Agenda item

To determine the application

Nicholas Thrower presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Tim Slater the agent.

Mr Slater advised that he was speaking on behalf of the applicant and Peter Humphrey Associates (as agent) in relation to this proposal. He expressed the view that he is mindful over the provisions of LP3 and LP12 of the Local Plan, but it is clear that in this instance that other material considerations are relevant and should be given significant weight in decision making, particularly in respect to this site, reference is made to be numerous recent planning permissions along Gull Road, which have individually and cumulatively, fundamentally changed the character of this road and set a number of precedents, which are relevant to the proposal before the committee, but notwithstanding the fact that the councils public access mapping search function has not worked for over a week now, and the research that he has carried out indicates that there are about a dozen new plots approved along the stretch of Gull Road since the adoption of the Local plan in 2014.

Mr Slater stated that it is acknowledged that there have been refusals along Gull Road and it is contended that the character of this area has changed in the interim and that the open character with intermittent buildings that LP3 sought to protect is now no longer the case and this area is in essence now a linear settlement within which this proposal is infill within an existing gap and this change in circumstance is considered material to the determination of the application. He explained that he is aware that the Local Plan is now somewhat dated and is undergoing a review, and he hopes that the emerging plan will recognise the changing character of not only of Guyhirn, but other similar settlements.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the changing character of the settlement is acknowledged within the response of the Parish Council, who support the application, which he welcomes and that there are no technical or environmental constraints to the development going ahead. He stated that the previous applications on this site included additional land in Flood Zone 3, which he has now removed from this application to address the concerns in relation to flood risk.

Mr Slater stated that it is proposed to design the Reserved Matters submission to accord with the recommendation from the accompanying Flood Risk Assessment, with matters of scale and impact to be fully assessed at that stage, and it is noted that an objection refers to adverse impacts on residential amenity, however, it is reiterated that the application is made in outline only and that the layout and appearance of the buildings do not form part of this application and are intended for illustrative purposes only. He explained that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and much of the Government White Paper is seeking to deliver more new homes to meet need and the application before members is considered to be consistent with those aims, which no doubt will be rolled forward into the emerging Local Plan.

Mr Slater added that the proposal is consistent with a significant number of planning decisions made by the Council in the last 5 years in respect to infill development along Gull Road, there are no technical constraints to development, with the proposal being consistent with the aims of the NPPF and, therefore, the changes to material considerations surrounding the site are sufficient to outweigh the outdated policies referred to in the recommendation. 

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Slater to clarify that, if planning permission is granted, then flood mitigation steps will be put in place to build the land up above the flooding level? Mr Slater confirmed that the application is an outline application and all matters that come forward as Reserved Matters applications by planning law must be consistent with the outline planning application. He added that the conclusion of the Flood Risk Assessment require the finish of the floor levels to be 1.1 metres above the existing levels and this will be done within the Reserved Matters and at that point matters of scale and impact can be assessed by the Local Planning Authority.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he cannot understand why it needs raising by 1.1 metres if it is in Flood Zone 1. Mr Slater stated that it is set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and in the event of a flood breach of the defences that is what the recommendation is of the Drainage Engineer in this case.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that the point has been made regarding the Fenland Local Plan being outdated, but the current Local Plan is the one that must be adhered to. He referred to a previous application in 2018, which is for dwellings on land to the south of the application being determined, and asked whether it is for the same applicant? Mr Slater stated that he is not aware of the land ownership details of the other site. Councillor Meekins added that his concern is that if planning permission is granted for four houses in a linear development, which is contrary to the current Local Plan, it could be used as a precedent to build another four houses on the adjacent land.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the photograph provided to members is not up to date as there is a development north of Dove Cottage, which is marked on some of the plans. He asked officers to clarify what the substantial difference is between the site which is currently being developed north of Dove Cottage and the application before members? Nicholas Thrower confirmed that there is currently a development of four dwellings to the north of Dove Cottage, which is a 2016 planning application, which was reported to the Planning Committee and recommended by officers for refusal. The decision of the committee at the time was to grant planning permission given the shortfall at the time of the 5-year housing land supply. Councillor Cornwell stated that if the application is refused today what would be the chances of the Council losing at an appeal hearing, because, in his view, there is very little difference between the proposal site and that of the one that is being constructed. Nick Harding stated that as Nicholas Thrower has explained that the difference now is that at that time there was no 5 year land supply, whereas now there is, and under the Government’s rules when you have not got a 5 year land supply there was in place something called the tilted balance and, therefore, there is greater presumption in favour of development than there would otherwise be and that is why planning permission was approved for the four dwellings to the north of Dove Cottage. Nick Harding added that members are aware that planning applications need to be determined in accordance with the Fenland Local Plan and the key issue with this application is the fact that only small scale infill is allowed and the gap between the development on either side of the site is very significant hence the officers recommendation for refusal. Councillor Cornwell stated that at 1.6 of the report it refers to harm to the character and appearance of the area and, in his opinion, the whole area has changed over a number of years with Gull Road now being like an extension to the village of Guyhirn. He added that he understands the comments made with regard to the earlier dwellings being built out under different rules, but he finds it strange that the officer’s recommendation is for refusal when the rest of the area is built on.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the application is infill and asked for confirmation from officers concerning applications in the vicinity. Nicholas Thrower confirmed that the 2016 application was determined by the Planning Committee in 2018 and is now being built out. He added that the 2020 scheme referred to is a revised scheme on the same site and that was delegated due to the previous decision that was in place and was implementable.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that there are 4 plots currently being built out in the vicinity of Dove Cottage and he cannot see how the application can be refused. He added that the proposal is in Flood Zone 1 and, in his view, he cannot see anything wrong with the application and he concurs with the comments made by Councillor Cornwell that the character of the area has changed significantly over the years and there is the need for nice houses in the area. He stated that he will be approving the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the developments in the area have a history and he referred to a previous application on the opposite side of the road, which was recommended for refusal and was overturned. He expressed the view that the four dwellings currently being built were also recommended for refusal and that was decision was also overturned by members. Councillor Sutton appreciated that officers are sticking rigidly to the Local Plan, but made the point that each application should be looked at on its own merits and members of the committee must be consistent in their decision making.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority being given to officer’s to apply suitable conditions.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that it would not be over urbanisation as it is already urbanised with other applications that have been approved which has set a precedent and would not be detrimental to the character of the area.