Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there are no technical objections to this application and within the officer’s report there are concerns regarding the neighbouring windows overlooking this proposal but expressed the view that those two windows, which are first floor and he believes bedrooms, overlook the garden area of this site at the present time. He expressed the view that with this proposal one of the windows will directly look at the bungalow and by splitting the garden and building this bungalow, in his opinion, it will offer more privacy to the garden of No.75, which is spilt to the rear and front of the property.

Mr Hall stated that in 2017 an application by a different agent was refused, which did have an objection from the neighbour but this revised application by themselves does not have any objections at all. He expressed the view that previously on this site there have been approvals for a dwelling, with an application being rightly refused previously for two-storey and the last application was refused in 2017 which was for a bungalow built on the boundary and also had roof lights, which attracted the neighbouring objection and this proposal has removed the roof lights and showed the bungalow to be set in the site about 1 metre from the boundary.

Mr Hall stated that, since the previous refusal for this site, on the opposite side of this road directly opposite this site planning approval has been given for 8 two-storey houses in July 2020 by the committee. He added the existing property No.75 still retains its parking and still has over half its site area as garden and this proposal is for a 1-bedroom starter home on a site in Flood Zone 1, a third garden area, no overlooking from the proposal, adequate parking, no technical objections and no neighbouring objections.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.2 and the comments of the Definitive Map Team and asked for further explanation and is the proposal going through a public right of way? Mr Hall responded that the actual access to this site runs at the back of property at the moment and from the deeds that he has seen the applicant does have a right of way onto that public byway, which is used by numerous other properties. Councillor Mrs French requested clarification that it is not going to be blocked off? Mr Hall responded that it was not.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked what the amenity areas for the two properties would be and do they fall within the normal regulations? Mr Hall responded that if this is approved and built the existing property No.75 still has over half its site area as garden, which is split at the back and a substantial area at the front, and this proposal has a third garden area and there has been no concerns raised by officers in relation to the garden area.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she does have concerns about this proposal as looking at Whittlesey Town Council comments it recommends refusal due to over intensification and it could be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of any occupants. She further expressed concern about public rights of way being blocked off because over years they just seem to disappear.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him and also worked with him on the Growing Fenland project at Chatteris, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)