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 Alan Melton of Manea Parish Council.

Mr Melton highlighted to members 5.4 of the officer’s report which refers to the submission from the Cambridgeshire County Council Rights of Way Officer, and he expressed the opinion that it is a very ambiguous statement  that has been made, as it states that the Definitive Map Team have no objection, but in the recommendation, it forms a reason for refusal.  In his view, the Highways Officer and Definitive Rights of Way Officer have not visited the site and have only come to their conclusions by reviewing Google Maps.

Mr Melton referred members to LP15 of the Fenland Local Plan which states that development should be well designed, safe and have convenient access for all and made the point that the Planning Officer has already mentioned that the original suggestion was for two dwellings, but the applicant sought advice from officer’s and reduced the proposal to one property. He stated that the main concern of the Parish Council is concerning the segregated pedestrian pathway, but he has visited the site and has driven down the roadway and, in his opinion, there is adequate room for a vehicle and pedestrians and that while it is a public right of way, which is not owned by the County Council, it is very unlikely that there will ever be a constant flow of traffic or pedestrians.

Mr Melton stated that a couple of years ago the Council approved an application, which was 100 yards away from the proposal before them today and this dwelling was between the two bends without adequate width or access and it was granted against the Parish Council’s recommendation. He referred to the officer’s report which refers to a single dwelling in a growth village with every planning permission granted helping towards the Council’s housing targets and, in the opinion of the Parish Council, the refusal is not justified and the Highway Authority do not direct planning refusals, they only advise.

Members asked Mr Melton the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Melton for clarification regarding ownership of the public right of way? Mr Melton stated that nobody appears to know who owns it, but the County Council have advised that they do not own it and Manea Parish Council do not own it, but with the help of the applicant and the Parish Council’s own team and by paying the County Council a sum of money each year, they do maintain it for the public to use. Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a new Public Rights of Way Officer at the County Council, and the intention is for all Public Rights of Way to be upgraded across Fenland. She added that if the application was approved what effect would it have on the Public Right of Way? Mr Melton stated there is an access off the road which leads to a field with horses and to three buildings and to the rear of the new estate, which some of the properties have access off. He added that there has never been an issue in Manea with the roadway and there has never been an accident. and if the need arose for pedestrians to step out of the way, due to an oversized vehicle they can step onto the verge, which is not an uncommon factor in rural areas.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Melton if he was able to confirm the Parish Council’s views on all the other developments that have taken place in this area as it appears it is the last remaining plot in the vicinity. Mr Melton stated that as far as he is aware the Parish Council have had no objection to any development in this area.

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked Mr Melton why the developer has not looked to work with the Council to overcome the highway issues that have plagued the site for many years? Mr Melton stated that through the appeal process for previous applications the Highway Authority have not been prepared to engage. He added that in his position as the Parish Clerk he has been attempting to work with the Highway Authority on road safety issues for the past two years, but he does not think the Highway Authority have made any attempt to visit the site, either on foot or in a vehicle and have only referred to Google Maps.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Charlie Marks.

Councillor Marks stated he is the Ward Councillor for Manea and this site has had numerous applications refused in the past and he expressed the view that this proposal should be granted as it mirrors the need of the village of Manea, with little or no adverse impact. He added that the applicant is known to him in a business capacity and is also known to him regarding an issue with a public right of way which borders his land and over the years, due to poor maintenance by Cambridgeshire County Council, villagers had been using his land instead of the designated footpath, however, this issue has now been dealt with by the repair of the footbridge and reinstatement of the path. He stated that he knows the land that the application refers to, as his daughter kept her horse on it for 18 months.

Councillor Marks referred to the reasons for refusal in the past and the reasons contained within the officers report which appear to be in the main, a highways issue regarding no segregation for pedestrians walking down the lane where vehicle movements also take place, but he has walked down the lane on numerous times and cannot remember any occasion where he has met any other pedestrians. He expressed the opinion that most pedestrians use the footpath less than 75 metres further on towards the S bends which takes them straight onto the open field behind Westfield Road and the lane is used by people visiting a hair salon at the end of it and to access the small number of dwellings that are situated down there.

