Agenda item

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that since the last application was refused in October 2024, they have revised the proposal down to three dwellings on a different site area to ensure there is material planning change. He added that there are no technical objections to this application and Highways raise no objection.

Mr Hall stated that when this application was heard at the previous committee in 2024, it was brought up that a lesser amount of dwellings might be acceptable but the seven was too much so the application was refused. He stated that, at present, there are caravans on site, one has been on site for a number of years with the applicant’s family residing here paying Council Tax and there is an additional caravan on the site for the applicant’s mother who has moved there from Chatteris due to health reasons.

Mr Hall made the point that all of the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and on the previous applications there were letters of objection from members of the public but there are no objections on this application so whether lessening the dwellings has removed the objections he is not sure. He stated that there is a dog grooming and kennel business operating at the site, which would be removed if this application is approved and that has substantial vehicle movements each day and the idea of three additional dwellings on site would result in a lot less vehicle movements.

Mr Hall acknowledged that the site is the other side of the bypass but made the point that so is Eastwood End, which is just further north of this site and no development was allowed there until, he believes, 2019 and development has now been allowed here right up to the bypass, just like this site. He added that there is already a footpath link here directly back to the Church and that has been there for well over 15 years to his knowledge and he believes it was also improved when the warehouse for Knowles Transport was approved.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the Church, which is often the heart of the community, is within 90 metres of this site and feels that the site is part of Wimblington, just like Eastwood End, which is also on the opposite side of the bypass, with there being traffic lights in this area to cross the bypass.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon asked for clarification that the site will bring three additional dwellings to site and does this mean the kennels are not being completely closed down or moving away? Mr Hall responded that on site at present there is a bungalow, a dog grooming and kennels business all owned by the same person, with the bungalow at the front remaining and all the grooming and kennels would be removed for three additional dwellings making a total of 4 dwellings on site.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he passes the site daily and there is a mobile home that has suddenly appeared on site within the last 6-12 months and asked if this has permission? Mr Hall responded that there is a mobile home in the back right-hand corner that has been there about 10 years, with the applicant’s son living here and paying Council Tax, and there is another mobile home much closer to the bungalow which he believes is recent, which is for the applicant’s mother who has moved from Chatteris. He added that they have never applied for planning permission or seen an application for it and questioned whether it would be needed if it is within the residential curtilage and a family member.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that when the application was submitted previously for seven dwellings he supported it and he will be supporting this proposal today. He made the point that the committee made a steer on this previously and even Councillor Marks stated that 3 or 4 could possibly be supported and he feels the applicant has gone away and has taken on board what the committee said and to not support something when a steer has been given, he feels is morally wrong. Councillor Benney stated that looking at the application this is part of Eastwood End and houses have been approved along the bypass at the other end of Eastwood End, which has been supported by committee against officer’s recommendation, and directly opposite this site Knowles Transport warehouse was approved which is going to put far more traffic on this junction than three bungalows are going to. He made the point that the dog grooming business exists on site and, in his opinion, putting three dwellings on this site will make it a safer junction, it will reduce the amount of traffic not make it worse, make it safer and if a view is taken that the junction is dangerous that stops any development at Station Road end of Manea because that will put more traffic here, which is not going to happen as Manea is a growth village. Councillor Benney expressed the view that three bungalows will not add a significant amount of traffic but reduce it and comments are made about being consistent and committee has consistently approved applications against officer’s recommendations. He feels this application is better connected to Wimblington than Eastwood End, it has an existing crossing and the connectivity to the village is infinitely better than the other end of the village where Eastwood End is. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the reasons for refusal are LP3 and LP12, with LP3 being building in the open countryside, but, in his view, it is surrounded by buildings. He feels to be consistent that this application, in his view, should be supported as it is not in the open countryside, there is development all along the highway on the A141 and other applications have been approved along here, questioning what is so special about this one, there are no objections from Highways or the residents of Wimblington, which is unusual and, in his view, it is a good solid application.

