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 Mr Craig Brand, the Agent.

Mr Brand stated that the outline application seeks permission in principle to develop the site, with details of the necessary access improvements only committed and the submitted indicative site layout plans and house designs are for illustrative purposes only. He added that the applicant is happy to reduce the proposed maximum number of dwellings to 2, to match the existing semi-detached houses in the vicinity.

Mr Brand explained that the site is 1 of 4 potential development sites adjacent to the playing field surface road and garden land development has already been approved at the rear of 30 and 32 Russell Avenue and he highlighted on the presentation slide to the committee where the development fronts onto West Close. He stated that committtes approval led to 7 and 8 West Close gaining permission for their gardens and this was demonstrated in slide 2.

Mr Brand added that the committee report concentrates on the terrace proposal even though a semi-detached illustrative design was also submitted and he stated that the officer’s report highlights what it deems to be the failings of the terrace scheme by being only separated by 10m from the existing dwellings whereas the semi-detached proposal has a 15m separation between dwellings as shown in Slide 3.  He explained that in 9.2 of the officers report, the Inspector of the 2015 appeal found there would be no harm from the semi-detached proposal to the living conditions of neighbouring properties and the reason for dismissing the appeal was the perceived harm the development would cause to the character of the post war estate and the playing field.

Mr Brand stated that March Town Council recommend approval of the application with the improvements to the access road shown and they are happy that the development would comply with Policy H2 of their Neighbourhood Plan and would be in keeping with the settlement pattern and character of the estate. He added that the dwellings, surrounded by the playing field which are bounded by high hedges and close border fencing, along with outbuildings in their gardens, have little or no views of the open space and, therefore, views of the new houses would be negligible from the surrounding properties and there would be no harm to them as they are a distance away.

Mr Brand stated that in general playing fields in March and public open spaces have housing in closer proximity and he used Southwell Close as an example. He expressed the view that the proposal would cause no harm to the playing field, but would provide a strong presence that the existing surrounding housing would deter anti-social behaviour.

Mr Brand referred members to slide 4 which shows a layout introducing landscaping to the playing field boundary, which, in his view, will significantly reduce the harm perceived by the Inspector to the playing field and houses that surround it. He added that the final layout, scale, and appearance of the proposal to be determined by a reserved matters application would overcome the Inspector’s reasons for refusal.

Mr Brand added that since the right to buy scheme began the estates original uniform identity has been eroded by alterations to the houses external appearances due to extensions, new dwellings and flats have been constructed and approval of the application would be another progression in this changing identity of the original post war estate. He added that there are no technical issues with access as Highways have approved the layout with a widened 5m road and separate 1.5m footpath.

Mr Brand stated that he would ask that the committee agree with him that the development will not harm the character of the area and will provide much needed homes. He added that the final detailed design can be controlled at reserved matters stage to ensure that the building scale and mass will respect the playing field and its surrounding area.

Members asked Mr Brand the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Brand for clarity about the existing footpath which goes into the field and does not support traffic and asked whether the footpath he had referred to is a new proposed footpath? Mr Brand stated that he will be widening the existing footpath by a metre either side that is already in existence. Councillor Mrs French stated that the access does not belong to number 25 and it used to belong to the Council. Mr Brand stated that the area is on the County Council Highway’s List of Adopted Roads and is indicated as being a footpath. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that is a public right of way and it does not give permission for users to drive down there.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that on the presentation screen, Mr Brand had pointed out the distance between number 25 and 27 and that of the proposed development, which was 15 metres, where he had questioned the original decision by the Planning Inspector. Councillor Miscandlon added that the drawing that had been displayed was for the two houses and not the three and, therefore, the 15 metres is greatly reduced between 25 and 27 and the proposed development for the three properties. Mr Brand stated that he is seeking outline consent for the principle of development and stated that since he has seen the officer’s report, the applicant is prepared to reduce the proposal down to two dwellings, which would be a distance of 15 metres.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy stated that Mr Brand had explained that the presentation had shown a proposal for two dwellings, but the application is for outline permission for up to three dwellings. David Rowen stated that the application is for up to three dwellings and, therefore, members would need to consider that if they were minded to grant planning permission contrary to officer’s recommendation that three dwellings can satisfactorily accommodated within the site.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that, in her opinion, the officer’s recommendation is correct. She added that she has known the site for over 30 years and added that the neighbouring properties have objected as they feel the proposal will invade their privacy. Councillor Mrs French stated that her concern is with regard to overlooking and that they propose to use the road for vehicles to drive down and it has never been used for that purpose before. She added that children use the area to play and she congratulated the officers for their work and recommendation on the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the view that she has concerns over the access and stated that if the land is not in the applicants ownership, they should not be using it as an access and she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation and added that she does not like to see applications brought forward when the access road is not even in the applicant’s ownership. She added that she also has concerns that further development on the opposite side of the field may come forward which should be taken into consideration.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he has no issue with regard to the road, however, the application was refused some time ago. He added that Mr Brand has referred to West Close which was built some time ago as a cul-de-sac, however, that was an infill development and the proposal being determined today is totally different. Councillor Sutton stated that he has noted that the application was discussed three times by March Town Council, before they recommended the proposal for approval. He added that he concurs with the comment made by Councillor Mrs Davis with regard to her concerns over further development and he stated that he will also be supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

·         Councillor Mrs French added that the photo presented by Mr Brand, which was referred to as West Close, was not in fact a photograph of West Close. She stated that West Close was built at the same time as the rest of Russell Avenue was built and she stated that the houses that Mr Brand had referred to are up the alleyway where the Council’s allotments were and the access is on the left hand side. Councillor Mrs French reiterated the fact that she cannot support the application and added that children use the footpath and it is not a road.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that two of the dwellings that Mr Brand had referred to are in West Close and were approved in outline planning permission in 2004 and full in 2005.

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

(Councillor Cornwell took no part in the debate or voting on this item, due to the fact that he had lost internet connection)