Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that all of this site is in Flood Zone 1, just like the land that was given approval three months ago directly to the west of the application site and it does abut residential development to the north and is situated, in his opinion, within the development footprint of Wimblington which is a growth village under LP3 allowing for a small village extension and the application is for up to seven dwellings. He expressed the opinion that the site is within the development footprint of Wimblington and he referred to the map on the presentation screen which shows that it is immediately adjacent to an approval that was given 3 months ago to the west.

Mr Hall stated that he has discussed the Highways comments with the applicant himself and if the application is approved, there will be the need to be some highway improvements, with the site directly to the west having to also do some highway improvements which include a layby shown in the highway verge on this side of Bridge Lane which can be achieved and the applicant knows if this goes forward and if it is approved at the technical matters application stage, the highway improvements would need to be shown. He referred to the adjacent site to the west that was approved three months ago by members, with that site also being in-depth development and there was no reason for refusal on that one for it being located back from the public highway, but on this site, there is, and the application is not going as deep in-depth development as that site there.

Mr Hall explained that, if approved, the application would also eventually lead to the shed on site being demolished. He referred to the presentation screen, and pointed out that in this area of Wimblington, there has been numerous approvals in the last six years and a lot of those are being built out and some of them have been built out to the north and directly to the west.

Mr Hall made the point that those applications are off Bridge Lane, Eaton Estate, March Road, with the character and the area having changed and is changing. He stated that all of the site is in Flood Zone 1 on the Environment Agency's map and it is within the built-up form of Wimblington, with there being numerous other approvals in very close proximity and a lot of those have started.

Mr Hall made the point that the applicant is fully aware about the highway improvements having spoken to the applicant about that and, in his opinion, he does not believe that the site could be classed as overdevelopment either as the proposal is for up to seven dwellings which all have at least a third garden area. He added that he knows it is indicative, but it shows members what might come forward if it were to be approved, with the technical matters application leading to the shed being demolished and the highway improvements to Bridge Lane, which will benefit everybody who is going to use Bridge Lane.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is pleased to hear that if the application is approved then the shed will be demolished as that has caused issues over many months. Mr Hall stated that he agrees with that point.

·       Councillor Marks stated that, with regards to the shed and access, he is aware that a large steam engine was being kept in the shed which was moved by transporter on numerous occasions and, therefore, it must be possible to get a lorry up and down the road, and, therefore, the road is not that narrow. He added that there are passing places as well and with the removal of the shed he questioned whether that would mean that the steam engine may actually go elsewhere which would stop HGV access? Mr Hall confirmed that is correct, explaining that the site that has been approved recently to the west has had to undertake highway improvements to the site on the other side to the north owned by MJS and the HGV movements would also stop as the steam engine will be moved elsewhere.

·       Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that on the opposite side of the road there was Clark's haulage company with a number of lorries as well. Mr Hall confirmed that this is the site that is owned by MJS, which has permission for 16, which was a haulage yard quite a few years ago.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he has reviewed the reasons for refusal and does not consider 7 dwellings to be large-scale in-depth development. He made the point that when the bypass went around Wimblington all of the land will eventually come in for building at some point. Councillor Benney stated that the committee approved 81 houses at the top on the Belway site and there have been other applications approved a few months ago along with an application on the site adjoining this that has been approved. He stated that this parcel of land will come forward for development at some point and the committee have an application in front of them which needs to be determined. Councillor Benney referred to the second reason for refusal and stated that reason has already been broken due to the application next door to the current site already being approved as it has changed the character of the landscape and every house that the committee passes has changed that. He expressed the view that Wimblington has changed in this whole area, and he does not see that this application will do any more harm as it is just for seven houses. Councillor Benney stated that Bridge Lane is narrow, but the committee have been advised that there will be highway improvements as the applicant is quite happy to pay for them, and if he does not bring those forward then it will not get built out either. He stated that he has reviewed the three reasons for refusal and, in his opinion, they do not add up and as a local councillor he is pleased to see that the shed will no longer be an issue and by it no longer being there it must improve the quality of life for the people who live in the area. Councillor Benney added that nobody wants anything built and always wants a field behind their home but that is not achievable, expressing the view this is a much better scheme and a better solution for some of the problems that have been on the site since day one. He expressed the view that by getting rid of the shed he hopes that it will improve the quality of life for neighbours, and he hopes that this application will go some way to pleasing the residents that live around there. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the application should be approved especially as there was an application approved on the adjacent site last year. He added that he does not believe it is large scale development, it is for seven houses and if it was for 20 then he would consider it as large scale.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he wholeheartedly agrees with everything that Councillor Benney has stated as this site has been a nightmare ever since he became a member of the committee with there always being issues with the shed so by removing the shed the neighbouring properties will be happier. He stated that when he saw the initial photograph and went on site it almost becomes a gated community which may be a benefit as it is developed. Councillor Marks made the point that for seven houses there is likely to be seven to fourteen vehicles per day up and down the road but there are highway improvements that are likely to be undertaken. He stated that the committee approved the houses next door and that part of Wimblington is changing quite drastically and he will be happy to support the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has noted that one of the concerns of the Parish Council is drainage and flooding, but this issue has been discussed at length at previous meetings concerning other applications and, in her view, if this is approved the three developers should get together and actually improve the drainage system down there.

·       Councillor Connor stated that it just seems a natural progression to him and to remove the shed it will make neighbouring properties far easier down there and will be a community benefit so he will be supporting this scheme.

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

Members do not support the recommendation of refusal as they do not consider the application to be in-depth large-scale development, other applications have been approved adjacent to the site and there are proposed highway improvements which will assist with traffic flow in Bridge Lane.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally. He further declared that he did meet with the applicant when he was a Portfolio Holder for the port but has not had any further dealings. He stated that he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Connor declared that he knows the applicant as he owns a scrap metal recycling yard and he used to own one but has since retired but he has never had any business dealings with him or socialised with the applicant. He further declared that he did meet with the applicant along with Councillor Marks on another matter that was not connected to planning. He stated that he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared that he met with the applicant once along with the Chairman but the meeting was not in relation to planning or planning issues and he does not know the applicant socially)