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 David Broker, the Agent.

Mr Broker explained that this scheme came before committee in May this year with support from the Parish Council and 6 letters of support from neighbouring residents with this support being reiterated in the officer’s report and update. He added that the Planning Committee had previously voted against the Officer’s recommendation and approved 3 houses on the opposite side of the road in the same location.

He made the point that in the in the previous application the committee had determined to go against Officer’s recommendation issuing a refusal for reasons only related to details for the access visibility splays with the committee had recognising the merit of the development and did not consider it as an elsewhere location.

Mr Broker stated that immediately after the meeting he contacted the Head of Planning, who agreed in writing that if a new application, including suitable splay details were submitted it ought to be decided under delegated powers, however 6 days ago, including a 3 day Bank Holiday and 3 days of the Fenland web site being off line, he was informed that the application is to be heard by committee today as it had been referred by the Head of Planning. He added that it is because of an appeal decision of refusal for another so called elsewhere site in Fenland.

Mr Broker stated that in this application he has submitted the appropriate information as required for visibility splays which has been approved and identifies that splays in excess of those required by the traffic survey can be achieved and that the access is acceptable all to County Council Highways requirements. He explained that the Parish Council  have requested speed reduction features and the applicant is fully prepared to provide these along with the footpath to the bus Shelter and path and crossing improvements in that area. Mr Broker added that a letter of objection highlight traffic concerns but all Highways responses discount those concerns.

Mr Broker asked members to compare the location of the application site with the appeal site in question at Crooked Bank Wisbech which bears no resemblance to the application site other than titled an elsewherelocation. He stated that it is accessed off an unmade track barely wide enough for a single vehicleto enter and exiting onto a blind bend in the road. no foot paths, no bus route, no services and this can be seen clearly on Google..

He made the point that through his 45 years of making planning applications officers always insist that each application is considered on its own merit, however, in this case, he does not understand the comparison between the 2 sites.

Mr Broker expressed the opinion that members have recognised the need to support its rural communities in this respect and in strict contradiction to 10 of the 14 points raised in the appeal and taking into account the committee’s previous support the application site is not considered to be an elsewhere location, has justification in sustaining rural settlements and is not isolated. He expressed the view the proposal is of benefit to the area and is on a service bus route to Wisbech, March and much further afield and has other transport links, such as school buses and the FACT bus facility.

Mr Broker stated that it was deemed sustainable by the committee in May and is within comfortable reach of the services in Wisbech St Mary being  as close to the school, shops and church as other houses in Sand Bank and Station Road and it is served by a trunk road.

He added that the committee report all lead to the conclusion that all matters have been satisfactorily addressed either by Officer acceptance or Planning Committee ruling. He stated that there is now with this application, one reason for refusal, which is on the same policy terms that applied in May as well as now.

Mr Broker asked members of the committee to consider those policies and make balanced decisions in support of the needs of the district, not necessarily national policy.

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

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he recalls this application when it came before the committee previously and added that at that time, he had no issue with the proposal apart from the visibility splay, however now the developer has addressed the issues raised at that time to appease the committee and has carried out in his view an excellent job. He added that he can understand why officers are identifying this as an elsewhere location, however in his opinion this is an excellent use of the land and this should be welcomed. The Council are keen to find parcels land for development and in this case the proposal should be welcomed making the point that the local community appear to be in support with the proposal.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the view that local developers should feel that they can trust the Council and he thanked Mr Broker for taking into consideration the previous views of the Planning Committee and addressing the aspects highlighted and stating that he would like to propose to go against the officers recommendation and approve the application

·         Councillor Benney  stated that when this application was presented to the committee before, the only reason it was refused was due to the highways concerns and at that time the committee gave an indication that should those issues be addressed then the application would be looked at favourably. He added that the developer has worked to find a solution to overcome the highways concerns and has also committed to helping to address the issues of speeding which appear to be the main concern in the letters of objection and the developer should be commended for this

·         Councillor Benney stated that letters of support have been received from residents in Bunkers Hill and those residents should be appeased that the developer has taken steps to deal with concerns. He added that in LP3 it states that we do not want ribbon development; however there are houses opposite the proposed site and the proposal is balancing the hamlet. He stated that as an authority we have to deliver 850 houses per year going forward and the villages and hamlets need to play their part as that amount of development cannot be accommodated in the towns. He added that the targets have been set by Central Government and he stated that when small developments come forward they are built, unlike the larger developments which are often delayed due to Broad Concept Plans and finding developers to build the sites out. There is the need for housing for future generations and he added that it is a good use of land.

·         Councillor Benney added that there are concerns about farmland being taken out of production by set aside country stewardship schemes. He stated that maize is being grown for the anaerobic digestion plants in the area and land is being taken out of food production. He stated that there is other development in Bunkers Hill that has been approved and he would like to support Councillor Lynns proposal.

·         David Rowen stated that with regard to the 850 dwellings that Councillor Benney has referred to, the figures have not been established as yet as being the set number of houses required. The Government are keen for new housing but there is also the need for it to be in sustainable locations with services and facilities, as has been seen with the appeal decision in Begdale, where the Inspector concluded that to have housing located in such a settlement would not be sustainable and would not meet the local polices of the Local Plan or the policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that this proposal is certainly in an elsewhere location and is not named in the Local Plan. He expressed the opinion that to compare that elsewhere location with the Begdale site is not a direct comparison, as there are more dwellings in Bunkers Hill, than in Begdale. He added that he does not feel it is the correct place to be building, although the transport links in Bunkers Hill are far better than in Begdale. He added that the Inspectors report at Begdale, needs to be taken into consideration when determining this application.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the Inspector’s report does not seem to be consistent in what they state.

Proposed by Councillor Lynn, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED, against the officer’s recommendation. It was agreed that the conditions imposed on the permission be delegated to officers.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the developer has addressed the highway concerns reason for refusal on the previous application and the proposal would be of benefit to the local area and consistent with the previous decision of the Committee.