Councillor Marks referred to the concerns regarding accessing Westfield Road from the lane, but he has used the lane in many different types of vehicle without any issue regarding vision. He made the point that the road to the right is a straight road and in a 30mph area and drivers heading into the village are already reducing their speed for the right hand bend and drivers travelling from the High Street are driving under 30mph having just come out of the S bend. He added that a previous application was granted planning permission 2 years ago which was located on the S bend which the Parish Council did not support but was approved.

Councillor Marks concluded by stating that the application has negated the concerns made by the Highway Authority by placing passing places on the lane and for all off site vehicles to have parking provision during the building works. He expressed the opinion that it is a good application and referred to a previous point made by Councillor Sutton in that the Committee should always look favourably to an application if it is supported by a Ward Councillor as they have the local knowledge of their area.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall stated that members will note that there is one reason for refusal of this application, which is regarding access concerns, but the existing access already serves several dwellings and a further dwelling which is partly constructed. He explained that where the access joins Westfield Road, it is a 30mph road and the visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres can be achieved at the junction, with the proposal being to widen the top of the access with Westfield Road and provide a permanent tarmacked surface 10 metres by 5 metres.

Mr Hall stated that in 2014, the Highway Authority commented on a single plot which is 25 metres north of the proposal and said ideally that the track should be a minimum width of 5 metres by 10 metres distance from Westfield Road and have the visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres and both of these recommendations on that application form part of the proposal in the current application with the Highway Authority having confirmed that there is no 5-year accident data available for the junction. He stated that if planning permission is granted then temporary facilities can be placed on the application site, clear of the access as there is adequate room for storage of materials and that there is adequate room on the frontage of the site to include a passing bay which can be agreed with officers and if required can be brought forward.

Mr Hall highlighted to the committee on the presentation screen, a map of the Old Dairy Yard and pointed out a plot which is 25 metres from the proposal site, which received planning permission in 2014 for a single dwelling and at that time it was recommended for refusal by the Officer and by the Highways Authority, but was approved by the Planning Committee. He added that the Appeal Inspector has stated that the proposal will not harm the character of the area and there are not concerns with regard to overlooking, over shadowing with the site being large enough to accommodate a single storey dwelling in Flood Zone 1.

Mr Hall added that following discussions with the Highway Authority, it is his understanding that they would not be able to propose a favourable recommendation due to the fact that the owner of the Old Dairy Yard is unknown and on various deeds of the Old Dairy Yard there is always an indemnity taken out to ensure that all persons accessing off the Old Dairy Yard will keep the access. He stated that the Public Rights of Way Officer have not raised any objection and are not against any improvements.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that in previous applications the County Council had asked for road improvements along the Old Dairy Yard but the costs of that would be prohibitive to the development. He asked Mr Hall to clarify the comment he made with regard to the widening of the first ten metres of the Old Dairy Yard so that there is room for two cars to pass and then the inclusion of the passing space to be introduced if permission was granted. Mr Hall stated that at the top of the access of Westfield Road it will be improved to be 5 metres by 10 metres this is achievable as the land at the top of the road is owned by the applicant and with regard to the passing bay, the site frontage is about 35 metres in width and the applicant is happy for this to be included and can easily be accommodated and officers have agreed its location.

