Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Walford stated that this proposal is a PIP application for 4 dwellings, with the site within the village and entirely within Flood Zone 1. He advised that the site benefits from an existing footpath that runs the full length of the site frontage giving pedestrian access to the entire length of the village.

Mr Walford made the point that the Local Plan defines Murrow as a small village where development will be considered on its own merits and normally limited to residential infilling but, in his view, the term normally implies there is some flexibility in that policy and brings with it the scope for logical development such as this proposal. He acknowledged the site is not infill but feels it can be considered a logical extension of the existing built form within the village.

Mr Walford expressed the view that the site is one of two remaining parcels of land within the flood zone within the village settlement that could accommodate frontage development, with this one being on the main road through Murrow, Front Road, and the second parcel of land being on the smaller Back Road and as such he feels that this is one of the most logical sites for small scale development. He referred to committee meetings talking about the need to grow villages through sustainable and logical extensions to contribute towards the local housing need and sustain local amenities, with a prime example being Murrow’s pub, The Bell, which has recently been renovated and up and running under new management and there is also Pollington’s newsagents and general store, with Peter Humphrey Associates obtaining planning permission for this store in 2011 and had been running for 14 years but has recently had to close due to a downturn in its use and running at a loss for the last two years so more development in the village will help sustain what facilities are left.

Mr Walford referred to the emerging Local Plan, which whilst does hold limited weight, has this site  allocated within it with the knowledge of the two appeals. He stated that on the first appeal if the logic of employment growth and the use of a car within a village are used then there would not be any development supported in any village as most people are working in the towns and cities and not the villages and focusing on car dominance is out of date and with the regard to the second appeal it is acknowledged that this is not an isolated location, it is part of the built form but is not infill but his understanding is that it is normally limited to infill.

Members asked questions of Mr Walford as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she knows Murrow very well as she used to live there and Pollington’s closed as it used to shut at 4pm every day so was not open when people were coming home from work. She stated that she does not think this is infill because there is a large section of land here and it does not abut at the other end to a linear development or anything. Mr Walford responded that the point he was making is it is a shame that the shop had to closed and sustainable areas could hopefully sustain something like this, with more people in the village meaning that more people would use it, although the opening hours is not something that can be controlled. He reiterated that as seen on the plan this is the last site that is in the Flood Zone 1 area and is clearly an extension of the built form, they are not saying it is infill but it is a logical extension.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he visited the site the other day and agrees with the agent that it is a logical extension of the village. He referred to the same situation in High Road, Gorefield a few years ago, with houses with one side of the road, fields on the other and that was approved so the committee has approved similar applications in other areas. Councillor Benney agreed that villages need extra homes as if villages do not grow they die and the issue of needing a car equates to anyone who lives in Fenland. He feels it is good use of land, the change from 3 to 4 is a material change and he can see nothing wrong with this proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French disagreed and feels that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would always support infill but could not say it is infill for this proposal, it is interesting to hear the two opposing views as he was not in favour of the application but is now 50/50.

·         Councillor Gerstner agreed with Councillor Benney on the need for villages to grow slightly and this is a small scale development, the people that move here will know what facilities are in the village and what infrastructure is in and around the village so he feels it would be a positive sign for Murrow.

·         Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that it is a continuation of linear development of the village and that houses are needed to make the village sustainable. He referred to the comments of the Parish Council who are in support of the application and does not see a problem with the proposal as there are houses the other side of the road, it is a nice continuation of the village and there is no flood risk.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she moved to Murrow in 2014, living here for 4 years and still visits the village regularly and in that period of time Murrow has grown, there have been several new houses but the shop has still closed and whilst the pub has recently reopened it was closed for a time so she does not support the argument that new houses and new builds sustain local shops based on her experience.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is an advocate of seeing villages grow and feels this is a typical example of where there is no growth the pub will shut and it reminds him of Turves, which has no facilities at all. He stated that he is in favour of this development as villages need to be made more sustainable and not everybody wants to live in towns.

·         Councillor Marks acknowledged the comments of Councillor Sennitt Clough, but the pub has recently been renovated and this must have been undertaken on facts and figures that are there now as money is not spent unless it is believed there is a viable business. He feels it is about land usage with this proposal, it looks to him that the land has not been used for a number of years, has it been left fallow due to the application and wanting to build on it or is there just going to be a piece of land that sits there so does it make better sense for land use to place some houses on it or just leave it as it is and he is torn between the two.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that people keep saying we do not want these houses, but you do not see houses built standing empty for long and anyone who comes here will know what they are buying. He feels there is a need and these type of dwellings are built generally by small builders which brings local employment to local people and villages do need to grow.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that the site lies in Flood Zone 1, which he feels is a prime consideration.

·         David Rowen reminded committee that under the Town and Country Planning Act there is a requirement for applications to be determined in accordance with the adopted Local Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and there has been two previous refusals by the Council under this Local Plan on this site both of which have been dismissed at appeal.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a vote.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal as they are aware of the previous refusals under the Local Plan 2014 but feel this plan is out of date and has not yet delivered the housing that it should have done.