causes him concern.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that in his opinion it is tight, but if an ambulance was required it could reverse out. He added that he did have concerns about the visibility splay and being held in perpetuity but the agent has confirmed that there will be an agreement in the transfer deeds and if the Highways Authority are content with the splay and there will be rules concerning the height of the fencing and the brick wall that will have to be adjusted. He added that he is not enamoured with the idea of properties in back gardens, however March Town Council have supported the proposal and he does not feel that there are any reasons for the application to be refused.

·         Councillor Meekins questioned where the parking facilities are for numbers 10 and 10a. Mr Gowler stated that numbers 10 and 10a are neighbouring properties and are separate to the proposed site and added that there is no parking for the proposed site.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that some of the objectors have raised that the plot is narrower than some of the other development taking place and he asked Mr Gowler to provide the separation distance between the proposed site and that of number 10a. Mr Gowler stated that he did not have the information, but added that in effect it would be across the driveway of the proposed bungalow and the separation distance to the indicative bungalow shown would be 3 metres to the boundary and 4 metres to the physical building.

Members asked officers the following questions.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that if the accepted separation distance is 21 metres, as we heard earlier, then some of the objections associated with the proposal are relevant. He added that previously that particular part of Jobs Lane was associated with nice properties and gardens, however, there now appears to be a situation where there is back garden development taking place and also a dwelling in a front garden which appears to be entirely out of place and does not follow a building line. Councillor Cornwell stated that the plot size in his opinion is very narrow and there has been so much other development, he does not see how the application can be refused. He added that he does not like the particular plot or the access or egress associated with it. David Rowen stated that the 21 metres that was referred to earlier was back to back distances, whereas the 4 metre distance associated with the proposal is a side to side distance which is a fairly common arrangement between semi-detached and detached properties in most residential areas. David Rowen referred members to the pattern of development at page 67 of their agenda packs, highlighting the back land development at 10a immediately north of the site and the other development in the surrounding area and whilst it is a tight plot, taking into consideration the previous approved schemes in the area and the general character, the view from officers is that it would be difficult to refuse this application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has listened to the views of Councillor Cornwell and he is correct in what he has stated, but she feels that a precedent has been set and, therefore, she will support the application.  However, she recognised there is a nasty bend and she has taken into account the views of Councillor Skoulding and if there is going to be a fence it needs to be at a low level.

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

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the comment by Councillor Skoulding and page 68 of the agenda pack, expressing the opinion that he believes that an ambulance would be able to turn around as the turning area is the full width of the plot. He stated that with regard to the question Councillor Cornwell raised with regard to distances, the indicative plan does not show any windows, it shows a bedroom window at the front which only overlaps the dwelling at 10a by approximately 1metre. He stated that he is not enamoured with the scheme and it is infill, however, he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he disagrees with Councillor Sutton and you would not be able to turn an ambulance around in that space. He added that it is back land development, is a narrow plot and has poor access and he will not be supporting officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Murphy made the point that, although he does not particularly like the proposal and it is a tight space, if members refuse this application then it will be appealed and passed and, therefore, he will support the officers recommendation.

·         Nick Harding stated that as the photographs have shown there is a dwelling being constructed on land adjacent to the application site which is on the same bend and the Highways Authority do not object and the splay required to serve that development goes over third party land as does the current proposal. He added that as there are no objections from the Highway Authority, the application cannot be refused on highway visibility grounds and with regard to emergency vehicles being able to access the land there is no policy in place to have a requirement for a turning circle to be provided for emergency vehicles so the application could not be refused for that reason. Nick Harding stated that as the officer has detailed in their report although this is back land development,  the grade of development in this proposal has been compromised by previously approved developments and, therefore, there are no justifiable reasons to refuse the proposal. He stated that this is an outline application and if it is approved when the reserved matters application is received, then officers will look at the location of placement of windows with regard to the relationship of the adjacent development and consideration will be given to the issue of overlooking.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Meekins and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney did not take part in the discussion or voting with regard to this application, due to the fact that he lost internet connection at the start of the item)

(Councillor Connor declared an interest, by virtue of the fact that the Agent for this application is a Doddington Parish Councillor and Councillor Connor attends Doddington Parish Council in his position as an elected member of Fenland District Council)

(Councillor Lynn had left the meeting prior to discussion on this item).