Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent, read out by Member Services.  Mr Lunn-Towler stated that it is important to make the committee aware that they recently applied to Fenland District Council for a variation of condition application, reference F/YR21/1490/VOC, which wasapproved and the aforementionedapplication was seeking the same details as this application, with one material difference.  He made the point that the one material difference between the application presented to committee today, and the recently approved VOC applicationis that this application is seeking tomove the garage to a differentposition, forwardof theprincipal dwelling andconsequently alteringthe elevations of the garage to suit and this is the only difference.

Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the view that elements of this application regarding changes to the dwelling appearance and the various lineson thesite planhave beenapproved byFenland DistrictCouncil already and, therefore, he asked members to focus their attention on the material part of this application, which is seeking to move the garage location.  He stated that the applicant has discussed the garage position with the neighbour impacted, and whilst he has not formalised this in writing, the neighbourverbally suggested that the garage wouldbe better in the newproposed position,as thismeans thatcars willnot bedriving nearthe neighbour’s property.

Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the opinion that this will reduce noise impact to both parties and the proposed positionof thegarage provides an enhancementto the site for theapplicants, asto allowa cleardirection ofdomestic parking,as well asproviding more garden space to the dwelling. He respectfullyrequested, given thereasons presentedtoday, that the committee support this application.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor asked officers to confirm how many Variation of Condition applications are people allowed to submit? David Rowen confirmed that it is unlimited although if the scheme becomes significantly different to the one that was originally approved then there would be the requirement for a new application to be submitted. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that this is the second variation of condition that has been before the committee, and it is her belief that the second variation appears to be changing the garage back to where the garage was originally, and she asked for clarity over this. David Rowen confirmed that Councillor Mrs Mayor was correct in her understanding. Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the view that a great deal of officer’s time appears to be wasted dealing with applications like this that are coming backwards and forwards. Councillor Connor stated that he called the application in as he failed to comprehend that the application was exactly the same as the first application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that when he attended the site, the planning notification notice affixed to the gate at the site location, does not appear to correspond with the plan in the report and he asked officers to provide clarity over the plan. David Rowen explained that there is an existing dwelling on the site which sits at the back of the current application site which was formally connected to the nursery business and does not form part of the current application.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he also read the original application and stated that officers have spent a great deal of time with the agent and applicant to get the application to an acceptable position and then for the applicant to decide to revert to the original application is very frustrating. He added that the time those officers have invested on this application has been lengthy and time consuming and he will fully support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that at 10.10 of the officer’s report the Parish Council have recommended refusal of the scheme and have stated that any conditions placed on the original application should remain and he added that he totally concurs with the comments made by Councillor Sutton. He feels that officers go above and beyond what they should do to assist applicants and agents and he commended their work ethic.

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