Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

David Rowen presented a written representation on behalf of Councillor Fred Yeulett, as follows:

As a local member for March East, I agree with the Town Councill and support this application. In my opinion the reason for opposing the recommendation in Section 12.1 of the agenda item 8, are not valid. There have been many recent developments on both sides of Upwell Road. In addition, twice as many residents are in support of the application than those opposing the application and the Town Council support the application. On Saturday morning I walked from Elwyn Road to Upwell Park along Upwell Road. I counted 14 backland developments which were of recent construction. Some, such as Mills Gardens and Strawberry Way, of much the same size and scope as the proposed development. The existing settlement pattern is mentioned in 12.1. Precedents have already been set in allowing recent development in the existing settlements and this proposal should be granted permission. Additionally, FDC has consistently failed to meet its house building targets in recent years. Granting permission for this application will help towards meeting these targets and meeting much needed housing demand.

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

Mr Brand stated that there is only one reason given for the refusal of the application, which is that there is significantharm to the character of the area due to its incongruous location, but he feels that these are very subjective matters withno clearlydefined rules, and often amatter ofopinion. He added that before addressing this matter there is a second very important issue,that of consistency of committee decisions, with nine dwellings on a very similar backland site,further out of town, being approved by the Planning Committee, against officers’recommendations, in 2020 andofficers appear to consider this application similar  to that proposal and have been consistent in their recommendations and he expressed the opinion thatthe committeeshould considerconsistency.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the proposalis avery similarbackland location tothe approvednearby scheme and the application site has far less impact on the character of the area, as the 9  dwellingsite is very visibleas youenter Marchalong Upwell Road. He added that the application site has very little impact on the appearance of Upwell Road as it is screenedfrom view byexisting dwellings.

Mr Brand made the point that Policy LP16 of the Local Plan states that schemes should “not adversely impact on the streetscene, settlementpattern orthe landscapecharacter ofthe surrounding area” and, in his view,this application has no adverse impact on the street scene or  settlement pattern. He stated that regarding other issues raised by officers about the character of the area, in their  recommendedreason for refusal theystate protectionof highquality environment and he added that Upwell Roadis anice enough area,but, in his opinion, should notbe considered ahigh qualityenvironment.

Mr Brand referred to officer’s stating that the scheme does not respond to the existing linear settlement pattern and,therefore, represents urban sprawl into the open countryside, but, in his view, this scheme is compact, out of sight and not urban sprawl, and whilst Upwell Road in thisarea could easily be considered urban sprawl, the scheme should not,and does not, reflector add to this. He added that the officer’s report mentions the appeal on a scheme in the same area as theproposal, which was also given as a reason to refuse the 9 approved dwellings, but was obviously notconsidered bythe committeeto justify refusal.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that officers have no objection, in principle, to this application, which provides much needed,good qualityhousing in a sustainablelocation, with there being no evidence to support the one reason for recommending refusal, character of the area, and he feelsthere is much evidence, which he has summarised, toshow there isno adverse impacton the area and approval of the application would be consistent with the recently approved similarscheme.

Members asked Mr Brand the following questions:

·      Councillor Sutton stated that Mr Brand has highlighted that there is no evidence to support the officer’s recommendation, however, that is not quite true as there is an appeal decision. Mr Brand stated that he was referring to the approved scheme of 9 dwellings at Upwell Park, which is very similar and was determined by the Planning Committee last year, and officers at that time said the same thing which was because of an appeal decision, it should be refused, but the committee went against the officer’s recommendation at that time and it was approved. Councillor Sutton stated that there is a difference in quoting an Inspectors decision for refusal on this site.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·      Councillor Mrs Davis referred members to agenda item 6, which was an earlier application determined at the meeting and expressed the view that this proposal is not dissimilar to it, and asked officers to clarify the difference between the two proposals. Gavin Taylor stated that each case is to be determined on its own merits and stated that agenda item 6 is in an entirely different settlement and added that the Council has approved backland schemes in the past and there is no policy as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) suggests that officers should consider to rule out backland or garden land developments. Gavin Taylor stated that an application will be determined by officers on the merits of the case and a scheme for 70 houses would provide significant benefits to a parish and the district in terms of housing delivery and stated that a scheme of 76 dwellings is not comparable to a scheme of 6. He stated that there is a planning history on the proposal site and the history has been determined under the NPPF and the current development plan and the appeal decision supported the Council’s decision. Gavin Taylor added that there are schemes around the area which are backland development and they will all have their own anomalies and considerations, but, in his opinion, the scheme at agenda item 6 is not comparable with the proposal before members.

