Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr John Cutteridge, the applicant.

Mr Cutteridge stated that he is proposing to build 2 average size family properties, however, the Council have said that these are not appropriate without a footpath being installed.  He stated that the land opposite has had 10 homes recently built and added that the Parish Council have given full support to the proposal with there also being 100 letters of support from the village.

Mr Cutteridge stated that Hospital Road gets at least 40 dog walkers, runners and pedestrians per day and he expressed the opinion that this may be due to his business planting over 10,000 trees in their Woodland and many metres of hedging, making it a more desirable area.  He added that there has not been any accident involving pedestrians along this stretch of public highway without a footpath and, therefore, cannot see why one is needed now questioning whether the Council are suggesting that the road is unsafe for all these regular  users?

Mr Cutteridge stated that the Council have also suggested the properties will spoil the landscape, but he expressed the view that he cannot see how this can be as they will be situated behind a large native hedge and between an existing bungalow and the large new hospital building. He stated that he is not looking to develop this area to fund hispersonal lifestyle, but to financially help develop his family run business and in turn create new jobs in Fenland along with helping the local economy.

Members asked the applicant the following questions:

·      Councillor Marks asked for clarification on where the 10 dwellings that Mr Cutteridge had referred to were and asked whether it was those dwellings on the Benwick Road? Mr Cutteridge confirmed that they have been built on the land opposite the access to the proposed site.

·      Councillor Meekins asked for clarity with regard to the nursery business. Mr Cutteridge confirmed that he already has an existing nursery business and he would like to sell the land for the building plots to give a financial increase to the business in order for it to be developed further.

·      Councillor Marks asked for confirmation as to whether Mr Cutteridge intends to live in either of the proposed two dwellings? Mr Cutteridge confirmed that is not the intention.

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

·      Councillor Hay stated that Hospital Road it is a very narrow road and has very few passing places and added that she is concerned about the increase of another two dwellings. She also noted that on the edge of the site there are also electricity cables which she also has concerns over.

·      Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he has mixed feelings over the proposal. He stated that with regard to the 74 letters of support submitted by the Agent, 10 of them had no comment, 29 referred to either affordable housing, first time buyers or lower cost housing and three mentioned a bungalow, making the point that clearly some people are of the opinion that they may be affordable or starter homes, which clearly they are not.

·      Councillor Sutton stated he has concerns with regard to accessibility and sustainability, the proposed site is about 9 minutes’ walk from the centre of the village. With regard to the footpath, it is quite a short distance from the proposed site to the sheltered housing accommodation and there is a gate there but it does lead to an accessible footpath.

·      Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the opinion that the entrance to the centre of the village has changed over time. She stated that she agrees with Councillor Sutton on some of the points that he has raised.  Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that in Fenland there are a number of developments approaching villages, and transport can be an issue, but if highways have no objections to the proposal then she is minded to go against the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Meekins stated that on the map within the agenda pack, there are no houses opposite the proposal site and it is open land. He referred to the lack of footpath and expressed the opinion that he doesn’t think it is a good idea to build further dwellings. Councillor Meekins stated that the application appears to be the same application that was submitted nine months ago and he referred to the officer’s summary highlighting the reasons for refusal and he expressed the opinion that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

·      Councillor Benney expressed the view that each application is looked at on its own merits. He added that if we want to encourage business and people to move to Fenland, then it is important to have attractive dwellings. He stated that in his opinion that there is the need for individuality and added that if people have surplus funds, they look to reinvest it and along with planning reasons to consider there are also moral reasons to take into account. He added for those reasons, he will fully support the application.

·      Councillor Murphy stated that the proposal site is quite a distance down the road and it does mean pedestrians have to step on the verge out of the path of traffic. He added that members cannot be sure what the applicant will do with the proceeds from the sale of the land and he expressed the view that to approve this application would be against many planning reasons.

·      Nick Harding stated that whilst the speaker has advised members that the profits from this development will go into his business, the grant of planning permission will not contractually oblige him to do that and there is no guarantee that this will happen.

·      Councillor Sutton highlighted to members, the map on page 33 of the officer’s report, where he pointed out an access footpath for walkers. He stated that the only issue of accessibility for walkers would be a distance of 150 metres.

·      Councillor Lynn stated that if the applicant is unable to raise the funds, then he would not be able to invest the money back into the community. However it would be important to give the applicant the opportunity to do so.

·      Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that regard to the investment of money back into the business, currently all businesses are struggling and members must remember the land has to be sold first.

·      David Rowen stated the footpath that Councillor Sutton had highlighted earlier to members is actually an emergency access to the hospital site. He drew members attention to point 5.3 on page 26 of the officers report, where the Highway Authority have stated that Hospital Road is devoid of footways, street lighting and passing bays and the Council should take into consideration the impact of incremental development and the inadequate highway infrastructure to support further development along Hospital Road.

·      Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that members are here to determine whether the land is suitable or not suitable for development and the focus needs to be on planning issues.

Proposed by Councillor Hay, seconded by Councillor Meekins that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.This was not supported on a vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Lynn that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; the agricultural grounds on the adjacent property were lifted prior to the application, the proposal is within the extremities of the village, there is other development in the area, and it is not felt this proposal is in the open countryside.

Members agreed to delegate authority to officers to formulate conditions in consultation with the Chairman, Councillor Benney and Councillor Marks