Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked whether Meadowgate Lane is still a no through road and Nick Thrower confirmed that it is. Councillor Meekins asked whether the proposed development on the disused College of West Anglia agricultural campus is still going ahead? Nick Thrower stated that he was unaware of any formal proposals on that site, however, this proposal is in the southwestern corner of the Broad Concept Plan, which is the strategic allocation for East Wisbech.

·         Councillor Murphy asked whether discussions have taken place yet regarding condition 12, which is the Refuse Collection Strategy or does it get agreed afterwards? He also questioned whether the planning permission would cease if the refuse strategy is not agreed? Nick Thrower stated that the strategy is yet to be discussed, but the internal road layout could be constructed in a manner that would accept the refuse collection vehicles and, therefore, specific refuse collection consideration could be accommodated within the road layout that is proposed. Councillor Murphy asked whether the planning permission will be granted without the condition? Nick Thrower stated that the condition proposed would require the refuse strategy to be agreed and implemented and he cannot see the development proceeding without a formal strategy in place.

·         Councillor Lynn asked whether the Highway Authority have agreed the layout leading to the site? Nick Thrower stated that their current view is to recommend refusal of the application.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the two-page report from the Highway Authority, which conflicts with the officer’s recommendation, and asked whether an officer from Highways was invited to attend the meeting? David Rowen stated that officers from the Highways Authority were not invited to attend the meeting as their comments are outlined within Appendix A of the report, which is a full summary of their position and an officer attending would not provide any further detail than that which has been provided to members in the committee report.

·         Councillor Cornwell questioned that if the application is approved and the work is carried out, but not to the requirements of the Highway Authority, could they then refuse to adopt the road? David Rowen stated that it is his understanding that if a scheme has obtained planning permission then the Highways Authority cannot automatically decline to adopt the road, because they did not agree with it at the planning stage. Nick Harding stated that officers have specifically checked with the Highway Authority, that if this application was approved, would they refuse to enter into a Section 278 agreement for the proposed road improvements to be made, even though they were not in agreement with them, and they stated that they would honour the fact that planning permission had been granted. Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, confirmed that when planning permission is granted the Highway Authority cannot refuse to cooperate with the Section 278 agreement.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that going forward when there is such a difference in opinion with the Planning Officer’s recommendation and the opinion of the Highway Authority, he would like to see an officer from the Highways Authority present at Planning Committee meetings.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the view that she agrees with a number of points that Councillor Sutton has made and added that it is a comprehensive highways report which recommends that the application is refused for highways safety reasons or for it to be deferred for amended plans and, in her opinion, she would like the application to be deferred so that amended plans can be provided, which are acceptable to the Highway Authority.

·         Councillor Hay stated that she has reservations regarding the highways issue referring to Appendix A where it states that there is land available as an alternative to the proposal, and she would have liked the Agent or the Highways Officer in attendance at the meeting to provide further detail, making the point that safety must come first.

·         Nick Thrower added that the Highways Officer did identify an opportunity to mitigate their concerns and this was shown in the second highways drawing where it showed the lengthening of the ditch on the right hand side of Meadowgate Lane and the widening of the carriageway of 5.5 metres with a 1.8 metre footpath to the eastern side of the site, however, Planning Officers concluded it would result in unacceptable harm to the character of the area.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that there appears to be reluctance from officers to lose the hedges in this proposal and taking into consideration the safety of walkers and cyclists using a highway, if this view cannot be balanced, then he does not see how the development is beneficial to the area. He stated that he does not feel he can support the application in its current format.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he welcomes the application and, in his view, officers have brought a scheme forward that finds a balance and they should be congratulated. He expressed the opinion that the road is a cul-de-sac that leads to nowhere, with a few houses and the road then leads to a field and that all over the country there are small estates, which have adopted or private roads which have a lower standard of access than those of a larger size. Councillor Benney added that there is a small distance from the adopted highway to the entrance of the site and the applicant has tried to reach a satisfactory compromise, which includes a footpath, and he stated that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that, although he agrees with some of the points raised by Councillor Benney, he cannot agree the balance between ecology, street scene and character against highway safety and he would suggest that the application is deferred as he believes that there is a better scheme to be put forward. He added that the ditch could be box culverted and that the trees and bushes in the ditch are to the detriment of the drainage system.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that the road runs alongside a school that educates the most vulnerable children in society and he is disappointed to see that there is no highway agreement in place as he would like to see the development go ahead, but he would like to see the proposal deferred to come back to the committee with a better road scheme in place for consideration.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the comments raised by Councillor Benney and added that he would also like to congratulate officers for bringing this report forward. He expressed the opinion that although the access road is narrow, with the necessary improvements that are proposed put in place, he would not be in support of a refusal or a deferment of the application on highway grounds. He expressed the opinion that with regard to the comments made concerning the East Wisbech Broad Concept Plan (BCP), it is his belief that the proposal will not affect the BCP at all and will bring a disused piece of land into use, providing much needed housing.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that Meadowgate Lane is a narrow lane and by increasing the vehicle movements into a narrow road is unacceptable. He stated he cannot support the current proposal as it stands.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he was willing to support the application, however, from comments that members have made so far it does not look as though it will be supported and if the application is going to be refused then officers should be given some guidance as to what improvements would make the proposal agreeable. He stated that the trees could be removed and be re-planted elsewhere as part of a tree planting scheme, which would please more people and ensure that the road is up to standard. He expressed the view that no trees should stand in the way of a house and there are waiting list for homes, due to a shortage of self-build plots in Fenland, which would also bring much needed employment to the area.

