Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 stated that the application before members is for a bungalow, and there has been a number of new dwellings developed in the area He added that the proposal has been revised since it was before committee the last time to address the various points that were raised with the main revision being to address the points raised by Councillor Lynn of a 2 storey dwelling being imposing on neighbouring properties and the proposal is now for a single storey dwelling.

Mr Edwards added that the proposed dwelling is In line with the existing nissen hut, which proves a built form is in existence and removes the open nature and it is not open countryside. He stated that the proposed dwelling is level with the rear of the nissen hut and does not increase built form from what already exists. Mr Edwards explained that the proposal has a public footpath following a previous approval, which will link the dwelling to the settlement of Wimblington, so therefore, it is now a sustainable location. He added that this area of Wimblington has a mixture of 2 storey developments and also a mixture of styles and types of accommodation and the proposal mirrors this and will utilise an area neglected, which already has a built form on it.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal comes with letters of support from villagers both within the village as a whole and from Eastwood End and the points they raise are all relevant to this application. He stated that there have been no letters of objection received. Mr Edwards added that Wimblington is a growth village under LP3, and is therefore, capable of developments of this nature. He added that additional reports and information have been provided to address the issues surrounding flood risk and the sight line is through to the open countryside which has been maintained, and there will be minimal to no impact to neighbouring properties and the area in general.

Mr Edwards added that on the previous appeal on the site, the Inspector’s key finding was that the principle of the dwelling was acceptable, given that the site was not remote from the services or facilities of Wimblington and future residents would support those services. He added that with the footpath link previously mentioned it will provide access to the village. Mr Edwards concluded that this will provide an additional much needed home, which is far better than a person living in temporary accommodation.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Edwards to confirm why he had failed to mention the objection from the Parish Council? Mr Edwards stated that the Parish Council has been consistent in their view throughout the application process as they deem it to be in open countryside, which is contrary to his view.

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarification with regard to the access which is over a byway?. Mr Edwards stated that Cambridgeshire County Council have stated that this would be conditioned and he is agreeable with this.

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

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the land falls away and is over a byway. He stated that it has already been refused 5 times, been sent to appeal and has been dismissed 4 times and he cannot understand why it keeps coming back to committee. He agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Murphy and the comments he has made. He added that it is not a suitable location for a dwelling.

·         Councillor Connor stated that this application continues to come back to committee and he agrees with Councillors Benney and Murphy.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he appreciates the efforts the agent has made with regard to his proposal, however he will be refusing this application.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view, that the last submission of this application was better than the one before members today. He expressed the opinion that this cannot be deemed as open countryside and compared it to the application that members had approved in Bunkers Hill. He stated that he will support it again. He also expressed concerns regarding the consistency of the Committee’s decision making.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he agrees with Councillor Sutton. He added that members had expressed the view earlier in the meeting that more accommodation is needed and there is a single dwelling proposal before the committee, where the agent has tried to find a suitable application. He stated that this is part of the Eastwood End street scene and in his view it is deliverable and he will go against the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.