·       Councillor Imafidon made the point that if an applicant has been steered towards making changes in the application and it is brought back to committee then members should not go back on its word, and it is only fair that the committee is consistent and the application be supported. He referred to the access to the site, if there is a dog kennel business there are not regular people using it, it is different people all the time who do not know the traffic of the area but if there are three bungalows they are going to be people who will be accustomed to the junction and be able to use it safely so, in his view, having three bungalows here is safer that the dog kennel business.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she did not agree with Councillor Benney in relation to the previous application as she thought seven dwellings were far too many, but members did give an indication. She stated that she does not like this application, especially with mobile homes appearing and, whether this application is approved or not, the additional mobile home that has appeared should be investigated. Councillor Mrs French expressed her concern as being the road, but Highways have not objected, it is a horrible corner and if planning permission is granted she would be interested to see how it would work, are the kennels all going to be removed and mobiles moved? She reiterated that she does not like the application, but she does agree with Councillor Benney.

·       Councillor Marks stated he does not like this application at all, every morning he sits at this junction and watches what happens, with the problem being at that junction is when people are turning in off the A141 and turning into site, and it will be the same whether people are living there or whether it is the current business, the A141 becomes backed up. He acknowledged that permissions have been given across the road for the lorry yard but made the point that the lorries are at least 150 to 200 metres further down the road and do not hold up the A141. Councillor Marks continued that morning after morning he sits here and people pull across the gates and that brings the traffic to a stop. He made the point that the Highways officer was at committee previously and he asked him about the survey and was told it was a desktop one and referred to a desktop survey undertaken in Chatteris where they wanted to bring traffic out into a 60mph road, so it is known that desktop surveys to a certain degree are questionable. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that the application where it is is in the middle of an industrial area next door there are fans operating on a potato store and across the road there is warehousing for Knowles. He expressed the view that this is not a good application for a number of reasons and believes that officers have the decision correct on this occasion.

·       Councillor Benney agreed that a Highways officer was present previously and during the debate he asked if there were accidents here and he was informed there were not. He feels the difference between the A142 at Chatteris is that comes out on a 50mph road and whilst this comes out on a 50mph road, it is on a junction with traffic lights so there is not traffic moving at 50mph here because they have already slowed down for the junction or the lights being on red and, in his view, this is not dangerous. Councillor Benney expressed the view that by passing this proposal the amount of traffic is reduced and, therefore, makes it safer. He feels that so much development has been approved at the other end in Eastwood End and some fantastic houses have been built here, questioning who is to say this is not the other end, it is not in the middle of Mile Fen but 90 metres from the Church, which is the heart of a community. Councillor Benney feels it is crying out for development, and it is going to improve road safety, he cannot see where the argument against this is solid and valid.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he has seen a number of accidents here and has also seen when the ambulance has to come through there with the traffic stacking up on that junction. He acknowledges what Councillor Benney is saying but uses this road every day and not all accidents, unless serious or resulting in a fatality, are recorded.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she used to be a County Councillor and used to get very frustrated when she wanted some information on RTCs, with the information that County holds being only on fatalities, not serious accidents, and that is why the Highways officer could not answer the question because there had not been any fatalities but there has been plenty of RTCs there.

·       Hayleigh Parker-Haines referred to much of the discussion being around the number of units proposed and consistency in decision making and drew members attention to the previous reason for refusal in 9.1 of the report so whilst the red line has been amended as part of this application the overall location of the site remains unchanged.

·       Councillor Benney stated that on the outskirts of Eastwood End there was an application next to Billy King’s land that was repeatedly refused and an appeal decision ruled that this was part of Wimblington and not part of the open countryside, which is partly why all this development in that area has come about.

·       David Rowen referred to the mention of Eastwood End but made the point that this application site is not at Eastwood End, it is 700 metres south of Eastwood End and any site specific issues or issues identified in the appeal on Eastwood End are not relevant to this site. He feels that the citing of examples of development that have taken place on Eastwood End are not relevant to this application which needs to be determined on its own merits.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the appeal decision that was made on Billy King’s land was that Eastwood End was part of Wimblington. David Rowen responded that this is not Eastwood End and any decision that were taken within what is identifiably Eastwood End are not of relevant to this particular site, advising members to exercise caution in using those as a sort of precedent for dealing with this application.

·       Councillor Mrs French thanked David for clarifying as that was her impression that this is not Eastwood End, which is further up the road. She stated that she is not going to support this application and for the committee for the future they must not give applicants an indication that if it is a lesser number that they will get planning permission. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the site lies on a nasty corner and she will not support it.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed, with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote, that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)