Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Matthew Hall, the Agent.  Mr Hall stated that that he found the officers report initially to be positive, making the point that there are no issues with regard to flood risk, ecology, amenity, over shadowing and overlooking. He expressed the opinion that the application provides a higher quality and safer living environment against potential flooding.

Mr Hall stated that that the Highways Officer is not objecting to the proposal and he has submitted additional information with regard to the visibility splays to confirm that the visibility in both directions is no worse than the current situation. He highlighted to the committee that there is a brick outbuilding which is due to be demolished, which is directly next to the parking area and there is no visibility splay which would be to the east.

Mr Hall explained that the applicant has lived in the caravan for 17 years and it has a certificate of lawful use, with the proposal being to remove the caravan which is a vast improvement in terms of flood risk and quality of living for the applicant and family. He expressed the view that with the new dwelling the health and wellbeing will be vastly improved as it will be insulated, will conform with building regulations and there will be mitigation measures in place that have been approved by the Environment Agency to deal with any potential flooding.

Mr Hall referred members to a Planning Committee in June 2020 where a similar application was approved in Guyhirn, where a mobile home which was on the site which was removed and a substantial dwelling and garage of over 350% larger than the mobile home was built, with this application being closer to the River Nene and also in Flood Zone 3. He stated that there have been no objections to the proposal before the committee today and all consultees support it and, in his opinion, the officer’s concerns with regard to the scale and design are outweighed by the positives of the application in terms of the street scene improvement, health and wellbeing and improvements against potential flood risk.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he can understand why officers have made their recommendation as they have to adhere to policy. He added that there are a number of benefits to replacing the mobile home to a better insulated dwelling and expressed the view that the officers have stated that the proposal is out of character with the area, but he does not agree with that. He added that there are many varied dwellings in Euximoor Drove and some are over 100 years old, and some are far newer and are adjacent to the older ones. Councillor Sutton expressed the view, with regard to the point made concerning visibility splays, that there are very few vehicles in Euximoor Drove which cross the bridge and where the application site is there are only 5 dwellings which are going to pass the site entrance. He added that it is a single-track road, and he is very familiar with it and, in his opinion, the visibility would be no different to what is currently there now and although he can understand the concerns of the Highways Officer he does not agree with those concerns. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that he will be going against the officer’s recommendation as, in his view, the value of the dwelling to the family and the costs of their new heating will come down drastically.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she will also be going against the officer’s recommendation. She referred to the minutes of the last Planning Committee meeting where she had stated on the Goldenview application that the committee must be careful that they do not set a precedent and now the committee have an application before them which is similar and for that reason, she cannot see any reason why this application should not be approved.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he totally agrees with the comments made by Councillor Sutton.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he appreciates that officers have to adhere to policy and the Local Plan, which, in his opinion, has a gap in it when considering rural areas. He expressed the opinion that the proposal site is in a small hamlet and stated that it is an old Fenland settlement. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that there are a lot of positives with the application which outweigh the negatives and whilst he appreciates the views of the officers, he will support the application.

·         Councillor Topgood stated that he will support the application and that when reviewing the consultations there are 12 supporting comments and 8 of those are neighbouring properties. Councillor Topgood expressed the opinion that the dwelling will be better for the family’s health and wellbeing.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis that a precedent has been set and she will be going against the officer’s recommendation. She stated that the health and wellbeing and heating efficiencies are positive points for the application. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she anticipates that there may well be further applications in this area, with the proposal being in the middle of nowhere. She added that she does not see any issue with regards to the visibility splays.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with the comments made by members and added that as a precedent has been set then the application cannot be considered on its own merits. He expressed the view that there does not appear to be any objections to the proposal, and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he understands the officers are reticent to recommend the application for approval. He added that with regard to the visibility splay concerns, if an optical mirror is installed on the opposite side of the road that may help. He stated that he will be supporting the application.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with delegated authority being given to officers to apply appropriate conditions.

Members did not support the refusal of planning permission as they feel that the benefits of the proposal outweigh policy consideration, the proposal would not be out of character with the area as a whole and that the position with the visibility splays is no different to the current situation, with there being no accident data to prove anything different.