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 Ted Brand, the Agent.

Mr Brand explained that the proposal is to join an existing residential annex and aholiday let, with an extension linking the two, to form one dwelling which are 3.8m apart and both two storey. He stated that the annex, to the north, iscurrently occupied by the applicants, one of whom is the daughter ofthe elderly occupant of Nene House and is his carer who has power of attorney. The annex was previously a holiday let but has now beendesignated by the Council as an annex, withthe access being from a private road off Creek Road and this dwelling relates mainly to a group of houses offthis road.

Mr Brand stated that officershave given 3reasons forrefusal, firstly the effect on the character of the area asthey say it would not respect the predominant character of the area due to itslocation; secondly, the orientation and scale, as it is also considered to detract   from the host dwelling, Nene House, eroding its historic formand setting and, in his opinion, this is not correct or justified as he feels the Council’s case is based on an assessment of the characterof Nene Parade, but this dwelling and Nene House are close to,and relate to, a group of houses on the private road off Creek Road, Nene Parade end just before Nene House and thesite, with only a footpath to the south, with this proposal being 33mfrom this path and is screened by the many trees and shrubs in  the garden and fronting the path, which has no effect   on the character of Nene Parade. He added that regardingthe relationship with Nene House, this schemeis only 0.9m higher, in part, than the existing annex and holidaylet and is low chalet in appearance, much lower andsubservient to Nene House, with the eaves height of Nene House being6.2m and the eavesheight ofthis proposalbeing 3.5m and theridge height  of Nene House being approximately 9m andthe highest part of this proposal being 6.6mwith a lowerridge of5.0m.

Mr Brand explained that most importantly the proposal is 12 to 15m away from Nene House compared to a Council approved, large, 5 bedroom house,only 9maway, as canbe seen on items1 to4 on the screen.  He added that the location plan shows adjacent houses clearly closer than  thisproposal and approvedby the Council in2018, with the large-scale site plan of the 2 approved dwellings showing the  relationship to Nene Houseand theirsize.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the photo of plot 2 house, with the space in front is plot 1 isdescribed by the Councilas a“5-bedroom,3 storeyhouse” and the elevation of the plot 2 house, not yet built but starting soon, has the  third storey in the loft, which has a much greater effect,than this application, on Nene house, but was approved.  He feels that itwould be totally inconsistent and unfounded to notapprove this scheme.

Mr Brand stated that with regard to overlooking there are five windows on Nene House facing the proposed scheme,  these are screened by two small trees and the lower branches ofone large tree, to the three first floor windows,one of these is a bathroom, which can have obscuring film added if it is not already obscured. He added of the eleven windows in the proposed scheme, noted in the agendareport, six are ground floor and can be completely screened, in bothdirections, by reinforcement of the existing tree screening with anevergreen hedge or fencing and with regard to the five first floor windows, one is a  high-level roof window, above looking out height, and one is anobscured bathroom window and of the three remaining, one can beremoved as there is another window to that bedroom on the sideand the other two can be obscured and only openable above eyelevel.

Mr Brand explained that any overlooking concerns can be overcome byconditions and if minoramendments and/orscreening detailscannot be conditioned, he suggested that the committee delegate power toofficers to approve the application, subject to satisfactory measuresregarding overlooking.  He made the point regarding loss of existing tourist facilities and lack of evidence regarding their  viability that there is now only one holiday let and he stated that this is not a significant tourist facility and its effect on the local touristeconomy would beinsignificant. He understands that the holiday let has never been very profitableand dueto Covidis currently not atall viable.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the benefits of a good quality house, providing care for a familymember, in a sustainable location, far outweigh the effect ontourism. He concluded by stating that the proposal has no adverse effects on the character of the  area, the concernsregarding overlookingcan beeasily dealt with, and the well-being benefits of good quality housing, in a sustainablelocation, for an established local family, with care in thecommunity, faroutweigh any tourismconcerns.

