Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent.  Mr Gowler explained that the application is to replace an existing run-down dwelling which had a fire a few years ago and has been vandalised which is why it has been boarded up. He added that the proposal will include a stables and garage on the large plot of almost 1 hectare and he has worked with the applicant and has looked at extending and renovating the existing house, however, the cost, in-particular 20% VAT, involved meant that it would make more sense to construct a new replacement energy efficient dwelling.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the replacement dwelling approximately 1 mile further along Forty Foot Road and the figures described show that the increase in size was 150 square metres and the new dwelling was 290 square metres which was an increase of 195% which is significantly more than this application which is 186%. He stated that the next slide indicates a similar cottage located in a similarly rural location and whilst this application was not a replacement dwelling it would have still been considered under LP16 and, therefore, the large increase is size is still relevant, where the existing cottage is 140 square metres and is in a very rural location opposite Stonea Camp and with the extension the increase in floor area it equates to 255%.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen and highlighted a collage of photos featuring most of the properties along Forty Foot Road. He pointed out that there are a mixture of styles and ages of properties, from 3 storey modern houses to more traditional farmhouses and due to the mixture of styles along this road, in his opinion, the design and scale of the proposal does fit in with the varied character of area.

Mr Gowler referred to the screen and pointed out three large three storey dwellings which are considerably larger in footprint area than the proposal before the committee. He made reference to Flood Zones and stated that there is an existing dwelling that can be used, however, a Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken and as a result the recommendation has been to raise the floor areas and, in his opinion, the proposed dwelling does fit with policy LP12 of the Local Plan and LP16.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that Mr Gowler had provided examples of old and new approved dwellings and asked whether there was a policy in place of what is considered acceptable as a replacement building and how can it be determined as to whether something is in fact too big and out of character? He expressed the opinion when referring back to the size of the original building, it would not necessarily expect any family to live in a dwelling that small and therefore any replacement is likely to be bigger, questioning how officers determine what is and what is not acceptable in relation to the calculation of sizes. David Rowen made reference to LP12(C) which states that the replacement of a dwelling which is located outside, or not adjacent to the development footprint of a settlement, will be supported with a number of criteria one of which states that it is of a similar size and scale to the original dwelling. He added that some of the properties which were exemplified by the application site are limited in facilities and modern day living and, therefore, a pragmatic approach is adopted with regards to allowing an increase in size and he made reference to a point highlighted by Mr Gowler who had identified that within the vicinity of the application site there are larger dwellings which have been allowed, however, with regards to the current application there is also another criteria set out in the Local Plan where it states that the replacement dwelling should be of a design appropriate to its rural setting and therefore it is a combination of scale, mass bulk, design, appearance and the actual characteristics of the original site and how prominent a dwelling would look in that location which all need to be considered and with all those issues combined in the case of this application officers have concluded that it is an unacceptable development.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the policy regarding the footprint of a development as outlined in the new emerging Local Plan will not actually adhere to planning applications? Nick Harding stated that the draft plan is taking a more flexible approach to the current adopted plan, however, very little weight can be given to the draft emerging plan in determination of planning applications and that is set out in the case law approach to using emerging plans and applying them to determine planning applications. He added that once the Local Plan is published for consultation, officers will start to make reference to that emerging plan in case reports whether that be in the form of delegated reports or reports for committee but only low levels of weight can be given to those policies when determining applications and priority should be given to the current Local Plan.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that some of the aspects of the application are open to interpretation and it is in order for the committee to take a slightly different interpretation. Councillor Connor concurred with that view.

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

·      Councillor Topgood stated that he does not have an issue with the application, making the point that the current dwelling is derelict and unfortunately there are many of those within Fenland. He added that members want residents to have nice houses, making reference to LP12(c) of the Local Plan where it states that the replacement of a dwelling which is located outside or not adjacent to the developed footprint of a settlement will be supported where it is located on the footprint of the original dwelling unless an alternative position within the curtilage would enhance the setting of the building on the plot and have no adverse impact on the wider setting and, in his opinion, the proposal improves the wider setting and will improve the life of the family who live there and he will support the application.

·      Councillor Benney expressed the opinion the proposed dwelling will fit on the plot very nicely and he knows that the current derelict dwelling has been deteriorating over time. He added that the site is a mess and needs to be cleared up and utilised. Councillor Benney made reference to an application in Wisbech St Mary which had an increase of 183% in square footage and a triple garage as well as another site in Gorefield which was also a large percentage increase in floor size. He expressed the opinion that the proposal fits on the plot perfectly and enhances the area and if something else was built on the site it would be more detrimental to the area, so he will support the application.

·      Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees and in its current state it is an eyesore and there are many derelict buildings in Fenland and it would be nice to see more of these types of application submitted to demolish and rebuild. She added that she will support the application.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal does comply with all of the criteria of Policy LP12  of the Fenland Local Plan as it will make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

(Councillor Sutton declared that he knows the applicant for this application, but this will make no difference to his decision making on the application)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the applicant for this application and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item)

(Councillor Marks stated that he has spoken to the applicant for this item on a rateable matter but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)

(Councillors Benney, Connor and Mrs Davis stated that the agent for this item is known to them in a professional capacity, but it would not make any difference to their decision making and voting on the application)