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 Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is often the case that consideration of planning applications comes down to two fundamental elements, which are the principle of development and impact, for example, can I put a development in that location? and if so; would the impact be acceptable?  He stated that with regard to principle, this case is not a matter of principle in terms of whether the development is in the right place, as the case officer acknowledges at paragraph 11.1 the site is within the built form of Wisbech and principle of development is acceptable and in addition, the site has an extant outline planning permission for 2 dwellings on it dating from 2018, which confirms the principle of development.

Mr Slater stated that with regard to impact, the officer’s objection to this application is solely in respect to impact and specifically the front to front separation of the proposal from the adjacent homes and the impact of this relationship on residential amenity. He stated that Fenland does not have adopted design guidance and as such consideration falls against LP2 and LP16, with LP2 being largely a strategic policy in relation to residential amenity refers specifically to LP16 and LP16 criterion (e) seeks to avoid unacceptable adverse impact.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is contended that the proposal, albeit at the minimum acceptable distance, does not cause unacceptable significant adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties. He feels that existing permissions, given the size and position of the site, it is very difficult to envisage an alternative arrangement that could come forward under reserved matters that would not encounter the same issues, however, in granting the outline permission the Local Planning Authority must have been satisfied that an acceptable solution to design and amenity issues exists.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that consideration of the townscape/ street scene along Elm Low Road will show that the form of frontage development similar to that proposed, just set back from the highway edge is indeed characteristic of this street and Policy LP16 criterion (d) requires that development responds to local distinctiveness.  He added that there appears to be a disagreement on a single issue of the proposal; the acceptability of the impact of the proposal in relation to the offset distance from the terrace of 3 properties opposite, which it is noted are built to the back of the highway edge, and whilst the proposal is set back further from the highway than the houses opposite, he would hope that members accept that this is just set back from the highway edge form of development is characteristic of this street and that the level of impact will be within acceptable bounds.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Slater to clarify his statement where he mentioned that his proposed layout is not any closer to the road than the other properties around Elm Low Road as he presumes Mr Slater meant Elm Low Road on the eastern side, because there is a tradition that in order to maximise the plots that were adjacent to the canal, they had to build near the road, whereas on the western side there was more space and most of the properties are set back from the road. He stated that on the plan the frontages on the proposal are considerably nearer the road than Eastleigh to the south and number 310 to the north. Mr Slater stated that he was specifically referring to the three properties opposite in relation to the distances from the road and the characteristics of Elm Low Road is tight to the highway, with the point he was making that the area does not have significant front gardens or significant setbacks. Councillor Cornwell stated that properties on the eastern side of the road are tighter, but on the western side there are normally much more frontages, and it does have an impact. He added that those properties on the eastern side are also parking on the footpath which reduces the available gap.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked officers to clarify the parking arrangements for the proposal?  Nicholas Thrower stated that there is no adopted formal car parking space standards with regards to sizes for parking spaces and he pointed out that the photographs show the sizing of 2.4metres by 4.8metres, which is a fairly established minimum size in terms of what may be considered acceptable. Councillor Marks stated that the allocated space given would appear only to be for small cars and given the fact that the proposal is for three dwellings, which may have large cars, would they struggle to open the car doors?  Nicholas Thrower expressed the view that it could be an issue as the spaces would be constrained for larger vehicles and he would expect to see the larger vehicles parked on the road.

·         Councillor Meekins referred to the aerial photograph and asked for clarification with regard to what DEF refers to? Nicholas Thrower stated he was unsure what that abbreviation meant. Councillor Meekins stated that one of the reasons for refusal was that the proposal detracts from its surroundings and he asked for further explanation on this point. Nicholas Thrower stated that Elm Low Road is narrow, and development is in very close proximity to the highway, especially on the eastern side. He added that there is a changing relationship in those developments on the eastern and western side and where development is in close proximity on the east, it is set back more than on the west and the properties do not directly overlook each other, whereas the proposal would have two developments both with two storeys and three properties which are terraces in close proximity to the highway and in conflict with each other, which creates a cramped feeling within the street scene.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that during the Agent’s presentation, it was pointed out that there is extant permission on the adjacent building, and he asked for some confirmation on the differences between the extant permission and the proposal before members?  Nicholas Thrower stated that there is permission for two dwellings on the proposal site and two dwellings on the land to the north of the application site.

·         Councillor Connor clarified that there is permission for two dwellings on the application site and two dwellings on the site to the north.

·         Councillor Purser stated that if the proposal is at the end of the road, there will not be passing traffic and he expressed the view that the scheme is for an updated version of the older style terraced cottages, which are on the opposite side. He stated that officers have stated that the dwellings will be too cramped, however, if the number of dwellings were reduced on the site, would it make a difference.  Nicholas Thrower stated that the proposal is at the end of the road and that is why the comments that have been received from the Highway Authority do not form part of a formal reason for refusal and made the point that if the road was busier and included an entry and exit access then it may have resulted in the Highway Authority imposing an objection. He added that with regard to design, the visual appearance of the dwellings in the area at a bare minimum have a step frontage and are set at an angle to the road frontage, which provides visual interest and variety to the street scene. Nicholas Thrower stated that he appreciates the point that Councillor Purser made with regard to the proposal being a modernised version of a terraced cottage, however, with the lack of any architectural detail, the result is just a one block building with no chimneys, or a Dorma window arrangement to break up a plain building.  He added that due to the space on site, there is the scope for more visual interest on site, by reducing the number of dwellings, which gives the dwellings more space and more space in the street scene.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that DEF means a defaced boundary.

·         Councillor Marks asked, looking at the site plan, will the dwellings have a rear access to the car park? Nicholas Thrower stated that property number 2 will have a rear access to their garden, but property number 1 will access the car park by the south side of the building. Councillor Marks stated so it is likely that if the occupiers of number 1 needed to they would have to park on the road.

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

·         Councillor Lynn stated that it has been mentioned that the three properties are close to the road and the road is very small. He added that the turning point is at the end of the road and unless you live down there 90% of the traffic that goes down there is going to need to turn around, with the road becoming very congested and there can be very little space to pass. Councillor Lynn expressed the view that access for refuse freighters and emergency vehicles would be very difficult. He stated that the plot of land already has permission for two houses and if another two dwellings were sited on the plot and moved further back in his opinion, it would be adequate, however, he feels that the proposal for three dwellings is excessive.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that the proposal is shoe horning and it is trying to get too many properties on the plot. She added that if there were two properties on the site, they could be positioned to provide better amenities. She added that she is concerned with overlooking and whilst she appreciates that this type of property is needed, she cannot support the proposal.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he agrees with the comments made by members, making the point that the size of cars has increased significantly over the years and car parking standards are out of date due to the size of modern vehicles. He added that he agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis that three dwellings are too many and two would be adequate and would provide better amenity space.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he also agrees with other members. He added that parking will take place on the road and he will not support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.