·         Councillor Hay stated that she would support a deferment of the application because as soon as she read the report she was concerned with regard to the issues surrounding safety and these cannot be set aside for the sake of the character of the area. She added people’s lives must come first, particularly when the Highways Officer states that it can easily be designed out and she expressed the view that she sees no reason to support the application as it stands.

·         Councillor Connor questioned that if the committee approve the application, could a caveat be added that the applicant has to meet the road safety standards so that the Highway Authority are content.

·         David Rowen stated that members have debated the highway issue to some depth, adding that officers do not go against the Highways Authority recommendation to refuse lightly and great consideration has been given to the application. He added that there are very few proposals that are brought before the committee which go against the highway’s recommendation for refusal, but this application is slightly more nuanced in terms of discussions with regard to what is the most appropriate type of road improvement. The Highway Authority is requesting an engineered 5.5 metre road and 2 metre footway compared to leaving the road in its current form, with officers trying to reach a satisfactory resolution, which meets the highway requirements to upgrade the road, and at the same time does not obliterate the character of the road either. It is important for members to note the wider context, particularly the nature of the Quaker Lane and Meadowgate Lane further to the north, which are not typically designed estate roads and they fluctuate in width currently and the pedestrian facilities on those roads also fluctuate as there are areas where there is no segregated footway, areas where there is footway on both sides and areas where there is footway on one side. David Rowen added that the Highway Authority’s view is for a high standard of road along Meadowgate Lane and Quaker Lane for the final 50 metres as you approach the site to serve the final ten dwellings and whilst he understands the concerns raised by some members over Meadowgate Academy, it is not a typical school in terms of pedestrian movements and the majority of pupils are brought to the school by car or minibus.  He made the point that officers have taken the nature of the pedestrian movements into consideration when determining the application, which is a lightly used stretch of road to the south of the school at the moment, but, in the opinion of officers, by adding an additional 10 dwellings would generate a significant increase in vehicle movements in conflict with significant pedestrian movements.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is surprised to hear the suggestion of the Chairman to pass the application. Councillor Connor stated that the ten houses could be approved, and it could be a condition that the access and highway is looked at later. Councillor Sutton stated that the access and the roadway are committed and if this application is passed that decision is final. Councillor Connor reiterated his point that the application could be passed with the condition that the road issue is looked at afterwards. Councillor Sutton stated that if that is the case, what is the difference between passing it with a condition or deferring it to ensure the roadway is agreeable to everybody. Councillor Connor stated that is for members to decide.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for advice from the Legal Officer with regards to the suggestion made by Councillor Connor. Stephen Turnbull addressed members and stated that the highways issue is a detailed matter and the application should either be refused or deferred.

·         Nick Harding asked officers to confirm whether a drawing was submitted from the applicant, which the Highways Officer is content with? Nick Thrower confirmed that a plan was produced by the agent following the initial highways comments, but the second highway layout plan that was presented to members was produced following the initial highways comments on the scheme. Nick Harding stated that if the applicant has already submitted a highway improvement drawing that the Highways Authority are happy with and Planning Officers are not it would have meant that there was the potential for members to approve the application and as part of the approval give consent to the drawing that has already been submitted, but officers will need to check whether that drawing has the full approval of the Highway Authority, however, it could be approved as an indicative Section 278 scheme, subject to a condition.

·         Stephen Turnbull stated he would prefer the application to be deferred, given the large amount of detail which needs to be looked at.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that her view would still be for deferment until there are some acceptable highways details which are agreeable to officers and the Highway Authority.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he would like to see the application go ahead and if officer’s can work to resolve certain issues, such as removal of some of the trees, add a decent roadway, that may encourage highways for further road improvements going forward and for that reason he would also support a deferment.

