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 Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater stated that members will remember that at the last planning committee they determined a site on the edge of Guyhirn for infill development and it was concluded that material planning circumstances relating to the site and its surroundings were such that spatial planning policy could be outweighed by other material circumstances. He added that in some ways the consideration of this application is similar as it is for an infill plot within a linear form of development on the edge of the village.

Mr Slater suggested that, given the status of Wisbech St Mary as a growth village and the level of local services and facilities within the village, is material and that it in Fenland terms this site is in a sustainable and accessible location. He stated that members will be aware that the aim of the planning system as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF), and quoted in most committee reports is to secure sustainable development.

Mr Slater added that it is contended that the range of good and services available within walking or cycling distance to this new development on the edge of Wisbech St Mary is superior to that available to new dwellings that are permitted within the centre of much smaller villages in the district, which have a much lower level of services and facilities, and many new developments have been approved in the smaller villages in recent years. He acknowledged that the appeal decision is clearly material to the consideration of this application and the officer places great weight on this in their report.

Mr Slater stated that the Appeal Inspector gave great weight to the Local Plan in his decision as it was newly adopted and up to date in April 2015, however, in his view, this is no longer the case as the plan is now clearly dated as the Council is now preparing a new plan. He stated that given the weight attributed to the plan at the time, the Inspector took a strict interpretation of LP12 confirming that he did not consider that the site was part of the built form and at that point he concluded that it was not in conformity and dismissed the appeal; there was no real secondary consideration of other issues.

Mr Slater expressed the view that in the interim, the plan is now dated and there have been 2 new versions of the NPPF which have moved the planning agenda on with greater weight placed on delivering new homes and acknowledgement in paragraph  77-78 of the NPPF of the need for rural homes to enable rural communities to grow and thrive. He stated that there are no technical objections to the proposal; it lies within Flood Zone one and has the support of the Parish Council and it is, therefore, concluded that the proposal can be regarded as being sustainable infill development and that the local plan policies are now dated such that other considerations can be given greater weight in decision making and, therefore, requested that permission be granted.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy advised Mr Slater that the Local Plan is still in place and is likely to be the case for the next 18 months to 2 years. Mr Slater stated that he is aware of the status of the Local Plan. 

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Slater whether there is any residential property to the north of the site or is Wingfield the last residential property? Mr Slater stated it is the last residential property and it is commercial development beyond that.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that at 5.3 of the officer’s report, it states that Environmental Services appear to have concerns over the biomass boilers at the greenhouses, but have no concerns over light pollution upon residential properties. He stated that light pollution is a considerable issue in the locality, and he would ask officers to raise this point with that department.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that he does not believe that the Local Plan is out of date and is having to be reviewed due to Central Government policies. He stated that he recalls the appeal decision as the Council incurred costs and added that whilst he can see the argument on both sides, he has made it clear in the past that different Appeal Inspectors have different opinions. He added that he is yet to decided on how he will vote on this application.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that this application cannot be classed as being in the open countryside. He added that it is a large piece of land and there is the need for housing to be delivered and, in his view, the piece of land is at the end of the road and there would be no more development beyond the proposal site, unless Volmary sell up, which he feels is unlikely. Councillor Benney stated it is in Flood Zone 1 and is ideal for development, and he is surprised the proposal is only for one dwelling. He expressed the opinion that when you enter a village it is pleasing to see a nice smart looking dwelling and, in his opinion, Wingfield is not one of the most attractive dwellings he has seen and to have a nice new bungalow will set the scene for when visitors arrive in Wisbech St Mary. Councillor Benney stated that the application has the support of the Parish Council and also the local Ward Councillor and, in his opinion, looking at the site and what it delivers, it will be a nice dwelling for somebody and it will deliver a nice quality development for a family. He stated that he will be going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he disagrees with the comments made by Councillor Benney and stated that the proposal is adjacent to his ward and he knows the area well. He stated that the Local Plan is still in operation and there have been appeal decisions made on the site before and the Inspector rejected it. Councillor Meekins added that it is potentially the last building on the site and expressed the view that the proposal does go against the Local Plan and, in his opinion, Wisbech St Mary is becoming very built up and he cannot see how one more house there is going to go towards the housing requirement in Fenland. He stated that the proposal goes against the Local Plan and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Benney and added that it will make a very nice bungalow for somebody and stated that there have been no objections to the application and the local ward member supports the proposal. He stated that he will voting against the officer’s recommendation and will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he asked Mr Slater deliberately whether there was any development to the north of the plot and clearly there is not and he added that the reasons for refusal is due to the proposal not adjoining the developed built footprint of the settlement of Wisbech St Mary. He referred to the plan on page 59 of the officer’s report, it shows that there are properties to the south, so there is linear development there. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the proposal would finish off that side of the road and the entry to the village of Wisbech St Mary and he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he agrees with Councillor Cornwell, it is in the village of Wisbech St Mary and falls within the 30mph speed limit and he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Councillors Skoulding and Cornwells comments. He added that there is a clear demarcation by the glasshouse gates and at the present time land is very scarce and people want to build houses and for that reason he thinks the proposal should be approved.

·         David Rowen stated that the Inspectors decision in 2015 clearly considered the surroundings of the site, the proximity of Volmary and the existence of housing adjacent to the site and concluded that the site was in an unstainable location. He added that there is a need to deliver housing, however, there is a 5 year land supply, the housing delivery tests have been met and the NPPF also balances the requirement to deliver housing alongside the requirement to deliver sustainable development. David Rowen added that there have been numerous appeal decisions which have come in which have concluded that the contribution of one dwelling towards the 5 year land supply is not a significant contribution to justify going against planning policy. He stated that in this instance consideration needs to be given as to whether the proposal forms part of the continuous built form as set out in the policy of the Local Plan, referring to paragraph 10.8 of the officers report where it sets out the Inspectors conclusion in the previous appeal decision giving a definition of where the built form finishes. David Rowen stated that members need to consider if they are minded to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation what justification they have to substantiate the Inspectors decision 6 years ago was incorrect. He added that Nick Harding had stated earlier that the fact that the ward member and the Parish Council have no objection to the application is not in itself a determining factor as to whether planning permission should be granted.

·         Stephen Turnbull stated that there is a legal duty on the committee to determine in accordance with the adopted Local Plan, unless there are material planning considerations indicating otherwise. He added that the fact that the Parish Council and local member support or oppose the application is not a material planning consideration.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with the conditions imposed on the planning permission to be agreed in conjunction with the Chairman, Councillor Benney and Councillor Skoulding.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is not located in the open countryside, the proposal will enhance the area and LP12 of the Fenland Local Plan is a subjective point which they do not agree with in this case. Councillor Benney also added that there appears to be no consistency when applications are determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor had left the meeting prior to the vote taking place on this item and took no further part in the meeting thereon)