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 Alan Melton on behalf of Manea Parish Council.

Mr Melton stated that there have been no objections raised by the Parish Council, County Council or Network Rail and the Environment Agency have made no further comment on the application and residents have also raised no concerns regarding the application. Mr Melton referred members to the list of conditions and highlighted LP2, facilitating health and wellbeing of Fenland residents and pointed out the key issues where it states residential amenity, health and wellbeing.

Mr Melton referred to 9.3 of the officer’s report where it states that the application seeks to provide an annexe for the applicant’s mother and he stated that the existing type of annexe building already in place in the vicinity for industrial use have proved to be unsuccessful. He added that he takes issue with the point at 9.4 of the report where it states that the proposal is prominently visible from the street scene, expressing the opinion that from the photograph it is tucked right at the back and a single storey building can be seen with solar panels on the top and the proposal will be raised up and the design will be a lot better than what is already in existence.

Mr Melton expressed the opinion that Government and moral policy is that members of the community should take the time to look after the elderly population rather than placing people into care homes, which is costly to the families and the state, and he is pleased to see that officers have acknowledged this and it is something that should be encouraged. He added that the report states that the north and eastern side is bounded by agricultural land and he feels that this is irrelevant as the south of the site is the workplace home of 82-84 Charlemont Drive, who would be impacted the most by the proposal and they have not raised any objection.

Mr Melton referred to the point regarding the introduction of a sensitive use in closer proximity to a workplace, which could result in constraints on the existing business and stated that he does not agree with that statement and also questioned the comment made with regard to the proposal altering the character of the estate. He pointed out 9.14 where it states that the development is in closer proximity to the railway line than the main dwelling and concerns have been raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Team regarding the noise impact of this and expressed the opinion that this is not a planning reason and should not be taken into consideration. He concluded by stating that the opinion of Manea Parish Council is that this application should be approved.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, from Ann Marks.

Mrs Marks stated that she is speaking in support of the application and as a neighbouring property that would be most affected by the addition of second storey from overlooking, she confirmed that, in her opinion, she does not feel that this would be the case. She stated that the proposed Dormer windows would not intrude or affect her properties privacy in any way and following the revised plans where the architect has moved the external staircase to the north side and with the undertaking of no windows or doors to the south side, it will ensure the privacy of her home is maintained and does not adversely affect the street scene.

Mrs Marks added that as there is already a property in the vicinity that was built 15 years ago, whose unit is a similar height to the neighbours proposal so there is no reason why the character of the estate will be harmed and she highlighted that there have been no objections from any of the neighbouring properties and the Parish Council and Rail Track also support the proposal. She expressed the opinion that having moved her own elderly relative into her home, it has provided her family peace of mind and she would hope that the planning application will be successful, so the applicant can also have the same reassurance for their own relatives as well.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, from Mr Lee Bevens, the Agent.

Mr Bevens stated that the Planning Officer makes reference to poor design, which he appreciates is a subjective matter. He added that in correspondence, officers have suggested that a ground floor extension should have been considered, rather than a first floor, however, this was not viable for 2 reasons which were, the whole of the site and Charlemont Drive is in Flood Zone 3, which would preclude bedroom accommodation on the ground floor and the position of existing foul and surface water drainage would make the proposal unviable.

Mr Bevens stated that it was felt that minimising the impact of the additional accommodation on the existing change of use was actually good design, because it has led to less land take up and minimal disruption to the ground floorplan. He expressed the view that after feedback from the adjacent neighbour, the position of the external staircase was moved to the opposite gable and the first-floor plan amended to suit, again causing minimal impact to the ground floor accommodation and the staircase will actually be more hidden from the street scene than before. He explained that dormer windows have been inserted to both soften the impact of the proposal, but also maintaining a sensible internal ceiling height at first floor and he added that it was felt that making the proposal a full storey and putting a standard trussed roof would have been poor design and over-dominated the host dwelling.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposal is at the end of the Charlemont Drive estate and is unusual in that it is one of few plots that is in an ‘L’ shape configuration, with the annexe at right angles to the main house. He stated that, in his opinion, this proposal offers the opportunity to make a positive contribution with the first floor which is still sub-servient to the main dwelling and maintains the status quo of car parking on site and, therefore, he would argue this does comply with both local and national planning policy.

Mr Bevens stated that the accommodation will allow for a dedicated, qualified carer to look after the applicant’s mother and explained that a separate email has been provided by the applicant to the Planning Officer to explain the domestic situation, which he read out to members.

‘In Sept 2018 my mother, had a fall at her home and broke her pelvis, resulting in a 5 week stay in hospital and care when she returned home. She fell again in December that year, this time breaking her hip. Surgery followed and 7 weeks in Addenbrookes. In Feb 2019 she fell and broke her leg so severely that this resulted in a 2 month stay in Addenbrookes before 2 months in The Grange for re-habilitation. The bone has not healed well but a knee replacement is impossible due to her osteo-arthritis. She also has a heart murmur and COPD.

It was clear to us that she could no longer remain in her beloved grade 2 listed home in Ely with its spiral staircase and multitude of steps, so in March 2019 we began work to make the annexe habitable for her.

When we bought the house, the annexe had already been ‘converted’ and we had previously been using it as a playhouse for our children. We took out the toilet and put in a bathroom with grab handles and a seated shower as well as a window facing the railway line and ripped out the kitchen and replaced it with a modern one that would be easier for my mother to cope with. We also put in a door to the outside area at the back. We built a fence between the two buildings so that our dogs cannot get out and accidentally knock her down and then we decorated and bought new furniture for her.

My mother is 79 and is beginning to show signs of dementia and Alzheimer’s. I cook for her every night, do her shopping and errands and drive her (when we weren’t shielding her) to places that she wanted to visit. I have a family of my own and a full-time job and I do not feel able to take on any more than I already have. We have applied to build a flat above the annexe so that we can have a live-in carer for her so that she does not need to go into a home (which she has always made me promise I would never do to her).There is already a full 2 storey annexe in Charlemont Drive and the annexe is set far back from the road, and we already have the support of 4 of our immediate neighbours, who have all verbally agreed to support if required’.

Mr Bevens concluded by stating that he hopes that members can see that given the site constraints, that the design is not poor and is a sympathetic proposal that not only meets the clients brief, but adds a positive contribution to Charlemont Drive.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated when she was a member of the Planning Committee previously this development was approved in the 1990’s and added that from 1999 to 2006, there were repeated applications to remove the workplace home policy and the Planning Department at that time refused them, which were lost at appeal. She added that proposal before members today, has received no objections and she does sympathise with the applicant. Councillor Mrs French stated that the applicant wishes to remove the workplace home and she cannot see anything detrimental about the proposal and the alterations that the agent has made are, in her opinion, suitable and she will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated he concurs with the comments made by Councillor Mrs French and stated that had it not been a workplace home proposal it would never have obtained planning permission at that time. He expressed the opinion that given that a precedent has now been set, he feels that he could support the application but emphasised that planning decisions must be made based on land use and not on personal or financial circumstances. Councillor Sutton added that he does have an issue that the proposal is a separate unit to the unit that is being looked after and he does not understand how 24-hour care can be administered with the proposed design which includes an external staircase.

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

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; a precedent has already been set and the proposal does not result in significant detrimental harm to the character and visual amenity of the area.

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

(Councillor Marks 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)