Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon made the point that there is a zebra crossing which is not seen in the photographs, westbound on the A605, and asked why it had been omitted from the information supplied to the committee?  David Rowen stated that there was no intentional omission of that information and the photographs that were provided were a fair reflection of the site. He added that in relation to the proximity of the crossing, the Highways Authority, have been consulted and have raised no concerns.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the County Council response, which is in 5.2 of the officer’s report refers to the proposed development as being located on an urban street when in his opinion the proposal is actually on a principal route and certainly not an urban street. He expressed the opinion as to whether the Highways Authority has carried out a proper assessment on the application, as he feels it is a generalised response. David Rowen stated that the comments of the Highway Authority are set out in the report and the professional recommendation of that body is that there is no reason to refuse the application on highways safety grounds.

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

·         Councillor Miscandlon concurred with Councillor Cornwell and stated that the Highways Authority has submitted a standard report adding that the report states that there will be no problems, however, in the close proximity there is a busy car wash and a car sales garage. He expressed the view that although the dwellings are welcomed, there will be additional vehicles and the proposed new junction could be facilitated by moving the zebra crossing with a traffic light control to incorporate this entrance, which will enhance the safety of people exiting the site and from the garage.

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarification with regard to refuse collection and stated that at 5.3 in the officer’s report, it makes reference to a private road having to be constructed to a suitable standard to accommodate a 26 tonne vehicle, and questioned what is deemed as suitable. David Rowen stated that a suitable road would need to be constructed to accommodate physically a vehicle of that size. A condition is included with regard to the agreement of a refuse collection strategy to be in place prior to the first occupation and as part of that if it is the intention of the applicant to build a road, which would be to an adoptable standard, which would allow the Council’s refuse vehicles to collect. If it is not the intention of the applicant to construct a road, then alternative collection arrangements would need to be put in place as part of that condition.

·         Councillor Marks asked the local members whether they have any knowledge of any road traffic accidents having taken place at the location? Councillor Miscandlon stated there have been collisions there, both from the nursery and also the garage, albeit not very many.

·         Councillor Meekins questioned whether the site will remain derelict if the application is refused today? David Rowen stated that if members refuse the application, the site will remain in its current state.

·         Nick Harding stated that the report to members makes it clear from the highway comments, that the A605 is a busy principal route and they have also looked at the accident history of the area, including the 2 existing accesses in relation to the site and the host existing property.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that in principal Whittlesey Town Council, do not object to this type of development on piecemeal sites and added that it is the safety aspect of the vehicles entering and exiting the site  in relation to the garage and car sales site.

·         Councillor Hay added that the report from Highways clearly states that the development will result in the existing sub-standard site access being stopped up and replaced with a bell mouth access with acceptable visibility, which offers some improvement of the existing situation.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view, that while he appreciates the concerns raised by Councillor Miscandlon over the increase in vehicular movements, he will be supporting the application.

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

(Councillor Miscandlon registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is the Chairman of the Planning Committee at Whittlesey Town Council and he has taken part in the discussion and voting on this item, but he reserves the right to change his mind should evidence and information be brought forward to alter his decision.