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 Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler referred to the slide on the presentation screen which shows on the top picture an image of the proposed street scene and the bottom picture is taken directly opposite the entrance to the proposed site. He expressed the view that the artist impression matches the street scene provided within the application, with the image at the bottom taken opposite showing that the proposal is not at odds with the street scene which is the first reason for refusal.

Mr Gowler referred to the second slide which shows the same dwellings opposite and their relationship in an aerial view, with the bungalow on the left with three cars parking at an angle has what appears to be a very large single-storey extension to the rear very close to boundary and it extends some distance past the wall of the bungalow and although this has a flat roof the wall height would be the same as this proposal using the chalet bungalow style they have. He made the point that there are two chalet bungalows in the picture with very large side dormer windows overlooking and, in his opinion, this proposed chalet has been carefully designed so that these are not required.

Mr Gowler referred to this third slide which indicates houses opposite slightly further along the road approximately 50 metres along Wimblington Road, which shows how extremely close and large some properties are along this stretch of road and whilst it is appreciated that there are no windows affected this does show, in his view, the street scene along this part of the road. He expressed the view that on the final slide the side plan on the left is shown at roof level and the right-hand side is shown at ground floor, which he feels show the better separation between the two proposed dwellings.

Mr Gowler stated that the officer’s report refers to 1.7 metres separation, however, in his view, the dimensions shown on the right-hand side show there is actually much more when you do not take into account the roof overhangs. He expressed the opinion that the dwelling has been purposedly designed to be a chalet bungalow style to avoid any large expanse of brickwork next to both neighbours, the left-hand side being owned by the applicant and the bungalow to the south has no windows in the elevation facing the proposed site and there will be no loss of light to the garden due to the orientation of north-south.

Mr Gowler stated that although the proposed dwelling extends beyond the existing bungalow on the right it is on the northern side and, in his opinion, the sun will not shade this property. He stated that the existing applicant’s chalet bungalow on the left hand side does have windows in this elevation, however the proposal has been stepped to allow more light into the rear window and this bungalow has a very large rear window and front windows to the room that are affected and as the applicant currently lives in this bungalow these windows could if needed or wanted to be blocked up without any permission, however, it is felt that the separation of the galley design of the roof will not affect these windows.

Mr Gowler concluded that the site is at low risk of flooding, has sufficient parking and turning so cars can exit in forward gear, it has a very large garden store at the back, there are no objections to the application and he feels the proposed design does satisfy the policies noted for refusal. He hoped the committee would look favourably on the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Gowler as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Gowler helpfully showing some images of the surrounding area and whilst he would have thought that everybody would agree they are not ideal he would suggest that two wrongs do not make a right and this is a reason to support this application and asked Mr Gowler if he agreed. Mr Gowler responded that it may be so and the example given was to show that the first reason for refusal is that the proposal does not fit in with the street scene but, in his view, it does even though that might not be ideal the opposite side of the road is a mirror image.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Gowler if he would accept that where you tend to get older properties that they were traditionally built much closer together but this does not mean that it has to be replicated under modern conditions. He stated that he asks because he lives in a house that is 33 centimetres from his neighbour, a position which was made worse by a planning decision last year. Mr Gowler responded that this is a leading question, obviously as an agent he watches these applications goes through not just the committee but what gets approved online, agents look at the characteristics of an area when giving advice to clients and the example of the first slide is that it does match the opposite side of the road but whether that is two wrongs does not make a right that is not his decision and in his view it does fit in with the street scene.

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

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he alluded to the problems with this proposal in his question, two wrongs do not make a right, and he could go around the whole District questioning how developments happened. He does not feel that the proposal fits in with that side of the road where it is a nice spacious plot and removes a garage so he will be supporting officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the proposal is too crammed in and is trying to get a “quart into a pint pot”. He feels it is a thin plot that is going to back up onto a large development of 1200 houses and, in his view, does not fit in.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of the other councillors, she made the point that this is the 21^st Century and people need some space.

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

(Councillor Benney had left the meeting prior to determination of this application and the remaining agenda items)