Agenda item

To determine the application

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, read out by Gavin Taylor, from Councillor Bob Wicks, ward councillor.

“Thank you for the opportunity to present this further information. As you are all aware that prior to Christmas we had substantial rainfall which resulted in an amount of flooding in the county and failure of a number of Sewerage pumping stations in the Coates, Eastrea and Turves ward. These pumping stations were at Coates, Eastrea (Drybread Road) and Aliwal Road. While the failure of the Eastrea station did not cause the same outcome as in Coates, residents of Springfield did experience a backup of effluents which did result in the restriction of their access to sanatory provision. This was particularly the case at the far end of Springfields, close to the proposed development. The actual cause of the failure is being investigated at this time by Anglian Water”.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr David Broker, the Agent.

Mr Broker expressed the view that this is another marginal location where it does not quite fit with policy, but is very close to doing so and he compared it with Wype Road also in Eastrea. He stated that there are 3 reasons for the recommendation of refusal, one of which is Policy LP3 of the Local Plan with Eastrea being a small village where limited scale of residential infill will beallowed, secondly Policy LP12 Part 3 where development in the open countryside and thirdly details of the means of access.

Mr Broker highlighted each aspect in turn and stated that Planning Committee members have considered similar locations elsewhere in Fenland and have ruled in favour of the necessity to sustain the growth of the rural settlements and pointed out that, at the last Planning Committee, members approved residential development in Wype Road Eastrea, which was supported by the Planning Officer and determined as infill. He expressed the opinion that infill has always been limited to 1 or 2 dwellings between existing residential units close by and he added that in that location there are no less than 6 dwellings, 3 very large houses previously approved and under construction, a farm access and 3 further dwellings which have been approved. He stated that further 2 dwellings have been constructed beyond the original last dwelling on that side of the road extending again into open countryside in a most prominent position.

Mr Broker pointed out that previously the Committee have questioned the terminology of open countryside again supporting limited development in such locations and added that whilst not wishing to get entwined with Wype Road Eastrea, the two sites draw very close comparisons as they are both at opposite ends of the village, both opposite to existing residential properties and both backing onto open farmland/countryside. He added that the application site before members is far less prominent with regard to being seen by the public and less obtrusive of views to the open countryside.

Mr Broker stated that with regard to the details of means of access, it has always been his understanding that small scale residential development of up to 5 units could be served off an un-adopted road, which the Common Road is, but the County Highways have insisted upon detailed road alignment and construction plans and have highlighted the need to obtain permission from the Department of the Environment as this 30m length of access is also a public byway or common road and they also require a 5m width of roadway when Springfield is in fact only 4.6m wide. He made the point that knowing that the scheme would be recommended for refusal and, after discussions with the Planning Officer, it was decided that given the substantial expense of the required professional detailed plans and the fact that obtaining permission from the Department of the Environment could take several months, the information has not been submitted, but stated that should the committee support the application such details for the access it will be provided.

Mr Broker added that there have been numerous comments concerning the access along Springfield and onto the A605, the Highways Authority has raised no objection on these matters and the applicant has made a written offer of a contributiontoward infrastructure in the locality to the Whittlesey Town Council, but has received noresponse. He concluded by stating that if approved the application will assist in sustaining this small settlement.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the Highways Authority appear to have concentrated on the width of Springfield, however, he does not see an issue with this, but highlighted that there appears to be an issue when Springfield meets the A605 when you cannot see on the right hand side, it is a blind spot and asked officers to confirm whether this concern has been identified? Gavin Taylor stated that he was aware of several concerns, which were highlighted by residents with regards to the constraints of the access and this was discussed with the Highways Officer, but there was no objections raised on those grounds on that basis and he added that if officers were going to propose to refuse an application on a technical ground, then there needs to be technical evidence or the support of the professionals to do that and, therefore, it was considered that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation for refusal on those grounds.

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

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he has reviewed the application and expressed the view that the application site is in the open countryside, there is no way that the application can be classed as infill development and added that he agrees that the application is against LP3 and LP12 of the Local Plan, with the Local Plan still being current and needs to be taken into consideration. He expressed the view that the proposal is over development and added that Whittlesey Town Council have also agreed with the recommendation for refusal as well as 28 letters of objection to the proposal. He stated that he will supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he concurs with the comments made by Councillor Murphy and added that the Local Plan needs to be adhered to and added that the Planning Officer has identified issues with regards to sewerage problems over the last few months. He referred to the 28 letters of objection and highlighted that 11 of the letters are from Springfields who do not agree to the proposal. Councillor Meekins stated that the Town Council, Highways, and residents are not in favour of the proposal and it does not accord with the Local Plan and, therefore, in his opinion the committee should be supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Connor registered, in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters that he was pre-determined on this application, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(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)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, but was not at the meeting when this application was discussed)