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 Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent and Mr Missin, the applicant. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the application is asking for permission for one dwelling set on approved residential garden land acting as an infill between the dwellings of The Chestnuts to the south and Churchill Lodge to the north. He expressed the view that the officer’s report and their design access statement notes the 2017 outline permission for The Chestnuts under the current Local Plan where the site received permission for the construction of The Chestnuts and the reason for allowing the property of The Chestnuts is because Fenland at the time did not have sufficient land supply, however, the site still needed to be assessed on its economic, social and environmental benefits.

Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the view that when judged on this criteria, the land which included the site before committee today was deemed sustainable for development and whilst it is understood that Fenland currently do have a land supply and this application is different, he feels it is important to make the committee aware of the 2017 assessment as it relates to this application. He stated that, for economic benefits, the 2017 report said that the site would deliver limited growth through the employment of local trades during construction and provide economic contributions for the future, with residents using local amenities.

Mr Lunn-Towler referred to social benefits, despite the site’s rural location causing a slight hindrance, the site will provide a house to contribute towards the housing need and assist in meeting the needs of existing and future generations. He referred to environmental benefits, the site will be an infill near residential dwellings and whilst a rural location means future occupants would be reliant on the car, it will have no more of an environmental impact than the existing dwellings there and the climate change impact is minimal.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the 2017 report concludes with stating that the economic and social benefits outweigh the environmental in favour of the dwelling being approved and, in his view, there has been no material change of policy since that report and, therefore, no change in the opinion of the site’s sustainability. He expressed the opinion that the one dwelling being asked for today as an infill between existing dwellings is sustainable and would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to this area.

Mr Lunn-Towler made the point that the application is supported unanimously by the Parish Council, and they summarise the application positively as an infill development on a site capable of providing a comfortable family dwelling. He added that the application has no technical objections for drainage, highways, environmental health and the site lies within Flood Zone 1.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the dwelling will allow the applicant to construct a new home and focus on their current needs as The Chestnuts is becoming too big for them to maintain and Mr and Mrs Missen will soon need better ground floor layout to suit her health condition and requirements. He stated that a draft legal agreement has been submitted and they are happy to finalise this agreement.

Mr Lunn-Towler reiterated that the application has support from consultees to deliver a new family home, which benefits from the lowest flood risk zone and can be considered sustainable infill to provide wider benefits which outweigh the limited harm. He asked committee to approve the application.

Members asked questions as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that they did have planning permission for development in 2019 and asked why this was not built? Mr Missen responded that they could not afford to build it. Mr Lunn-Towler added that The Chestnuts has been built, and they never proposed to build on this site because at the time it was not necessary or justifiable. He continued that it is being asked for now as The Chestnuts is finished and the applicant has the finance to pursue it, with Mr and Mrs Missen needing some new accommodation at some point in the future.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked what is the actual site going to be used for if planning was approved today and it was built, who is going to live there? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that it is tailored for the applicant and his wife. Mr Missen added that he will live in the dwelling once it is built and one of his family will move into his current property, The Chestnuts, as there is a medical problem where future care will be required.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked if there is a historical link to the area and how long have they lived there? Mr Missen responded that his wife was born in Newton and she has lived here for all her life until they moved to Leverington when they got married before moving back to Newton, which is probably around 50-55 years.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney referred to reason 3 for refusal, which states in the absence of a completed legal agreement or other enforceable mechanism to secure the delivery and occupation and asked why the legal agreement has not been drawn together, is it something that can be undertaken fairly easily or is it something that has not been addressed properly? David Rowen responded that as the agent alluded to a unilateral undertaking has been submitted as part of the application but because of the other 2 reasons for refusal, it is accepted good practice that if you are looking to refuse an application you have this reason for refusal. He acknowledged that it sounds contradictory to the advice given earlier about reasons for refusal, but putting in an additional reason for refusal relating to the unilateral undertaking allows an Inspector to deal with that matter should an appeal come forward so it is purely there should the application be refused it is a hook for the Inspector to use to consider that matter at any future appeal.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he visited the site and, in his view, this is infill. He added that there are industrial units to the left of it all the way down the road, there are houses at the top of the road, there is a house either side and it even has a letter box. Councillor Benney continued that the site is clear, ready for development and he fully sympathises with the applicant if he has run out of money and he could not build it at the time but for the reasons it was granted before, this is a building plot and it is suitable for having a house built on it. He expressed the opinion that this development is not going to interfere with anyone else, he is the neighbour on one side and there are no objections from the neighbour on the other side and there have been other development in Newton further into the village and if villages do not grow they die, with the applicant being local so feels he should be supported.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated the reason he asked the applicant if he was connected to the area was to establish whether he will stay local in the village or not and villages need to stay alive and do not need people moving out of them so for that reason he will support this application.

