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 Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that thisapplication comebefore the committeewith thesupport ofMarch Town Counciland all other standard consultees, and although the site is within Flood Zone 3 it is no different to the whole of the village and many other developments within the district, with the submitted FloodRisk Assessmentdemonstrating thatthe schemecan bemade technically safe from flooding and has the support of the Environment Agency. He added that technically the site has an address that is in March where under LP3 the majority of development is to be found in the market towns, and, in his view, althoughtechnically itis inMarch everyonewould associateit withTurves which is a small village capable of development.

Mr Edwards explained that the site is in a cluster of dwellings with a continuous frontage of a mixture of dwelling types and it also mirrors a number of recently approved dwellings within the district and surrounding area, with a recent approval for 6 dwellings furtheralong WhittleseyRoad whichcomprises of4 frontagedwellings and 2 further executive dwellings to the rear, with one of these executive dwellings only being approved under planning reference F/YR21/0832/F on 8 October 2021, this was for a revised design and the approval highlights that tandem forms of development have recently been approved in Turves. He stated that the dwelling has been designed so as not to have a detrimental impact on neighbouringproperties andwill utilisethe existingaccess onto thesite, which will be upgraded as required by Highways.

Mr Edwards made the point that the only window of significance that will have any impact on neighbouring dwellings is to bedroom 4 and is over 30m distance to the rear elevation of 717 Whittlesey Road. He explained that it should also be noted that the site has an existing agricultural building on it which previously had an approval for its conversion to a residential dwelling, which is believed could be converted under a Part Q application and further emphasises that a built form already exists on the site so there is already a tandemform ofdevelopment onthe site.

Mr Edwards expressed the view thatthe proposeddwelling will enhancethe site,is notdetrimental as thecurrent building has norestrictions on the time it is used, and this proposal will create a use consistent with neighbouring residential dwellings. He stated that he has had a full ecology survey and report carried out on the site, which Natural England confirm that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the proposed building can be built on the site beforethe existingbuilding needsto beremoved soany furthersurveys canbe carried out at the required time.  He stated he would recommend any approval comes with a condition to provide biodiversity enhancements both on the building and within the site and also a landscaping condition so this can provide a habitat that encourages biodiversity.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that theproposal makesthe bestuse ofthe landand willfinish offthis partof the village and remove any conflict between the existing residents and any future non?residential use on the site. He expressed the opinion that theproposed sitehas amplesize toaccommodate bothsurface waterand foul water from the treatment plant and will be subject to a soakage test carried out in accordance with BRE365, consideration is also to be given to the use of rainwater harvesting and all soakaways will be positioned so as not to have any detrimental effect on neighbouring properties and building regulation compliant.

Mr Edwards asked membersto approvethe applicationwith the conditions they deem appropriate, which will remove any future conflict with neighbouring residential dwellings, it has been designed so as not to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring dwellings and will provide an executive family residence for the applicant on a site that already has a building on it.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that in the site plan history it states that approval was granted on a Class Q in 2015 and was refused in 2019, which was due to a change in national guidance, and he questioned why the 2015 approval was not made use of? Mr Edwards stated that the applicant purchased the site with the approval in place and allowed it to expire, with the applicant then applying for permission himself but due to the site and size of the existing nissen hut onsite, although it can achieve a two storey development, it would have meant construction and the change in policy under Part Q meant construction could not be provided to form the first floor. Mr Edwards stated that moving forward it could come in as another Part Q but as a single storey residence. Councillor Sutton stated so there is and will be a building there regardless and Mr Edwards confirmed that to be correct.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy stated that, at 5.5 in the officer’s report, it refers to local residents and interested parties, but it appears that there are five letters of objection and none of approval and he asked whether that is correct? David Rowen confirmed that there are five representations of objection and none of support.

