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 Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is for a single dwelling which abuts the developed footprint as per the policy LP12(a) of the Local Plan, where it states that any extensions to a village should abut the built form. He explained that Wisbech St Mary is a growth village and has all the facilities that would be expected in such a village.

Mr Humphrey added that over the years there has been three approvals for 36 caravans beyond the application site out of the village which demonstrates that it is acceptable in the area for development. He made the point that whilst the site is located in Flood Zone 3, it is identical to the adjacent recently approved dwelling currently under construction and the sequential test shows that there are no plots available.

Mr Humphrey added that three plots were identified, and he has spoken to all three owners and none of them are available. He explained that his client, Mr Curtis Woods, is currently living in a caravan in the village whilst waiting to find himself a self-build plot and he lives with his partner and daughter who is registered at the local school.

Mr Humphrey added that the applicant works for his family’s engineering business TAM Engineering who are based on Leverington Common, and they have their site located approximately one mile from the application site. He stated that TAM Engineering are often on call 24 hours a day sometimes to the Council, North Level Internal Drainage Board, Barhale and McCain and, therefore, the closer the applicant can live to his place of work will enhance his quality of live, with there being no house or room to build one on his work site.

Mr Humphrey stated that he would like to remind members of the committee that housing has been approved on four different roads into the village, Station Road, High Road adjacent to the Vicarage, Bevis Lane and Sandbank have all seen growth along the existing built form and, in his view, Sandbank would be no different. He stated that Mr Woods is desperate to do a self-build home for himself and his family and the application site would deliver a self-build custom-built plot, and it should be supported as per policy LP5(C).

Mr Humphrey made the point that there have been 12 letters of support and none against with no objections from the North Level IDB, Highways, Environmental Health, Environment Agency and the Parish Council fully support the application. He asked the committee to support the applicant in his venture to build a self-build house for his family so that he can move closer to his business.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked whether the applicant owns TAM Engineering? Mr Humphrey stated that the application is for Mr Curtis Woods, who is Mr Woods son, and they run the business together. He added that it would be conducive for a family home to be on the site. Councillor Imafidon stated that he knows that the business is well used, and he just wanted clarification whether the applicant was the business owner.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she knows the area quite well and she made the point that if the self-build is designed to the specification then it will improve the street scene.

·         David Rowen stated that there was an appeal decision on the site in the last few years which concluded that whilst the site is adjoining the built form of the built settlement as per LP12, there are other parts of LP12 that also still require the development to not detrimentally impact the character of the area. He added that the Council has taken the view that the development of this site would do that previously and that has been verified by a Planning Inspector. David Rowen added that if members were minded to grant the application then there would be the need to provide an explanation as to what has changed since the Inspector reached their conclusions.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.