Members asked Mr Brand the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the information that had been circulated to members had been referred to as an annexe and asked for clarification as to whether the proposal is for a holiday let or an annexe. Mr Brand stated that there were two holiday lets for a couple of years and one of those had been occupied by the daughter of the gentleman who lived at Nene House. He added that his client was advised by the Council Tax department that it was an annexe and they needed to pay the appropriate Council Tax.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the building looks as though it has not been built with in accordance with the plan, however, by looking at the plans and on a site visit this does not appear to be the case. Mr Brand stated that he was not involved with the original holiday let application and he does not know the planning history.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that Mr Brand made reference to a 5 bedroomed property and asked for clarity as to where it is located. Mr Brand stated that the land to the north of New House has planning permission for a three storey, 5 bedroomed property which will be on the site where there is currently a pond.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that Mr Brand referred to a holiday let, where the applicant’s daughter is residing, and he asked for clarity as to whether that is the current situation. Mr Brand confirmed that the applicant and her partner live in one of the holidays lets and have done so for two years and the applicant is acting as a carer for her father in Nene House. The Council have stated that this is an annexe, not a holiday let, which is why Council Tax is being requested and he stated that is how the property is being used which he suspects does not have planning permission.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarity with regard to F/YR11/0180/RM and stated that the application does not appear to have been built in accordance with the plan as it steps forward 8 to 10 feet and he asked officers to provide further clarity. David Rowen stated that regarding the annexe, one of the units is being occupied as an annexe which is in breach of its original condition restricting its original use as a holiday let. He added that there was an enforcement case on it, however, the decision was taken that it would not be in the public interest to take any enforcement action against that annexe given the particular circumstances involved, but the lawful use from a planning point of view is as a holiday let.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for clarity with regard to the plot to the north of Nene House, which is in close proximity and is a substantial property, and asked how that application differs from the current application, which also creates a substantial building with a nice long garden down to the river. David Rowen stated that there is a substantial difference as historically there has been an encroachment into the site from Creek Road, where the two houses that Mr Brand has referred to were granted planning permission in 2010, with the impact on Nene House being far less consequential due to the fact that the element of the site had been eroded. He referred members to the site plan and highlighted that 161 Creek Road which had moved that element of the development towards Nene House and effectively the two dwellings squared the impact off and made the point that the current application has an incursion from the west and the loss of a significant impact on the area immediately adjacent to Nene House and the principle elevations of Nene House, down to the river.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he cannot see where they are substantially different and, in his opinion, by developing there it may well act to protect the future of the Nene House plot from excessive development in the future.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the proposal will tidy the plot up with a substantial property, with a nice garden going down to Nene Parade and will improve the area.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, in his opinion, the difference is the overlooking and he added that the overlooking will be onto the garden of the house and will be no more than a cars width as there is car parking close to the proposed 1.8 metre fence and there will be overlooking issues from the upper rooms. He added that had the annexe been built in its proper place, the whole frontage would have been further back and negated some of the overlooking and he agrees with officers that overlooking is a problem and there needs to be consistency with previous applications as well as protecting current and future users.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application has an address of Nene House, but it is not as the entrance of this proposal is off Creek Road and there is no consistent development along this back entrance. He added that regardless of whether it is a holiday let or an annexe it has evolved due to the needs of the resident in Nene House and regardless of whether it is built 10 foot forward or backwards it is where it is. He expressed the view that the site is currently a mess and the proposal will smarten the area up.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that the holiday lets are plain buildings, simply a box with a roof on it and he stated that he agrees with Councillor Cornwell, that this proposal will protect Nene House in the future and it should be supported.

·         David Rowen stated that he has reviewed the 2011 plans for the northern most holiday let and it does appear that it should have been built slightly further back, however, that situation is now lawful, so it would not be subject to any enforcement action.

·         David Rowen stated that tidying a site up is not a material planning consideration when determining an application. He added that with regard to the relationship issues, the relationships in this application are extremely tight, and the view of officers is that there would not be an acceptable relationship between either property and as well as the character of the area there is also LP6 of the Local Plan to be considered which is quite clear that for tourist facilities to be lost, there has to be justification provided and this application does not provide this justification. David Rowen explained that Mr Brand had referred to very small tourist facilities, but the policy of the Local Plan does not differentiate between large or small scale, it just refers to the loss of the tourist facilities to be justified.

·         Councillor Connor stated that is not currently a tourist facility as it is an annexe. David Rowen stated that although one may be used as an annexe, there are two holiday lets on the site and one is a tourist facility and one could argue that the temporary loss of one of the holiday lets has been justified due to personal circumstances involved, however, the second holiday let there is the lack of evidence and information to justify that with regard to LP6.

·         David Rowen clarified the overlooking issues for members.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Murphy to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation. This proposal was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Lynn, seconded by Councillor Benney 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 Lynn, and Councillor Benney.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the application cannot be classed as being detrimental to the health and wellbeing of local residents, there will be no detriment to any sustainable transport links and the proposal will enhance and make a positive contribution to the area and the setting of Nene House.

(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)

(All members of the Committee declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Local Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had all been lobbied on this application)