·         Nick Harding stated that there have been two highway improvement schemes submitted, with one of them satisfying the Planning Officer’s recommendation and the Highways Officer is content with the other version and the detail within it. He asked the Legal Officer to confirm whether it would be acceptable if the committee made a decision to approve the development, subject to confirmation that the Highway Authority approved scheme is agreeable to them, with officers having delegated authority to issue the planning permission.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he appreciates that officers are seeking to obtain a resolution and he has nothing against the scheme except for the safety issue, but as the specific detail has not been provided members cannot make a decision, adding that had a Highways Officer been present at the meeting the application could have been determined and for that reason he would like to see the item deferred. He added that if it comes down to highway safety versus character trees and bushes then, in his opinion, safety should always be paramount.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that one of the options that Nick Harding has proposed is that the application be approved with the condition that the highway drawing, which has been approved by Highways Officers be brought forward. He feels that the advice officers have provided is good advice and this is a compromise to ensure that the houses and self-build plots are provided. He stated that the matter of safety can be addressed, because if it becomes apparent that the drawing has not been approved, then the application will have to come back before the committee. Councillor Benney asked Nick Harding to clarify whether the option he has put before the committee is realistic? Nick Harding stated that the drawing allows for a highway improvement, which is more aligned to the standard approach of County Council than officers are comfortable with, but if the committee are minded to give delegated authority to officers then the drawing that has been submitted can be reviewed and put into a final version that the County Council is happy with.

·         Councillor Benney asked Nick Harding to confirm that if a compromise could not be reached with the highways how would the application move forward and Nick Harding confirmed that the application would be brought back to the committee. Councillor Benney stated if the committee agree that the other drawing is used and if that is then finalised and satisfies the Highway Authority, that would mean the Planning Committee would be content and that would mean that the application is passed and if agreement is not reached with the Highway Authority then the application would come back to committee.

·         Stephen Turnbull confirmed that he agrees with Nick Harding that if there is a drawing in existence that the Highways Authority are happy with then he can see no issue with the committee resolving to approve, as at that point there is no permission granted and if that drawing is approved by the Highway Authority then permission can be granted or if it needs alterations to it post scheme, those can be met. He added that if the applicant is unhappy and does not agree it can come back to committee or it can be refused.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he would still like to request a deferment to ensure the highways issue is resolved properly.

·         Councillor Lynn asked for clarity and confirmation from officers that they would be happy to take the application forward, based on the first drawing. David Rowen stated that the drawing now being discussed is one that officers did have issues with and he added that the implications with that, in his opinion, need to be reported more fully than have been presented to members.

·         Nick Harding stated that the view held by Councillor Sutton where he stated the importance of highway safety outweighs all other matters is the reason why he has put the suggestion forward to members. He added that David Rowen has correctly stated that if the committee want to have knowledge of all the implications of what the higher standard of highway improvement are, then it should be laid before committee before they make their final decision.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he would be content with the suggestion made by Nick Harding if he could see the physical drawing as he has no problems with the development itself, only with the issues surrounding highway safety. He added that the character of the area will change with ten houses being constructed and he would like to see that application passed, but not at the expense of highway safety.

·         Nick Harding stated that the high specification highway improvement drawing was shown as part of the officer’s presentation.

·         Councillor Benney asked for the drawing to be shown again and he stated that it did appear to show the ditch on the opposite side of the road being filled in to make the road wider.

·         Members Services presented the drawing on the screen. Nick Thrower highlighted to members the aspects of the drawing which would form part of the Section 278 application and pointed out the area where the works would be undertaken and the areas where the infilling of the existing ditch and removal of the bushes and trees would take place.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he would like to propose that the application is approved subject to the drawing being approved by the Highway Authority. He stated that there is no problem with the development, just the safety and access, and the application should be passed, with officers being given delegated authority.

·         Councillor Sutton asked if we are sure that the Highways Authority is 100% happy with the drawing. Councillor Connor asked officers to give assurances that the drawing satisfies highways. Nick Harding stated that a decision would not be issued if the Highway Authority are not happy with the drawing and it would, therefore, be brought back to the committee.

·         Councillor Hay stated that she would be happy with supporting the application if the proposal is quite clear that it was that agreed drawing that was being put forward.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that a condition should be added that it will be actioned in conjunction with the revision of 011P6.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and decided that, subject to the original drawing for highways works being agreed, that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.