Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there are no technical objections from any of the consultees, Highways, Environment Agency, March Town Council, Environmental Health or the Wildlife Officer. He stated that one of the key points is the access and the Highways Authority have not objected and down this section of West End there is already street lighting, and the proposal allows for onsite parking for both the existing and proposed dwelling.

Mr Hall explained that where any dwelling would all be in Flood Zone 1 and the Environment Agency have not objected. He stated that it does not detail in the officer’s report that he has spoken to the officer and advised even though the proposal shown is indicative and a 2-storey small family house, it could be reduced to one and half storey if this would help which is what the property to the west is and the property to the east is 2 storey.

Mr Hall pointed out that within the officer’s reportunder 10.12 and 10.13 it advises there would be limited impacts of overshadowing and overlooking from this indicative proposal and to assist the applicant is happy to have a condition imposed regarding the submission of a construction phase plan to be agreed with officers. He reiterated that there are no technical objections to this application and the site is within the built-up form of March, in Flood Zone 1, and there is no objection from Highways.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that officers have expressed the view that the proposal is squashed in, however, that could be said for every house in West End as they are all the same and he cannot see any problem with the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the area exceptionally well and there are so many different designs of dwellings in West End some of which date back to the 1600’s. She added that there is a mixture of large and small dwellings, and she does not see any reason to refuse the proposal. Councillor Mrs French made the point that she agrees that the proposal should be a one and a half storey dwelling and not two storey. She stated that it is a beautiful walk, and it is amazing to see some of the houses, which the residents who live there call the ‘Gem of March’.

·       Councillor Sutton disagreed, making the point that it is a single track and barely a cycleway and to consider more traffic down there, in his opinion, is ridiculous. He stated that whilst there may be a mixture of different styles and sizes of dwellings down there, it is not a reason to make it even worse. Councillor Sutton stated that he could not consider supporting the proposal and the officers have made the correct recommendation.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that it is certainly bijoux and the frontage of West End is actually quite a bit narrower than the Riverside frontage. He made the point that when he visited the site, he never realised that the plot had such a sharp angle across it, believing it to be far wider, but it is not, and it is actually quite narrow. Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that West End is not a suitable highway, and he was very surprised to see that cars can actually get that far down there. He made the point that if the proposal is done right then it will be ok but, in his view, the attraction will actually be the river and not that of West End. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view it is very crammed in, and it is a very strange part of the town as it is narrow and very constricted and if the proposal is done right, it will look good but if not built sympathetically it will look awful. He stated that if the proposal is approved it needs to have some fairly strong conditions attached to the permission including during the construction phase as he has no idea how some of the building materials are going to be able to reach the site. Councillor Cornwell added that if there is somebody who feels that they can make the dwelling look nice and it fits in then he will support it but otherwise if it is just going to be a modern thrown up building, he would not support it as it would detract from the whole area.

·       Nick Harding stated that the proposal is an outline application and if the committee decide to approve the application then it will just be standard conditions concerning materials and other basic elements that can be added. He explained that conditions could not be added to influence the design and appearance of the scheme except for maybe mentioning something in the informative to say that the committee felt that a one and a half storey dwelling would be appropriate but he stated that he would advise against that as potentially a two-storey well designed property may work which is dependent on what the designer comes forward with.

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

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they do not feel that the proposal will be harmful, and it will actually enhance the area .

(Councillors Benney and Murphy 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)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Skoulding and Purser declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning matters)