·         Councillor Sutton asked that if the Class Q had been in time was there not a fallback position which could be a material consideration? David Rowen stated that it would be a material consideration if there was a fallback position, however, there is not one.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the newbuilds that Mr Edwards referred to are roadside construction not backland which is what this proposal is.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the application is quite complex, given that it did have Class Q and then for technical reasons the second application did not get approved. He expressed the view that there is going to be residential development on the site under Class Q for a single storey dwelling. David Rowen stated that members are not in a position to predetermine any Class Q application that is submitted in the future and whether or not it would be acceptable or qualify in terms of a Class Q application and members must, therefore, determine the application on its own merits which is a derelict agricultural building with no planning approval on it. Councillor Sutton stated that, in his view, if the application came in as a Class Q single storey proposal and passed all the relevant technical requirements it would then be used residentially and as there is already a building on site which is going to deteriorate over time, he would rather see a dwelling on the site rather than an old building.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has no strong view on the application either way, however, he has listened to the point that Councillor Sutton has made in that there could be a dwelling on the site. He added that a good home cannot be made out of an old nissen hut, and, in his view, it needs demolishing and the proposal before members will be a vast improvement on the current situation and although it does not follow the building line of the street, it has had permission on it before.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that although there are letters of objection, he would rather see a nice quality home rather than an old nissen hut and added that he could support the application.

·         Councillor Purser stated that the outlook will improve significantly for the neighbouring properties.

·         Councillor Benney stated that with regards to overlooking, Mr Edwards had advised that there is 30 metres between this proposal and the neighbouring property and 20 metres to the boundary for overlooking and therefore that is irrelevant. He expressed the view that something will be developed on the land and it will not be left in its current state and he will support the application.   

·         Councillor Connor stated that he called the application in for determination, and he agrees with Councillor Sutton that an application may well come back to the committee. He expressed the opinion that a nice large dwelling on the site would be far better than the current situation. He stated that all of Turves is in Flood Zone 3 and made reference to the houses built on the entrance into Turves which he stated are exceptional. Councillor Connor added that on balance he will support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that something will be built on the site and it would be a vast improvement to the old nissen hut.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that, in his opinion, if the application had come before Whittlesey Town Council, he would have recommended the application for refusal as it is backland development.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application has the support of March Town Council and, in his view, it is a good proposal and the type of house that is nice to see built in Fenland.

·         David Rowen stated that the views of Town Councils and Parish Councils are not material considerations when determining an application. He added that the Council has 6.69 years housing land supply and there has been a 95% score on the housing delivery test and, therefore, there is no need to deliver housing that would not comply with the policy of the Local Plan. David Rowen explained that there is no fall-back position on the site and there is no guarantee that anything would get planning permission in the future and the application needs to be determined on its current form and not possibly what would happen in the future.

·         The Legal Officer stated that the committee need to consider whether the application is contrary to policy and there are flooding issues to be considered, albeit the comments in the officer’s report from the Environment Agency have stated that it is a matter for the Internal Drainage Board, who have not made any comment. She added that biodiversity should also be addressed and in terms of the permitted development point, the 2015 application was for the change of use for the existing building and not for the construction of a different building.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that the Internal Drainage Board, Middle Level, are not a statutory consultee.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he is aware that the site is in Flood Zone 3, however, any building in Turves will be in Flood Zone 3 and there will be mitigation put in place to alleviate the flood risk at the property and he does not see any reason not to pass the application.

·         Councillor Murphy asked David Rowen to clarify whether the application is classed as backland development? David Rowen drew members attention to the second recommended reason for refusal where it states ‘The development proposed would, by virtue of its design and appearance, combined with its backland location appear as a unattractive and discordant feature’.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.  This was not supported on a majority vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with reasonable conditions to be delegated to officers.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal makes good use of the land, although it is a small scale it is for a high-quality development, it is in or adjacent to the existing development footprint of the village and does not adversely have an impact on the surrounding countryside.

(Councillor Marks declared an interest in the application, by virtue of the fact that the applicant isknown to the business he is director of, andhe took nopart in thediscussion on the itemor voting thereon)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning matters)