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.  He added that the report also omitted to state that the application site falls within the West Wisbech Broad location for growth within the Local Plan and stated that as members are aware this is an indicative allocation and will need the preparation of a Broad Concept Plan across the identified area. David Rowen stated that the application needs to be determined on its own merits in relation to the characteristics and impact of the site and the locality and, therefore, the West Wisbech Broad Location for growth does not have an impact on the consideration of the application or on the recommendation before members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that the planning arguments in respect to land in and around this location are well rehearsed with a number of new developments and dwellings approved along Barton Road and Cox’s Lane in the last 5 years and within the scope of the current Local Plan .He expressed the view that members will be aware that clearly the site lies within the West Wisbech -Urban Extension ‘broad area of search’ designated in Local Plan policies LP7 and LP8.

Mr Slater added that the status of the site is somewhat unclear as the towns in the settlements in the Fenland Local Plan do not have a defined boundaries and as such the delineation of urban and rural policies is a matter of judgement. He referred to the Local Plan insert map, which is on page 40, showing the site and its surrounds shaded grey to indicate that they are part of the urban area of Wisbech.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the broad area of search enables, and indeed encourages, development to come forward in this area and the Stow Lane appeal decision indicates that smaller pockets of development can come forward in these areas, provided that they do not prejudice the wider development envisaged in LP8 and clearly this small row of homes will not undermine this wider aim. He made the point that within 50m of the site there have been 6 new homes approved since 2018 under the current Local Plan and the various alterations to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have not really changed the position in relation to this site and it is, therefore, considered that there is a strong precedent for new dwellings in this locality having regard to the Council’s interpretation of the Local Plan policies.

Mr Slater expressed the view that regarding impact on character it is contended that the development is not materially harmful to the character of the area having regard to the allocation of the wider area as an area for significant planned growth in the adopted Local Plan, with the site being an infill frontage plot and has relatively recent development to both the north and south of it on Cox’s Lane. He expressed the opinion that the recent approval of the residential permission in the area in conjunction with the approval for the care home off Barton Road and the application by the County for a special school off Barton Road to the west of the site will continue to consolidate a significant urban/built form in this area.

Mr Slater stated that with regards to Highways, the geometry of the junction of Cox’s Lane with Barton Road is an existing issue, and the addition of 4 dwellings is a relatively small increase in the daily traffic using Cox’s Lane such that this is not considered to make a material increase. He added that the NPPF states that permission should only be refused if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety and it is considered that the issues raised and impacts of this proposal are very similar to those in surrounding sites.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the site itself has good visibility onto Cox’s Lane and the geometry of the road dictates that road speed past the site and onto the junction with Barton Road will be significantly lower than the speed limit suggests. He concluded by stating that, overall, it is contended that the site is in a sustainable location on the edge of Wisbech, is close to higher order services and facilities in the town, it is clear that the character surrounding the site has materially changed during the plan period such that the site is now surrounded on 3 sides by established residential development and furthermore, the scale and pattern of the development is in character with the prevailing built form in the area and the recent approvals in the immediate vicinity of the site.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked Mr Slater to identify the six new dwellings that he had referred to which had been approved since 2014 under the Local Plan? Mr Slater stated that there is one immediately to the north of the site, four on Barton Road and one conversion of a barn opposite.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he does not agree with the view that the proposal is in an elsewhere location as, in his opinion, it is adjacent to the built form, and it is infill as there are dwellings either side. He added that the road is narrow, and the Highways Officer has raised concerns about the visibility splay being 43 metres, but Councillor Sutton is of the view that a splay can be achieved much longer than that although he is unsure what the splay is for the national speed limit. He added that the road is narrow and not used very much and, in his view, in terms of highway safety he does not see the splays as a big issue, but he does have concerns over the lack of a passing place, and he would have liked to have seen a passing place included on the plans between the dwellings to alleviate some of his concerns. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he would like to see the application deferred in order to ask the applicant to submit revised plans to include a passing place. He added that it would be a shame for the application to be refused as the proposal is for four lovely houses and there is a demand for the type of housing proposed. Councillor Sutton that there is no large accident data to determine that the location is dangerous, and whilst the Highways Officer has raised concerns over the junction and  he agrees that it is a tight junction, but, in his view, it is no tighter than other junctions that exist and he cannot find any accident data to substantiate that the junction is dangerous.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that, in his view, Cox’s Lane is very narrow and the junction onto Barton Road is diabolical. He expressed the opinion that over the years Magazine Lane, a nearby road, has been designed deliberately, to reduce the width of the road at the bottom end to keep traffic off Cox’s Lane. Councillor Cornwell added that over the years development has been allowed, with this proposal filling in between other dwellings and he would also welcome the idea of a passing place.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she can recall a small development of homes which were approved in 2010 and at that time the condition of the road surface in Cox’s Lane was raised. She expressed the view that the application is infill development as a result of applications being approved historically. Councillor Mrs French added that she would not like to see the application deferred just for the consideration of a passing bay and she will consider going against the officer’s recommendation and approving the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the proposed dwellings are likely to be family homes and are likely to include children. He added that there are no safety measures in place like a footpath for children to walk up the lane and, in his view, it is dangerous, and a passing space would alleviate his concerns, but it does not form part of the application before the committee. Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that officers have made the correct recommendation and the application should be refused and the applicant should bring a further proposal forward with measures included to mitigate the safety concerns of the lane.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has visited the site and agrees with some of the points raised by Councillor Sutton. He added that when he visited the site there was no traffic in the lane which he agrees is very narrow. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he does not see any issues with regard to the junction as long as you are careful.

·         David Rowen stated that the main points raised by members during their debate appears to be on highway safety and he referred them to 5.2 of the officer report, where the Highway Officers comments are detailed and set out the numerous issues that he has in his professional opinion with the application and the suitability of Cox’s Lane to serve the development. David Rowen expressed the view that by visiting the site and concluding that there were no cars should be disregarded as the Highways Officer has stated that an additional four houses can generate additional traffic and will, therefore, have an impact. He expressed the opinion that the Highways Officer objection is one of the most detailed responses he has seen against an application and referred to the last Planning Committee, where members refused an application where the Highways Officer was in favour of the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked officers whether the application could be deferred to give the applicant the opportunity to look at the highway issues that have been raised. David Rowen stated that the passing place does not form part of the current application and there is no indication or guarantee that that could be delivered, and the Highway Authority have not provided any indication that the provision of a passing bay would alleviate any of their concerns. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that it would be better to refuse the application and then the applicant could resubmit their proposal with consideration given to the highway issues. David Rowen explained that it is the application before members that needs to be determined.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he cannot consider the application in its current form, but he would consider it if a passing bay was included as it would make it much safer.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to enable the applicant to consider the provision of a passing bay, which was not supported at the vote by the majority of members.

Nick Harding stated that there is a proposal of deferment from Councillor Sutton in order to see whether the provision of a passing bay could be made, however, it was not listed a concern raised by the Highways Authority. Councillor Sutton stated that he appreciates the point raised.

David Rowen drew members attention to the final paragraph of the comments raised by the Highway Authority where it states, ‘that it might be possible to mitigate some of the problems identified by providing a footway and formal crossing point on Barton Road but as submitted he objects to the planning application’. David Rowen stated that the Highways Officer makes no reference to a passing place alleviating any of the concerns.

Proposed by Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.