Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson made the point that this application seeks approval for amendments to a dwelling which was approved in April 2022 and was previously approved in 2020, with the difference between the schemes including minor changes as detailed in paragraph 9.4 of the officer’s report as well as a change in the height of the roof. She stated that the application has been recommended for refusal for the reason that the proposed new roof height would be dominant in the street scene which would harm the character of the area but, in her opinion, from the submitted street scene members will note that there is a lot of variety in this particular street scene and the proposal would be no higher than other properties within the area.

Mrs Jackson stated that the eaves height of the dwelling would be the same as was approved in the previous application and it is just the ridge height that is being increased by 40cm because of a change in the roof pitch to 30 degrees. She expressed the view that the reason the roof pitch has changed is because it represents a more traditional pitch which is consistent with other properties in the area, with the roof previously being submitted at 35 degrees but was reduced to achieve the height requested by officers and to gain approval as the applicants are keen to make a start as various external factors had held them up previously following their 2020 consent.

Mrs Jackson stated that the applicants are now in the position of being able to commence development next week and on reflection the applicants consider a 30-degree pitch represents a betterment in terms of aesthetics of the dwelling and would be more visually appropriate as it would match other properties within the area. She feels that the additional 40cm to what was previously approved would appear negligible when viewed from the public advantage, however, it would allow the roof pitch to match the neighbouring dwellings.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the application is deemed acceptable in all other aspects, the point of contention being the ridge height which remains lower than other properties in the street scene. She hopes members can see there is no other harm caused by the proposal and are able to support the scheme accordingly.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that many occasions at this committee he has made the comment where officers have worked with agents and applicants to bring a scheme forward that was previously deemed not acceptable and he has praised officers for this. In a former life, if she had been that officer that was working with that applicant to bring a scheme to acceptability that was previously unacceptable, he feels she would have been miffed to be back looking at an application trying to get back to the initial position and asked Mrs Jackson if this would be true?  Councillor Connor stated that he feels this is a leading question and Mrs Jackson did not have to answer it.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Benney asked what is the average and maximum roof height in Fenland? Nick Harding responded that he could not say. Councillor Benney queried what members were looking at as there are some houses that are even higher than this proposal, with one in Wimblington approved that was monstrous and it was stated that it would block the sun out but it has been built and as you drive past it all you see is a nice house and not that it is too high. He made the point that there is permitted development where you can build another storey on your house and officers are arguing over 40cm and if it is too high it must be based on something, what is that something? Nikki Carter responded that in this case it is the fact that the plots between are a quite modest two-storey cottage to the west and a property that has been approved at 8.7 to the east so previously it was no higher than the approved property to the east and it now is so officers would be looking at a transition between the lower property and the approved property where this dwelling is now proposed to be so much higher.

·         Councillor Benney asked if the proposal was compared against the highest building in the street? Nikki Carter responded that she is not aware of this.

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

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that the question is not anything to do with how high other buildings are but that the key issue is after all the work done to bring this forward, the applicant has planning permission, and then brings it back to the level where it was negotiated down. He does not feel this is right, members want officers to work with agents and developers and to just submit it again as it was originally should not be allowed.

·         Councillor Benney referred to his earlier comment about people paying their money for the planning application process and this is the process. He feels it comes down to whether 40cm makes a difference on a house or not and, in his view, it probably does not.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the property in Wimblington mentioned by Councillor Benney, which committee had a lengthy discussion on but if you drive along the bypass and look at it you cannot tell that it is taller and it blends in over a period of time. He questioned whether people are really going to notice 40cm?

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed, 40cm in not a lot and if someone is prepared to put a planning application in and want a semi-executive home why not. She feels that more executive homes are needed, and people encouraged to move, with Fenland looking for business people to move into this area and they want executive homes and that is where the economy increases.

·         Councillor Topgood agreed with Councillors Benney and Mrs French, he cannot see where 40cm is going to make much of a difference and thinks the proposal will improve the environment in this area. He would be minded to go against officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis queried why if 40cm makes no difference to the planning committee does it make so much difference to the applicant? She feels if she had an answer to this, she may be able to make a decision.

·         Councillor Benney responded that, although not an expert, an officer or that this is the case, if you have an extra 40cm that makes the difference in having a room squared off, which makes the room a more usable space.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that it was mentioned by the agent that the 40cm was to allow for a proper slope to match the next-door property.

·         Councillor Benney stated that there is also a minimum pitch you can put on a roof of slate design because of the way the water runs off so whether this has any bearing he is not sure, but members are being asked by the person who is going to live there for another 40cm which he feels is a fair ask.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor asked why this was not picked up at the initial application stage if it is to do with next door and angles as an application was approved that has now been brought back because someone has decided that the roofs do not match next door or whatever, which does not make sense to her.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the roof height and the pitch would depend upon the footprint so the argument about the pitch is, in his view, a non-argument, it is about roof height.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions in line with the previous consent.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the height difference of 40cm makes no impact on LP16(d) on delivering and protecting high quality environments and would provide a better quality of life for the residents of the proposed dwelling.