·       David Rowen stated that the circumstances of the applicant, whether the applicant is local to the village is completely immaterial to the determination of the application. He made the point that this is an application for a new build dwelling with no further supporting information in terms of personal circumstances and what members are looking at is a house for somebody in this location acceptable rather than the circumstances of any individual.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he does understand that but questioned that this application was previously approved and the only reason it was not built, according to the applicant, was due to financial reasons. David Rowen responded that the dwelling to the south was granted planning permission in 2017 and has been built out but the point that the applicant was making was that they had not done anything with this site because they have not had the circumstances to do it. He added that in terms of whether it is the same applicant as the one to the south or it is a different applicant, the issue that members need to look at is whether a house in this location is acceptable or not.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the site is an infill plot.

·       Councillor Benney referred to LP3, with the whole of Newton being in LP3 as it is in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by fields and whilst it is not immediately next to the main part of the village it is spread out, with the village running out in different directions and he does not consider this is LP3 and is part of the settlement that exists. He referred to LP16 in that it is damaging or it has to provide a positive contribution to the character of the area, with the other two houses built either side of this site adding a positive contribution to the area, with this being a scruffy site that needs tidying up and when this is built he feels it will add a positive contribution to the area. Councillor Benney stated he will be supporting the application and feels that committee should be doing what it can for local people and in terms of land usage he views these two reasons, and the third one being there for the Inspector if it goes to appeal, as being able to be overcome.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to LP3, small villages, and in these settlements, development will be considered on its merit but will normally be of limited nature and normally of a limited scale to residential infill or small business and, in her view, this is definitely infill.

·       The Legal Officer reminded members that if they wish to approve this application then they need to ensure it is subject to a Section 106 legal agreement referred to in refusal 3 and conditions.

·       David Rowen stated that if members wish to grant the application, it is within members’ gift and if they wish to view it as an infill plot that is members judgement, however, he is not sure looking at the aerial photo that it could be deemed that this is within the settlement of Newton and, therefore, is an infill plot for the purposes of LP3, with that interpretation being an incorrect one of the policy. He urged members to think of whether that is accurate or not in terms of putting forward reasons for granting the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has listened to what David has said and still feels it is infill and asked what the full address of the properties either side of the site were, is it classed in Newton or elsewhere? David Rowen responded the policies of the Local Plan are not predicated on whether postal address is within the village or whether people that live in the vicinity feel that they are residents of that settlement or not. He continued that there is a definition within LP12 within the footnote which defines what the continuous built form of a settlement is, and it excludes groups of buildings which are clearly divorced from the main part of the settlement as there is here. David Rowen stated that if members deem that there is no adverse impact and that it is an appropriate location then that is for members to decide, but to say that it is part of the continuous built form of the settlement of Newton he is not sure how accurate that is.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has read LP3 again and is looking at LP12, with this being the problem with the Local Plan of 2014, it is so out of date and there is one policy LP3 contradicting LP12 and others. In her view, this is an infill and it accords with LP3.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate the unilateral agreement and apply appropriate conditions in consultation with Councillors Benney and Mrs French.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that Policy LP3 is open to interpretation and they do consider the site lies within the settlement and it does comply with LP16 as it would provide a positive contribution to the area.