Agenda item

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report the 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 Matthew Hall, the Agent. Mr Hall stated that there is an extensive site history which is listed in the officer’s report, which is prior to his involvement. He explained that the development site did have planning permission for a dwelling and the current owner then purchased the plot.

Mr Hall quoted the Planning Inspectors comments following an appeal where the Inspector had stated that ‘I consider the site large enough to accommodate a dwelling’ and went on to say that they did not consider the end of the cul de sac is particularly spacious in character or affords any significant views of the surrounding land that would be lost as a result of this development and the site has not changed in size or adjacent buildings changed since this time to our knowledge. He stated that the previous appeals for the site were for two dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, a full 2 storey three bedroomed house and the last application was for a bungalow, all of which  were refused, with the current proposal being for a scaled back 1.5 storey dwelling with two bedrooms.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the officer’s report appears to be positive and one third of the plot area is in line with the requirements of the Local Plan and there are no objections from the Highways Authority. He stated that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and has two car parking spaces and the proposal does not result in significant loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing, with proposal not being considered to result in a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours and added that the policy is recommended for refusal under policies LP16 and 7 of the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan, however, he has noted from the report under 10.12 that it states that the policy is acceptable under both of these policies.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal is an ideal straight forward two bedroomed starter home with adequate parking and located within Whittlesey and there are no technical objections to the proposal, and it is compliant with the Local Plan. He added that it has a third garden area, and the officer has confirmed that there are no concerns with overlooking, overshadowing or loss of light and the building material used would match in with the other properties.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Hall if he could advise when the site first received planning permission? Mr Hall stated that the planning permission was approved on 1 February 2007 when an appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate. Councillor Mrs French asked why the development has never taken place? Mr Hall expressed the view that he cannot understand why the planning permission was allowed to lapse.

·       Councillor Sutton asked Mr Hall if he could provide an explanation with regards to a query on the plans he had provided as he had highlighted the distance from the upper window to the first window on number 62, however, there appears to be no distance shown to number 60 which, in his opinion, is 2 metres closer. Mr Hall stated that when this level of detail has been requested previously, officers normally ask for the distances between first floor windows with a dimension of 19 to 20 metres and some of the previous reports show that concerns were raised with regards to distances from those properties first floor windows to the proposed property and that is the reason it has been included.

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

·       Councillor Sutton stated that there have been refusals previously at the site which have been subsequently supported by the Planning Inspector at appeal. He expressed the view that the current proposal is worse than the previous proposal and whilst he appreciates distances from first floor windows, it does alleviate the overlooking he can foresee from looking out of the window into the back garden of number 60 and he agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the Town Council recommend refusal and there have been 31 letters of objection as opposed to 26 letters in support, with, in her view, the Town Council making the right recommendation. She stated that when reviewing the history of the site, it is unfortunate that the new owner has now inherited the site which had planning permission approved years ago but the owner at the time let that permission lapse. Councillor Mrs French stated that she will support the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked officers to clarify the procedure when they are notified of fraudulent submission letters, with the Town Council raising this issue due to the fact that letters were received from two people who have not lived in that area for ten years and they did not submit any letters of support. She stated that she would like to know what the procedure is if officers are notified that letters are fraudulent and how that is determined and confirmed. Officers agreed to respond to this point at the appropriate time in the debate.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that officers have made the correct recommendation as well as the Town Council, adding that 31 objectors are all from persons living in the vicinity of the proposal site as opposed to the 28 supporters who are from the whole area of Whittlesey. He stated that there have been appeals for development on the site since 2007 and the size of the plot is not big enough. Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that the proposal for the site is out of character with the rest of the street scene and it would be a blot on the landscape, and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·       David Rowen responded to the point made by Councillor Mrs Mayor, and stated that if the legitimate person contacts the Council to state that they have not made any representation it would be removed from the record. He stated that if nothing is received from the person and it is just a claim from a third party that an individual does not reside at a stated address anymore then their letter cannot be removed as the Council needs to be seen as being fair to both sides.

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