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked whether the first ten metres which are going to be improved are as a result of the Highways recommendation in 2014? Mr Hall stated that is correct. Councillor Miscandlon queried why if the Highways Authority deemed it as acceptable in 2014, they are not in support of it now? Mr Hall stated that it is his understanding that they felt with that application in 2014 and with the proposal today that the remainder of the access is inadequate and with the application in 2014, they did not propose a passing bay. He added that with the 2014 application, the applicant at the time, did not own the property at the top of the road, whereas this applicant does and can therefore implement the change and the visibility splay.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked officer’s why there was no Highways Officer at the meeting? David Rowen stated that an officer was invited but was unable to attend but had confirmed that he had no further comment to add to that already provided in the application. Their opinion is that the access is a substandard arrangement to serve an additional dwelling. Councillor Mrs Davis added that it is unfortunate that he has been unable to attend.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for clarification that all the landowners adjacent to the footpath appear to have access rights to it and asked whether his understanding is correct? David Rowen stated that in terms of the access rights, it is more of a legal issue, however, it appears that the properties have access and use the Old Dairy Yard and presumably have a right of access across the track. Councillor Cornwell added that it includes the applicants site together with all the others, which is a confusing situation as there is another footpath at the back of the property that runs from Westfield Road at the back of the plots, to the fields at the back, and joins up with the Old Dairy Yard at the bottom. He added that to his knowledge both of the footpaths have existed for 70 years and he expressed the view as to why there has never been a problem in the past when people have wanted to build there and now suddenly since 2014, it has become an issue. David Rowen added that there has been a consistent stance from the County Council since 2014 regarding the concerns of over intensification of the use of the Old Dairy Yard with additional development coming forward and he stated that the situation has arisen historically, with it being a question of whether the exacerbation and the intensification of the use of the Old Dairy Yard is acceptable or not, the Highway Authority are against it as is the previous Planning Inspector who both consider it as unacceptable. Councillor Cornwell stated, so even though approval was given in 2014, an additional dwelling is now considered as wrong? David Rowen quoted from the 2015 appeal decision which stated “With regard to the house further north on Old Dairy Yard the fact that the Council deemed it appropriate in highway terms does not mean further development should be accepted. The appeal proposal would exacerbate the cumulative harm to pedestrian and highway safety from the increased vehicular use of a public footpath as a substandard access “. David Rowen added that the Inspector had regard to what was already in Old Dairy Yard together with a planning permission which was granted in 2014 and concluded that the addition of a further dwelling would be unacceptable and that stance has not changed since the date of that appeal decision.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated the right of access in that lane has historically been a bone of contention and the people that live and work down there have always had the right of access through all of the time that he was the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

·         Nick Harding stated that Members need to separate the issue of the planning application and the right of access. He added from a planning decision point of view we are not interested into rights of access as that is a private matter. He added that if planning permission was granted it does not convey to the applicant or subsequent occupiers of the site, the right to use the access and it is something that they need to secure by other means than that of a planning application.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked that if the right of access is not a planning issue, how does it become a material element for County Highways when they do not own the area? Nick Harding explained that an adopted road in a rural setting, can mean that the Highway Authority does not necessarily own the land underneath, the highway right of way in a public right of way perspective is the ability to go across the top of that land and what is underneath could be owned by a third party. The comments in this application are with regard to the width of the access given its length, the fact that it is shared with pedestrian traffic on whether the access is considered to be safe or not and the Highway Authority have stated over a number of years that it is not satisfactory as have the Planning Appeal Inspectors.

·         Councillor Cornwell made the point that the access is not an adopted road, it is a public footpath and it is not owned by anybody and therefore the County Council are raising highway safety matters on land that does not belong to them. Nick Harding stated that because there is a public right of way and vehicular traffic in the lane, there is a risk of pedestrian and vehicle conflict and that is why there is interest and it is relevant for the County Council to comment.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he cannot find any issue with the site, it is a country road in a rural setting and if Mr Hall is prepared to work with the applicant to add a passing place, it will be made safer than it is today. He added that by granting the application it will make a safer road for everyone to use. Councillor Benney stated that the comments made by Mr Melton are correct in that there is room for both pedestrians and vehicles to pass, it is a straight road, has no blind corners and, in his opinion, it would be remiss not to grant the application as it is a good proposal. He added that both the local Parish Council and the Ward Councillor are in support of the application and he will be going against the officers’ recommendation and supporting the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that she agrees with several points raised by Councillor Benney and added that she is disappointed a Highways Officer is not in attendance to answer members questions. She expressed the opinion that she believes the application should be granted with the inclusion of the passing bay and the condition to include the provision of the necessary storage on site.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the application should be supported as it is a sustainable site and it is already surrounded by other properties. He added that he likes the fact that the agent has put forward solutions to make the access safer on to Westfield Road, which include the passing bay to increase the level of safety for the mixed use in the area and he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation subject to delegated authority be given to officers to apply reasonable conditions to include assisting the developer with the design specification for the passing bay and also to include the storage of all materials on site.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal would not create a harmful impact in relation to highway safety as it is in a rural area and safety measures, such as a passing place will be added to the benefit of the people of Manea and for the people who use it.

(Councillor Marks declared an interest in this item as the applicant is known to him and he took no part in the discussion on this application and voting thereon)