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 Gareth Edwards, the agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the applicants are long established residents of Eastwood End and that the site is a vacant piece of land positioned on the corner of Eastwood End.  He added that the site has had many uses over the years, including accommodation of mobile homes and a workshop, some of which still exist adding that unless developed the site will remain unused. He made the point that there is built up residential development on either side of the highway.

Mr Edwards stated that planning permission was refused on the site in 2017 and as a result was subsequently appealed. He added that the Inspector’s key findings were that the principle of the dwelling was acceptable given that the site is not remote from the services or facilities in Wimblington and future residents would support these services.

Mr Edwards stated that the appeal for a dwelling was refused for reasons of the scale, bulk, height and siting on the front part of the site would compromise the sense of space and openness. This was exacerbated by the prominent position within the site where it would be visible from vantage points along Eastwood End.

Mr Edwards stated that the dwelling has been positioned further back within the site to allow for views to the open countryside from the critical vantage point to the west on Eastwood End and it should be noted that that the site is not visible from the east (Hook Road). A single-storey garage element is positioned to the north of the site, which will allow for views to the countryside beyond and the site is lower than the highway which means that the dwelling will appear less visually intrusive.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is located within flood zones 1, 2 and 3 with the dwelling positioned in flood zone 1, which emphasises the acceptability of the site. He expressed the view that officers have objected to the proposal on the grounds of the site being located outside of an established settlement which goes against what the Planning Inspector had said when he said that the site had access to services and facilities and did not object to the principle of development.

Mr Edwards added that appeals in other parts of the District have been used to object to the proposal in principle, however, in his opinion, this doesn’t make sense when there is an appeal relating to this specific site which says that it is within a settlement. He concluded by stating that there have been letters from local residents in support of the application.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·      Councillor Marks asked for clarification with regard to the height of the property once the ground is levelled? David Rowen confirmed that the property would sit slightly higher than that of the existing property if built as shown by the visualisations submitted as part of the application.

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

·      Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion that he is in favour of development in Fenland. He expressed the view that he is not in favour of building attractive dwellings which impose on neighbouring dwellings and he will be voting to support the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Hay expressed the opinion that she considers this proposal as backland development of number 32. She added that she does not feel that the property should be built adjacent to a public right of way. Councillor Hay stated that she is giving great consideration to the views of Wimblington Parish Council, who quite clearly object to the proposal, as they consider it to be in the open countryside. She stated that she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Meekins stated it does appear that the applicant has taken the comments previously made by the committee and also the Planning Inspector into consideration. He added that the footprint is still the same size and there is just a reduction in the number of bedrooms. The proposal appears to be situated on a hazardous bend in the road and unfortunately, although some notice has been taken into consideration by reducing the height, he will be agreeing with the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Sutton stated that on several occasions over the last year, he has asked for a more balanced report with regard to Inspector’s decisions. He expressed the opinion that the case officer has given a fair balance in this case and congratulated the officer for the quality of the report. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the applicant and agent have taken notice of the some of the issues raised previously with regard to massing and the photo montage reflects no overlooking.

·      Councillor Sutton stated that once the proposed footpath is constructed, it makes the hamlet of Eastwood End more accessible for the pedestrians. He added that he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Hay stated that Councillor Meekins had stated that the footprint had not altered, however in 10.17 it shows that the footprint has increased albeit not very much, but it has increased.

·      Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that he wants to propose that the application be approved due to the footpath linking the hamlet to the village making it sustainable which it was not before.

·      David Rowen stated that the footpath at the other end of Eastwood End has not been provided yet and therefore it is not guaranteed that it will be delivered.

·      Nick Harding drew members attention to the Inspector’s report and added that that the Inspector makes the comment that the design is not in any way suitable or mitigating to his concern over principle of the impact of the development of the land and therefore if members are minded to grant the application they need to identify why the principle of development in terms of the loss of this site is now acceptable.

·      Councillor Sutton stated that whilst he appreciates the comments that Nick Harding has put forward, in his opinion, he feels that the proposal will improve the area and the proposed footpath link will almost certainly be put in place.

·      Nick Harding stated that he appreciates Councillor Sutton’s comments with regard to Inspector’s decisions however there are 4 appeal decisions which all raise concerns over principle of development.

Councillor Sutton proposed that the application be approved against the officer’s recommendation however no seconder was forthcoming.

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

(Councillor Mrs Mayor took no part in the vote or the discussion thereon for this application as she lost internet connection during the debate)