To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand made the point that he was not the agent for the previous two refused applications or for the pre-application enquiry, with the pre-application enquiry being for seven dwellings would have made use of the whole paddock extending beyond the rear boundary of Thistledown, creating a finger of development into the open countryside. He stated that this proposal only seeks to extend to the Thistledown rear boundary and to develop the former vegetable garden and a small section of the paddock enclosed within this area.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that there are two main issues which need to be determined which are whether the application complies with policies LP3 and LP12 and whether or not the proposal will harm the Conservation Area. He expressed the view that the application complies with Policy LP3 as Doddington is a growth village, which is the highest village category with elsewhere the lowest, and growth villages allow development within the existing urban area or as a small village extension and the scale of three proposed dwellings is in accordance with this policy.

Mr Brand stated that Part A of LP12 for rural areas lists requirements to comply with the policy and stated that the first is that the site is in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint disagreeing with the officer’s assessment where it states, at 10.3, that the site borders Thistledown to the south and New Street to the east. He made the point that the site is in the heart of a village location and meets the three further qualifications mentioned in the report as the site is not on the edge of the settlement or detached from the continuous built-up area.

Mr Brand referred to 10.5 of the report where it describes the site as being in an elsewhere location, but disputes that point as LP3 states that elsewhere applies only to developments outside the four listed village categories which are above elsewhere. He referred to paragraph 4.74 of the Local Plan which clarifies elsewhere locations and the types of development permitted and stated that the proposals’ location is fully compliant with Policies LP3 and LP12 as Doddington is a growth village, and the Local Plan has no fixed development area boundaries which is detailed in paragraph 4.73. 

Mr Brand made reference to the 2011 Doddington Conservation Area Appraisal at paragraph 8.75 which refers to 25–53 New Street as a group of essentially unified detached and semi-detached dwellings which hold significant visual prominence warranting their Conservation Area inclusion. He stated that at paragraph 8.79 it specifically mentions number 35 due to the open entrance giving a view through to the paddock at the rear. 

Mr Brand referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the only alteration to the new street scene is the widening of the access by removal of the gate piers and sections of the post war railings, with the photograph from the 1930’s showing the original front boundary treatment being a wooden fence. He pointed out that number 35 was built in the 1880’s for their general building business with workshops, cart shed and stables which extended to the paddock and was detailed in the 1927 ordnance survey map and a timber seasoning storage rack was also on the opposite site of the courtyard.

Mr Brand explained that the next slide shows the current important open space which is mentioned in the officer’s report at 8.79 and across the former builder’s yard to the paddock which offers no privacy to the rear of the now solely residential dwelling. He stated that following the Conservation Officer’s initial comments, the site layout has been reviewed and the position of the semi-detached house was adjusted so that the view through to the grass paddock and the countryside beyond was retained.

Mr Brand made the point that the proposal provides a private amenity area immediately to the rear of number 5 which can be deepened, and the proposed house designs are more sympathetic to the Conservation Area than the previously two refused applications.

Members asked Mr Brand the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton asked Mr Brand to provide further detail with regard to the comparison in the view drawing that had been provided. Mr Brand stated that at the moment the building with a storage rack on the southern boundary means the current view is from the street across the private courtyard and into the paddock. He added that there is no view into the open countryside and farmland beyond whereas the proposal includes the positioning of the semi-detached house closer to the detached house and removal of the seasoned storage rack creates a view to the rear boundary of the paddock and beyond which will also include privacy to number 35. Mr Brand stated that it is not up to the standard, but it can be deepened.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that the proposal, in his opinion, is back land development.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees that it is back land development but questioned whether the proposal is any further back than the properties in Thistledown. He questioned if Thistledown was ok, why is the proposal not?

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

(Councillor Connor declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he represents Doddington and Wimblington as a Fenland District Councillor and attends their meetings but takes no part in planning matters)