Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Burton, the Agent.

Mr Burton explained that this application has been prepared following an appeal decision and is a joint application. He added that this approach has been adopted to overcome the primary reasons for refusal and ensure the proposal abuts the existing built form is no longer separated by the larger area of garden land and is a true village extension as required by LP3.

Mr Burton stated that the applicants are third generation farmers and have lived in Wisbech St Mary for 64 years having recently retired from the farming operations and are hoping to remain in the village in their retirement but to downsize from their current dwelling.

He stated that the proposed site is 2/3^rd of a mile closer to the village centre and a far safer location for walking to the village, which will allow the applicants to remain in the village that they have lived in all their lives, to continue to contribute to the community whether through church or street pride work and to continue as a hobby farmer on the 5 acre grass land to the rear.

Mr Burton stated that the scheme has no objections from technical consultees or local people and in fact has numerous letters of support including the Parish Council and local councillors.

He explained that the proposal is an Outline Application with access committed, the indicative site layout plan demonstrates that the proposal can deliver a high quality development that follows the existing built form and as noted in the appeal inspectors decision the proposal will accord with the development pattern on this side of Bevis Lane.

Mr Burton added that he has attempted to work proactively with officers throughout however; he has only became aware of a number of issues when the reports pack was published and therefore he has reviewed and responded to overcome the reasons listed for refusal.

He referred members to the slides being shown which show that the plans have been amended to include the following:

·         compliant vision splays added within highway boundary

·         tree stumps to be removed to the site frontage and a proposed replacement native hedgerow. It should be noted the stumps were removed to allow for hay harvest and comprised of self-set saplings and the proposed native hedgerow will have greater ecology benefits.

·         existing hedge and trees within the site being retained, respecting the natural boundaries

·         bat and bird boxes being proposed to enhance biodiversity

·         confirmation of the trees to be removed at the access of the Poplars as self-set sycamores and a lightning damaged tree

Mr Burton  expressed the opinion that the updates overcome the majority of the reasons listed for refusal  and added that with regards to sustainable access  it has been noted that the proposed site is within 0.4 miles of the village centre and its services, as such it is considered a sustainable location.

He added that this is a rural lane, is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists including himself and given the short distance to the existing footpath it is considered common place throughout Fenland and explained that, in addition, it should be noted that three dwellings were approved under delegated powers at the top of Bevis Lane without a footpath,

Mr Burton highlighted the relationship of the two sites shown in the slides with the application site in red and the approved site in green and explained that mobile homes have also been approved further towards North Brink, in Flood Zone 3 and with no footpath links.

He expressed the view that he considers this proposal does not result in any increased harm or safety concerns above these approved schemes, with vehicles not typically travelling at 60mph in this location due to its proximity to the junction and added that notwithstanding this if the committee is minded to approve and considers a footpath link required the applicant is prepared to accept a condition to provide a footpath.

Mr Burton expressed the opinion that he believes the scheme abuts the built form and is separated from the Poplars only by the drive and planting border and not by garden land that relates more to the open countryside.

He referred to the next slide which showed the former development boundary for Wisbech St Mary and explained that the land to the rear of the Poplars has been developed extending St Mary’s Close to the development area boundary which clearly shows the Poplars as within the built form with his proposed site abutting this boundary and, therefore, abutting the built form as required by policy.

On the next slide, Mr Burton pointed out that the scheme recently approved for 76 homes and added that he believes this site relates more to open countryside and abuts only garden land rather than built form and is also within Flood Zones 1, 2 & 3.

He expressed the opinion that he believes the scheme is consistent with recent approvals within the village and is also consistent with a number of recent approvals by this committee within Fenland to deliver high quality development.

Mr Burton highlighted on the presentation that the site is in Flood Zone 1, shown by the yellow marker with large parts of Wisbech St Mary being in a higher risk of flooding, and stated that hebelieves this proposal should be supported as being sequentially preferable with no barriers to development ensuring high quality sustainable homes in Fenland.

He expressed the view that the site will also allow the applicant who has lived in and massively contributed to the Parish to downsize and retire within his home village.

Mr Burton concluded by stating that he has responded and amended the scheme to overcome the previous appeal dismissal and issues identified in the officer’s report. The site is within Flood Zone 1, is sequentially preferable, abuts the built form and former development area boundary, has no objections, local parish and councillor support and will deliver high quality housing in this growth village while meeting LP3 & 12.

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

·         Councillor Meekins stated that on page 138, some of the properties listed on the plan, fall within his ward and the proposed site falls into another members ward; he does not feel that 2 extra properties in Bevis Lane will cause any detriment to the area and for that reason he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·        Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with Councillor Meekins, and he expressed the opinion that the proposal is adjacent to the built form. He added that the proposal is for two nice dwellings, although he does have concerns over connectivity but stated that a private pathway from the driveway of plot 2 across the front of plot 1 and adjoining the Paddocks driveway could resolve that issue and he will be voting to approve this application.

·        Nick Harding stated that there has been a very recent appeal decision and, therefore, if members are minded to approve the application, they need to give very clear reasons to identify why something has changed since the inspector last reviewed this.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that in the officer’s report it states that the appeal was dismissed for the following reason ‘‘finding harm to the character and appearance of the area by the felling of the trees along the site frontage, that the site failed to accord with Policy LP12 as it did not lie adjacent to the developed footprint of the village’’. Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the appearance of the area, can be altered, but not the fact that the site does not adhere to Policy LP12, so in his opinion that same reason would stand in another appeal. David Rowen stated that the current application does include the upper half of the site which was not part of the previous proposal. He added that some members have already disagreed with the officer's report which states that, The Poplars has a very substantial garden area to the side and it is not immediately adjoining the built form of the settlement as required for Policy LP12.

·         David Rowen added that LP12 also states that developments do not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and farmland, are of a scale and in a location that is in keeping with the core shape and form of the settlement, do not extend linear features of the settlement or result in ribbon development, whilst retaining natural boundaries such as trees and hedgerows and respecting ecological and biodiversity features of the land. He added that are still a number of character issues which count against the application as the Inspector identified as being unacceptable along with the lack of connectivity. He stated that members need to consider what has changed in the last 18 months, since the Inspector reached his conclusion.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he has concerns and if it was 1 house on the edge of a village, it may be acceptable, but this is for two dwellings and the fact that there is the possibility of progression does not sit comfortably with him.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that there may be further applications for additional dwellings to come in the future, but we are determining the application before us today.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Meekins and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officers’ recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the application is adjacent to the built form and complies with LP12A, under LP16 they believe that it improves the character of the local environment and does not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area, under LP15, the proposal is only indicative and the designed element will be dealt with at reserved matters stage and the habitat issue, can be conditioned.

David Rowen referred to one of the reasons that Councillor Sutton has cited with regard to the development needing to provide a well-designed, safe and convenient access for all, and added that is in relation to lack of pedestrian connectivity and needs to be resolved at this time and not at the reserved matters stage. Councillor Sutton stated that as long as there is a pathway from the eastern most driveway to The Paddocks then the connectivity is no worse for those residents than is currently the case.

It was decided that the conditions imposed on the planning permission be delegated to  officers and agreed in conjunction with the Chairman Councillor Benney and Councillor Meekins, but to include the provision of a pedestrian footpath from the properties.