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 Kirsten McKelvie, the agent.

Kirsten McKelvie explained that the proposal is for a single storey 3-bedroom dwelling to the rear of the applicant’s current dwelling, which is accessed from Spire View to the east, and that the intention is for the applicant to move into this new dwelling as they do not want to leave the area but require a single storey dwelling. She expressed the opinion that there is a highdemand for bungalows in the area, close to the Town centre and stated that Rose Homes, the developer for SpireView, has said that the previously approved bungalows, now all sold, were over-subscribed.

Kirsten McKelvie expressed the opinion that this isrecognised by thefact that thisapplication issupported bythe Town Council and although the proposal lies within the Conservation Area, it is right on the edge and relates more to thedevelopment of Spire View, outside of the Conservation Area. She stated that the proposed dwelling is ‘L’ shaped andeffectively completesthe developmentto therear, continuing theelevation linesof theadjacent plots and added that currently between these dwellings is a short length of fencing accessing into the existing gardenof 54 High Causeway.

Kirsten McKelvie explained that the new dwelling would provide an active frontage to Spire View, therebyimproving the development and providing separation between the new development and this rearcorner ofthe Conservation Area and added that thereare verylimited viewsof theproposed singlestorey dwellingfrom HighCauseway, between 54 and the new two-storey dwelling at 52 High Causeway,constructed within the last 6 months. She explained that the roof of the new dwelling is hipped towards the rear of 54High Causeway to reduce its impact and the proposed dwelling is set further back from the existingdwelling than the current outbuilding by approximately 6m and if planning permission was granted, a condition toincorporate some appropriate planting or hedging at the boundary between 54 High Causeway andthe proposed dwellingcould be consideredto shield theproposal even further.

Kirsten McKelvie stated that the garden to 54 High Causeway is being reduced, but this is negligible given the already approvedand constructed bungalows to the rear which reduced the size of the original garden and stated that the existingdwelling is still retaining a considerable rear garden, 27m for over half the width of the plots and11.5m fromthe singlestorey projection, plus alarge gardento thefront of the property.

Members asked Kirsten McKelvie the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarity regarding the applicants’ name and. following confirmation, he decided he would withdraw from the debate and voting on this item, due to the possibility of the applicant being a member of his family.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the driveway is for 2 car parking spaces and Kirsten McKelvie confirmed that there are two tandem spaces for the dwelling.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the road is not yet finished, and the site is currently incomplete. He made the point that all the other dwellings on the site have been purchased, which proves that there is a need for the development. Councillor Benney stated that the site has a derelict building on it which is in disrepair and is an eyesore and, in his view, the proposal is making good use of land which would otherwise be left unused and could attract vermin and possible antisocial behaviour. He expressed the view that although the officers report states that the proposal is not in keeping with the other bungalows, in his opinion, everything does not need to be the same and he feels the proposal will tidy that area up and bring symmetry to the end of Spire View. Councillor Benney stated that with regard to the comment concerning the proposal being built within the grounds of a Conservation Area, there have been other planning approvals given in other parts of the district where a development was approved which was in the curtilage of a Listed building and he cannot see an issue with this proposal. He expressed the opinion that homes are needed, and, in his view, it is an excellent use of an available site and will bring a much-needed home and he would hope that the application is approved.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the proposal appears to be crammed in and is slightly at odds with the new development. He added that he cannot see how the proposal is having an effect on the dwelling at number 54 to the same degree as the impact it has on Spire View and he agrees with the point raised in the officers report where it states the proposed development is also considered to be at odds with the adjacent 2 storey dwellings and bungalows resulting in an incongruous form of development.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that Whittlesey Town Council have no objection to the proposal and neither do any of the local residents which he found surprising and, in his opinion, he cannot see any reason why the application should not be supported.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the possible reason why there has been no feedback from residents is because the development is new and some of the properties are still unoccupied.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that the proposal tidies the corner up and will ensure that the derelict land is made use of. She stated that she is sure the neighbouring properties would prefer to see a dwelling rather than the unsightly area currently in place and she will be supporting the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs Davis and added that the proposal will tidy the area up and she will support the application.

The Chairman invited officers to provide any points of clarification to the committee.

·         Nick Harding stated that the application should not be determined on the amount of representations received for and against a development proposal, it should be considered having regard to whether it complies or does not comply with planning policy and in relation to any relevant material planning considerations. He added that the proposal should not be determined on the basis of the condition of the site, as going forward it may encourage people to not look after their property and their sites as a way in to obtain planning consent on a site. Nick Harding stated that there is no guarantee that the owner of the bungalow may move into the dwelling if it is approved and constructed and, therefore, this should not be a consideration when determining the proposal. He stated that there are two elements of the National Planning Policy Framework which are particularly relevant in this case and he referred to Paragraph 1.93 which states that ‘Great weight should be given to the conservation of the access irrespective of the level of harm that the development proposed may give rise to.’ He added that secondly paragraph 1.94 states that ‘Any harm that arises  should require clear and convincing justification’ and at paragraph 1.96 it states that ‘Where harm is less than substantial, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. Nick Harding explained that in this instance there is one property proposed for construction and given that there is a five year land supply and the housing delivery test has been passed, in his opinion, he does not think that there are the characteristics and heritage asset in place nor a strong case to say that the benefits of this proposal outweigh the less than substantial harm that the development will give rise to.

·         Councillor Murphy asked Nick Harding to explain what could be sited on the land if the proposal is not supported? Nick Harding stated that there is now requirement for all parcels of land to have development on them and there is no reason why this piece of land cannot remain part of the domestic curtilage of the host dwelling and for the outbuilding on the site to be refurbished for the land to be properly maintained and presented.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he appreciates that there is not a requirement for land to have any development on it but the proposal before members today has development on it. He added that the proposal is far enough away from the Grade 2 Listed Building and there have been no points raised by any of the Conservation Groups. He stated that the proposal has the full support of the Town Council and there are no letters of objection and expressed the view that it will tidy up a piece of land.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Murphy and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with the conditions imposed on the planning permission to be agreed in conjunction with the Chairman, Councillor Benney and Councillor Murphy.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal will provide a high quality development, will improve and enhance the area and is far enough away from the historical asset so that it will not be detrimental or cause any harm.

(Councillor Sutton 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 she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council Planning Committee, but had took no part in the discussion or voting on this item)