Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nicholas Thrower presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that he is speaking in support of this application for an infill dwelling at land south of 12 High Road,Guyhirn and the application has the support of the Parish Council and  allother consultees other than oneobjection from the neighbour.  He explained that the site is within Flood Zone 3, however, it is no different to many otherdevelopments within the village and district and the submitted Flood RiskAssessment demonstrates that the scheme can be made technically safe from flooding, and it should be noted other than the host property the client does nothave anyother land in thevillage.

Mr Edwards stated that he has checked on Rightmove earlier that day and the only land available in Guyhirn atpresent does not have planning approval, so sequentially is not    available for development.  He added that with regard to the finished floor level of the development it should be notedthat he is required to lift the dwelling 300mm above the existing land levelwhereas a development approved by the committee a couple of meetings agoin Guyhirn required the finish floor lifting considerably higher from the existing  ground level than is required, and as the report states the EnvironmentAgency haveno objection to theproposal.

Mr Edwards explained that the site is in a continual line of development extending throughout the village    on this side of the road, and as the majority of Guyhirn can only be developed onone side due to the river and its bank, sites like this are valuable to providedwellings to sustainthe facilities in thevillage. He expressed the opinion that Guyhirn has a real mixture of dwelling typesthroughout and this section of the village is no different, with a mixture ofdetached and semi-detached, single and 2 storied dwellings of different heights  and styles from the traditional cottages to the more modern detachedproperties, and these are in the main not in a hard and fast straight line and stepthe frontagethroughout thevillage.

Mr Edwards added that the proposal, whilst larger than the neighbouring properties, is consistent with other dwellings being built in the village and may be considered aspirational,but as the client already owns the land and uses it as extended garden to hishost property asked if this is a bad thing, and there should be the need to be encourage a mixtureof dwelling types andthe sitecan clearlytake thedevelopment.  He added that the report states that both the existing and proposed dwellings far exceed the requirements  for garden space and upon inspection of the site there are a pair of semi-detached dwellings beingconstructed three doors along to the south closer to the river, and these look like  large single dwellings and these were approved at appealfollowing officerrefusal.

Mr Edwards explained that the proposal is served via an existing access on to High Road with a new accessfor thehost propertythat has thesupport of highways and the proposal makes the best use of the land and will finish off this part of the   villageand addto thediverse housingmix in thevillage.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that it is a large plot and asked whether there is a reason why the building line cannot be pushed back to be in line with other dwellings in the vicinity. Mr Edwards stated that potentially it could, and it is something that could be considered if the application could be deferred for revised plans to be submitted.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Lynn asked officers to clarify if the application was deferred for alternative plans to be submitted, would it alleviate any of the other reasons cited by officers, to allow the application to be approved? David Rowen stated that there is still the issue of Flood Zone 3, which would need to be addressed and if the dwelling was to be moved back, the impact on the street scene would be less albeit whether the L Shaped design would then fit into the street scene. He added that it is different in terms of a deferral issue from the earlier application as this application is for a dwelling and has been submitted in the location identified and that is what needs to be considered, adding that re siting the proposal is a different application. Councillor Lynn asked, by raising the property, would that not alleviate the flood risk concerns? David Rowen stated that the flood risk has two separate elements, firstly is the site sequentially acceptable and secondly can the site be made technically safe from flooding, which is why the floor level would need to be raised.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that the proposal is linear development, regardless of whether it is moved forward or backwards. He added that the land could have a number of dwellings on it and he would rather see the proposal on the site. David Rowen stated that the character of the stretch of the High Road is quite linear in its form and there is a defined building line. He added from a character point of view, there is not an issue with regard to the infill element and the concern is the front projection from a visual point of view where there are two storeys sticking out ten metres beyond the established building line, which is the real issue.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the Agent had intimated that a conversation could have taken place with officers concerning the siting of the property, but this conversation never took place and he asked why? David Rowen stated that there is an issue with regard to Flood Zone 3 and the lack of a sequential test, but added that an application has been made in the form that it has been made, which is what the applicant wants and what the Agent thinks is an acceptable scheme.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that if the Agent or Applicant had come forward for some pre application advice, then the issues and concerns could have been negated. David Rowen stated that if a pre application enquiry had been submitted than advice and guidance would have been provided to the Agent and they could have acted accordingly.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he does not have a problem with that section being infilled, but he has a problem with the proposal as it is way out of keeping in the area. He expressed the view that it is way out of character to approve in its current form and although a deferral would be the quickest process, he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney stated that mitigation measures are in place for the issues surrounding flooding. He added that with regard to the house sticking forward, he does not see any problem with it, it is a large plot and although it is a different design it could be said that it adds character to the area. Councillor Benney added officers should liaise with Agents to discuss applications, make suggestions, and provide advice and guidance.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that that the Agent has advised that consideration could be given to moving the development slightly further back and for that reason he would like to see the application deferred, as opposed to refusing it, to give the Agent the opportunity to come back with a revised plan.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that if the application is refused, then it will give the Agent the opportunity to review the design of the application and liaise with officers to alleviate any issues.

·         David Rowen stated that with regard to the discussions members have had concerning refusal or deferral, in his opinion, it is a considerable change to the scheme and goes above and beyond what could be considered as a deferrable change. He added that the changes that members have alluded to, would in the opinion of officers, have to go through a public consultation exercise and, therefore, there would be a time delay. He added that should the application be refused; the applicant would not incur any additional fees and they also have the opportunity of appealing the decision.

·         David Rowen stated that with regard to the communication issue which members have highlighted, the Council does offer a pre application advice service which agents can use and he highlighted that professional agents are also able to use their professional judgement with regard to what is and what is not acceptable with a scheme.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor, and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation in relation to reason 1 only of the officer’s report.