Agenda item

To determine the application

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

David Rowen read out a written representation received from David Broker, the Agent for the application.

Mr Broker referred members to the executive summary within the officer’s report which states that this is an elsewhere location thus being void of all chance of development although there are 25 dwellings in the hamlet of Bunkers Hill.  He stated that with regard to the flood risk, only a very small part of the site is within Flood Zone3, adding that the recommended floor level is 300 mm above ground level and this is typical for all new build properties in Fenland.

Mr Broker stated that with regard to the absence of a sequential test, why would the owner of thisspecific site be looking for a site which he didn’t own elsewhere.  He highlighted aspects of previous applications which had been submitted including a previous application which was refused but under a former developmentplan.

Mr Broker stated that in previous applications the Planning Officer refers to Bunkers Hill comprising linear development, which is precisely what this is. “Linear Development. He explained that the geometry of the access in question can easily be conditioned for technical detailing as part of a Reserved Matters application stating that a revised plan was sent to County Highways in response to a former comment to which they have not responded, but they do not object in principal to theapplication.

Mr Broker explained to members that he has made reference to a recent application on the opposite side of the road which came before the Planning Committee in 2019 and was approved although the Planning Officer had put forward an almost identical case why it should be refused. He added that on that occasion it was recognised that there was the need for future sustainability of rural communities and the need for housing in rural areas.

Mr Broker concluded by stating that the applicant owns the land, he is a builder by trade and this is an opportunity to provide business and work for himself and local tradesmen and he asked members to please let common sense prevail.

Member asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarification with regard to the terminology of visibility splay as contained within the officer’s report. David Rowen stated that this means the distance initially set back from the road and by a certain distance down the road, to ensure cars have adequate visibility down the road in either direction.

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

·      Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he has concerns over the visibility splay. He stated that he is reluctant to support an application which could put motorists in danger exiting the property and, therefore, he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Hay stated that the visibility splay is drawn through the fence line to the host property and is incorrect and it would be remiss of members to pass this application. She will be agreeing with the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Benney asked whether the visibility splay could be something that could be conditioned if approval was granted. David Rowen stated that it is an outline application with access included and, therefore, members need to be satisfied that the access they are approving today is safe and adequate.

·      Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation as the access is not safe.

·      Councillor Lynn stated that approval cannot be given to an application where it causes a danger to motorists. He added that if the applicant came back after revisiting the visibility splay issue, then he would look at it with a different perspective.

·      Councillor Sutton stated that Councillor Lynn has indicated he would have a different view if the visibility issue was resolved and, therefore, questioned if members agree with the recommendation in totality. He stated that members need to be clear with their reasons for refusal in totality.

·      Nick Harding stated that if members are to make a proposal for refusal solely on the grounds of the highway issue, it is important to identify why this application is otherwise acceptable given the recommendation to members by officers.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Benney asked for clarification with regard to the proposal for refusal and asked whether the committee are refusing the application on the grounds of visibility and splay or on the four reasons for refusal as given by officers. Nick Harding clarified that members would be voting to refuse the application in its entirety.

This was not supported on a vote by members, which included the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Nick Harding stated that there needs to be a planning reason which explains why the other reasons for refusal should not be applied in this instance.

·      Councillor Benney stated that he does not think the proposal is in an elsewhere location. He added that although it falls in flood zone 1, 2 and 3, it doesn’t mean that flood zone three is going to be built on as it is an outline application.

·      Nick Harding stated that in Policy LP3, it specifically list the various settlements that are in different categories and Bunkers Hill is not listed on any of them and, therefore is an elsewhere location. He added that with regard to flood risk the Local Plan and the SPD is clear that a sequential test for alternative sites at lesser flood risk should take place. He added that Government policy states that wherever possible development should take place in locations where mitigation is not required with regard to flood risk.

·      Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion, why would the applicant carry out a sequential test on this location, when he already owns the land. Nick Harding stated that this a fair point but when you look at it more widely when you look at Government policy, everybody could circum navigate the sequential test by having a land interest in a parcel of land.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Lynn and agreed that the application be REFUSED on the grounds of visibility and safe access only.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission on the other three grounds as they feel that the site is not an elsewhere location, would make a positive contribution to the character of the area and flood risk can be mitigated against.