·      David Rowen stated that the location plan on page 66 of the agenda pack does not show that to the east of the site there is an existing in-depth development of School Close and Whites Drive, off Churchfield Way. He added that the reasoning behind the Wisbech St Mary scheme was that there had already been the expansion of development into the countryside with significant housing development. He added that there are significant differences between the sites and the planning history, and he reiterated that there is also a recent appeal decision, which is a significant material consideration. 

·      Councillor Miscandlon stated that he recalls the Wisbech St Mary application and stated that at the time it was felt that it enhanced and was a great benefit to the area.

·      Councillor Purser stated that he does not have an issue with the application and added that there are several fields to the rear of the proposal site, where wildlife is being encouraged and he is aware that local residents would like to see a fence erected to protect and contain it.

·      Nick Harding stated that members should be aware that the appeal decision is special, due to the fact that at the time of the Inspector looking at the case, the Council did not have a 5 year land supply and, therefore, the significance of that is known as the tilted balance. He added that the Inspector was giving more weight to the fact that planning permission should be granted in their consideration of the scheme, but the tilted balance was in play in favour of granting planning permission, the Inspector still made the decision to refuse planning permission.

·      Gavin Taylor stated that, at the previous appeal decision, the Inspector had stated that allowing the appeal would leave two narrow strips on either side of the appeal site which could potentially be considered as infill sites and the Inspector had stated that by allowing the appeal would make further applications for development on those adjoining fields difficult for the Council to resist.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he cannot see anything wrong with the application and development cannot keep taking place in towns and more space is needed to move out to. He added that there is the demand for housing, the housing market is buoyant, and the delivery of houses is needed. Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs Davis regarding the similarities of the scheme in Wisbech St Mary, albeit a different size and scale. He stated that there is plenty of land to build on and homes are needed for people to live in and six houses will give six homes which are much needed, and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application was refused on appeal in 2017 and much has changed since that time. She added that in 2019, nine dwellings were approved by Planning Committee and she stated that she would agree with officers if the proposal was past Upwell Park and added that there has been no infill policy in place since 2009. Councillor Mrs French referred to the statement from Councillor Yeulett where he had mentioned the amount of backland development and she added that under delegated authority, officers have approved many applications.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the Inspectors appeal decision which even when presumption was in favour, the Inspector still felt that the committee had made the right decision. He expressed the view that officers have made the correct decision again and following a very strong steer from the Inspector, in his view, that needs to be respected.

·         Councillor Miscandlon drew members attention to the fact that the application does not accord to various parts of the NPPF and the Fenland Local Plan. He added that although the refusal was in 2017, the appeal was refused in 2018, which is a lot later than people think. He added that Councillor Sutton is correct as there was not a 5 year land supply at that time and the appeal on the Inspectors advice was that the properties should not be built and he will be supporting the officers recommendation to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he appreciates the officer’s comments concerning the appeal decision, but each application is treated on its own merits. He expressed the view that the Inspectors decisions are not consistent, and he added that the application will provide 6 much needed homes and he will support the application.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that there is a 5-year housing land supply in place, and whilst the housing delivery test has not quite been met there is not a significant gap before the tilted balance would apply. He added that with regard to the comment concerning the changes that have taken place since the last decision, the characteristics of the site and its surroundings, the lack of change to the development plan policies and the fact that the latest appeal decision was made under the latest NPPF, the conclusion is that there has not been much change apart from the 9 dwelling scheme that was proposed. Gavin Taylor referred to some of the NPPF policies that Councillor Miscandlon had alluded to and stated that some of the polices he had highlighted referred to flood risk and adverse impacts on biodiversity and added that whilst they are not recommended reasons for refusal by officers, if they are matters of concern, then they would need to be expanded on if they were to form part of any refusal reasons.

·         David Rowen referred to the statement from Councillor Yeulett, which had made reference to backland development in Strawberry Gardens and Mill Way, which are both located towards the town centre in areas where there is in-depth development and are not in the back of linear development or encroaching out into the open countryside. David Rowen stated that with regard to the appeal decision in 2018, the significant material consideration for members to consider when determining the application is the appeal decision before them and he reiterated the importance of the decision made by the Inspector. He added that if the application was refused by members and resulted in the submission of a further appeal, any future Inspector would refer in the first instance to the findings of any previous appeal decision.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation. This proposal was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority to be given to officers to impose appropriate conditions.

Members did not support the refusal of planning permission as they felt, whilst acknowledging the Appeal Decision, that each application is judged on its own merits, under LP16 of the Local Plan there is a requirement to deliver good quality housing, which members feel this proposal is, the application will be a good quality environment in which families can live and grow and the proposal will not bring demonstrable harm to the countryside by the building of six houses.