Agenda item

To Determine the application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

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

·         Councillor Sutton expressed concern over the quality of the Fenland District Council application.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he agrees with some of Councillor Suttons comments and added that there is the opportunity for more than 3 dwellings on the site.

Councillor Sutton proposed that the application be deferred for further professional advice to be given to the application. There was no seconder to the proposal.

Nick Harding commented that members need to separate their role as a planning committee member from their concerns as to how the Council is operating as a business. He added that the application is for up to three dwellings and the decision has to be made as to whether three dwellings on that site could be reasonably accommodated.

The issue of whether the Council is or is not getting best value as a landowner is not a matter for the Committee.

He stated there are no particular sensitivities in terms of the site so there is no need to insist on a full application or indicative layout and given the scale of the site officers are comfortable that up to 3 dwellings can be accommodated.

Nick Harding highlighted to members on the screen a piece of land which needs to be left for access for vehicles and the narrowness of the remaining land here, rendering it incapable of development. He pointed out to members the larger area of land and stated that the space needs to be able to fit the proposed dwellings and garden spaces and whilst there may be the space for 4 properties, officers are comfortable that three dwellings can be accommodated and do not see the reason why the application should be refused.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that there is the need for an indicative plan, so the proposal of how the dwellings will fit can be seen.

Nick Harding commented that if there is the view from the committee that the 3 properties could not be accommodated then the application could be deferred giving the applicant the opportunity to submit an indicative layout to show the layout could be achieved and would not be detrimental to the amenity of the adjacent properties.

·         Councillor Hay expressed the view that the committee need to be mindful that had the application been submitted by a developer and not by Fenland District Council, would members be considering going against the officer’s recommendation. She added that if members look at the plans, the area that the two latest bungalows encompass, equates to about two thirds of the area of the land where the proposal is planned for. She added that in her opinion to consider three properties on that site is only correct and he added that it would not be correct to encourage more building on the site, which would affect the amenity space for the residents.

The Chairman reminded members that there is a current proposal from Councillor Sutton to DEFER the application. Councillor Lynn seconded the proposal.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he has listened to Councillor Hay and added that he is totally against over development, but in his opinion this application is under developed.

Nick Harding asked members to clarify the reasons for deferment as it was not clear if members had a concern over the site being able to accommodate 3 units and others that the site was undeveloped. If it was the latter then the application should be proposed for refusal.

The Chairman asked Councillor Sutton to reiterate and clarify his proposal.

Councillor Sutton proposed that the application be deferred to receive an indicative layout, so it is clear where the three properties will be built.

·         Councillor Lynn asked if the application is deferred to allow an indicative plan to be submitted and if it is then evident that the site is underdeveloped, can the application then be determined.

Nick Harding stated that there needs to be a reason why the application is being deferred, so the applicant is aware that the committee are not satisfied that three dwellings can be accommodated on the site without impacting on the amenity of the existing properties, so that the applicant can design an indicative layout. With regard to underdevelopment, there were no policies in the plan that required minimum densities.

·         Councillor Hay commented that planning committee members are in place to determine planning applications and in her opinion if this was any other applicant rather than Fenland District Council, it would be approved. In her opinion there are other applications which have been approved where the proposal could be deemed as under developed.

Councillor Lynn withdrew his agreement to second the proposal.

Proposed by Councillor Meekins, seconded by Councillor Hay and decided that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared an interest by virtue of the fact that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council and had been involved in the decision making in relation to this proposal and left the meeting for the entirety of this item.)

(Councillors Mrs Jan French, Councillors Murphy and Benney declared an interest by virtue of the fact that they are members of Cabinet and have been involved in the decision making in relation to this proposal and left the meeting for the entirety of this item.)