Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members:

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Lee Shepherd, the Applicant.

Mr Shepherd stated that he owns the property at 39 March Road and explained that the proposed plot has been used as garden land for years, but due to being exposed to the road it has never been a benefit to the existing house.  He added that the garden to 39 March Road has been reduced so as to decrease the possibility of being overlooked by road users.

Mr Shepherd stated that if the dwelling is not permitted the land will cleared and leftvacant and he added that once the work is completed on 39 March Road the fencing and section garage will be cleared meaning full visibility to the unmaintained arches, the static caravan and makeshift accommodation built under thearches. He stated that the plot is identified as a “infill plot” by the Planning Inspectorate when the proposal went to appeal and the scheme that was presented for appeal was considered tootall, with the Inspectorate indicating that a 1.5 storey house would be suitable, therefore, he has proposed a 1.5 storey home for thisapplication.

Mr Shepherd expressed the opinion that the house design is very similar to the existing terrace of ex-railway cottages and there is connotation back to the aches without the need to exposethem. He added that the initial discussion with current planning officers identified the proposal was oversized therefore, he reduced the footprint to appease these concerns and he also altered the parking layout.

Mr Shepherd added that the dwelling to be created will be in the lower price bracket yet still have 3 bedrooms and space for afamily and the location is very convenient for bus links to Peterborough, Kings Lynn, Wisbech and March. He added that there have been concerns that the current temporary fence has blocked vision for joining the A141, clearly the fence line could be agreed as a planningcondition.

Mr Shepherd explained that there are no legal issues that restrict the development, and it has been suggested there may be access issues,, however legal advice has confirmed there are no matters ofconcern. He referred to the presentation where photos were being shown, which are indicative of the state of disrepair, of the arches and the amount rubbish and junk that is stored underthem. He added that the it has been made known that the neighbour is merely objecting to this application as they aren’t able to build on their land although they do not have any road frontage and there is no planning consent for the static caravan or the permanent structure connected to both caravan andarches.

Mr Shepherd stated that the planning history on the site has seen 3 previous planning approvals; twice for a single dwelling and another for 2 x flats. He added that he hopes that his brief verbal appeal has enlightened those with concerns that this is the best use of this land showing that it will offer the benefit of a good quality home on good public transport routes, making it a very sort afterproperty. He concluded by thanking the Planning Committee for their time.

Members asked Mr Shepherd the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Shepherd to confirm who owns the area underneath the railway arches? Mr Shepherd stated that the area belongs to the neighbours.

·         Councillor Lynn asked for clarification from Mr Shepherd regarding his intentions with the dwelling. Mr Shepherd stated that it will be a rental property, he moved out of number 39 due to the lack of garden space and has been renting the property out for the last ten years and the new dwelling if agreed will also be rented out.

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

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that the letters of support and objection appear to be received from all areas of the country and not from the locality of the proposal and he feels that going forward the letters should only be allowed if they are from local supporters and objectors.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that officers have made the correct recommendation and the applicant needs to work with officers to bring back a proposal of an adequate size and design.  He will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that when he read the officers report it states that there is a discrepancy with the waste removal. He added that if the dwelling is built then there is very little land left and he expressed the opinion that the land should have been shared equally between the two plots. He expressed the view that he likes to see new development but is undecided with this application

·         Councillor Benney stated that there is nothing at the proposed site of any architectural beauty, with a row of council houses, some houses tucked in behind the old railway bridge that are built closer than the proposed development, a toll cottage across the road and a disused pub, which is waiting to be redeveloped, and that by having one person coming forward and showing an interest in rejuvenating the area can sometimes bring others forward, with the land currently being a blot on the landscape and the area needs to be tidied up. He expressed the opinion that although it does not have much amenity space, the committee have passed other applications which have had no amenity space and, therefore, there is another side to the recommendation to be considered. Councillor Benney expressed the view that if there was not a pre application carried out then maybe there should have been. He added that the applicant has brought forward a different scheme for consideration and although it may not be a right scheme, some officer advice may be beneficial to find the right solution for that location. Councillor Benney stated that he does not think that the proposal would detract from the beauty of Rings End if the house was built.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that officers have made the correct decision with their recommendation and there is no difference in this proposal from the previous submission that went to appeal.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he would like to see the mess underneath the railway arches cleared as the arches are part of our railway heritage. He added that the actual layout of the corner does cause a problem with insufficient amenity space and he agrees with the comments of Councillor Benney as it is good that someone is taking an interest in the area, but he agrees that some pre application advice would be beneficial to the applicant as to the way forward.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the area is an eyesore and does need tidying up and whilst there is a shortage of amenity space, it will have less garden area for the tenant to maintain.

·         Nick Harding stated that if permission were to be granted then no condition can be added to state that it will be a rental property as there is nothing to stop the dwellings being sold off in order to become a private dwelling.

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