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 Mr Bryant, an objector to the application. Mr Bryant referred to the presentation screen and explained that that eleven objections to the application are marked in blue with the application site being marked in red. He explained that despite appearances this is not NIMBYism and it is the local community asking the Council to uphold its Local Plan and to execute its statutory duty to have regard to the provisions of the Local Plan and the NPPF along with previous appeal decisions.

Mr Bryant stated that the residents were pleased that Elm Parish Council voted to object to this application quoting LP’s 3 and 15, and the NPPF. He expressed the view that with regards to environmental protection over the last year in two brutal phases trees a long-established native hedgerow and all other vegetation were destroyed on the site and all wildlife disappeared.

Mr Bryant explained that a flock of 50-100 sparrows lived in the hedgerow and the inevitable sparrowhawks have gone and that just because this pre-emptive environmental damage by the builder that owns the land makes it look like a building site does not mean it should become one. He expressed the view that the application fails to meet the requirement of LP3, and it should be refused under the Local Plan referring to 2.1.7 where there is a reference to: “flat open landscapes and big skies” showing a view taken from Lowlands opposite the site, adding that the committee have an opportunity today to continue to protect this view that many local residents cherish.

Mr Bryant referred to sustainability and stated that in the 2014 Planning Committee minutes for this site he noted 2 quotes where it stated that “If we pass this and agree that this is sustainable and also, in Councillor Sutton's view there is not another unsustainable area in Fenland“ and “Members feel that the proposal is not in a sustainable area”. He referred to the next slide on the presentation screen where the table shows a striking difference in the supposedly “similar” journeys from site to amenities and along with the Planning Officer he rejects the applicant’s comparison of the application site with the appeal at Eastwood End as these sites fall under different levels in the LP3 hierarchy and, therefore, as the comparison fails it means the acceptability of the site under LP3 falls with it.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that development on this site is unambiguously contrary to the Local Plan and neither Colletts Bridge nor it’s protection in the plan have changed since 2014, with it remaining a single-track cul-de-sac with no turning or passing places as the Cambridgeshire Highways sign at the lane entrance indicates. He made the point that development on the site fails to meet Local Plan Policies 3, 12, 15, 16 and the NPPF and expressed the view that the principle of development on the site has never been accepted by the committee and it is the case that the officer report and decision notice for the first 2014 application stated that the principle of development was accepted, however, this was based on the officer using a completely incorrect statement of LP3 for Colletts Bridge. He explained that later in 2014 this was overturned by the committee once the correct LP3 definition was used and it was made clear that development on the site is contrary to LP3 which was confirmed by the appeal inspector.

Mr Bryant stated that the applicant’s design and access statement refers to that 2014 appeal decision when they comment that development on the site is, in their words “the conflict with LP3” and they then argue, using the debunked Eastwood End case, that "...it would be reasonable to conclude that the application site is within a settlement and can therefore be considered as an infill plot which is acceptable in terms of Policy LP3“. He expressed the view that this is false as it ignores point 6 of that Appeal Decision which was crystal clear “…due to the sporadic nature of the development on the west side of the road I do not consider that the appeal site constitutes a single dwelling infill site within an otherwise built up frontage.” and he confidently asserts that the principle of development on this site should not be acceptable to the committee and the application should be refused for breach of LP3, 12, 15, 16 and the NPPF.

Mr Bryant reminded members of the best thing said about Colletts Bridge from 2014 ‘Let Colletts Bridge be as Colletts Bridge is’ and asked the committee to reject the proposal and support the local community in their support of the Council’s Local Plan.

Members asked Mr Bryant the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked when the hedgerow that he had referred to had been removed and Mr Bryant confirmed that its removal took place last year.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that thisapplication is before the committee as anoutline applicationwhere no matters have been committed and he would be happy to accept any condition which limits the proposed dwelling type. He explained that thesite iswithin Flood Zone1 soboth singleand twostorey dwellingscould be accommodated on the site, with members being aware that so many sites come before them in Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Mr Edwards made reference to the officers report where itstates that thesite ispositioned betweenresidential dwellingsknown as LaChaumiere tothe southand theHazels tothe north, which are both twostorey detached dwellings. He expressed the opinion that the site is in a cluster of dwellings on Colletts Bridge Lane and the development of this site would fill the gap and provide a good sized family dwellingwhich hasideal linksto neighbouringvillages andtowns beingin close proximity to the A1101.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that thesite mirrorsothers thathave beenapproved recentlyin thedistrict and he does not believe it will set a precedent as each application should be treated on its own merits. He made the point that theproposal comeswith anumber ofletters ofsupport alongwith thesupport of Environmental Health, Highways and the Environment Agency, with the proposalmaking thebest useof theland andfinishing offthis partof the village and the lane as a whole.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the proposedsite hasample sizeto accommodateboth surfacewater andfoul water drainage from a treatment plant and will be subject to a soakage test carried out in accordance with BRE365, with consideration also being given to the useof rainwaterharvesting and all soakawayswill bepositioned soas notto have any detrimental effect on neighbouring properties and building regulation compliant. He made the point that it  has beensaid onmany occasionsat thiscommittee that parcelsof landlike this are massively valuable to housing supply in the District and are at a prime, plotslike thiswill bedeveloped byself-buildersor smallerdevelopers thatare being priced out of the larger sections of land due to the cost of the infrastructure and land price, small builders and self-builders employ local tradesmanand agentsand buylocally fromlocal merchants,which inturn contribute to other businesses in the district.

Mr Edwards concluded by stating that the site is within Flood Zone 1, is infilling development between 2dwellings, willutilise asection ofland thathas nouse forfarming andwill provide a plot for a family to build a home on.  He asked the committee tosupport theproposal andapprove theapplication withthe conditions you deem appropriate.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he knows the road very well and despite there being no objections from the Highway Authority it is single narrow track, and, in his opinion, it is not the right place for development to take place. He expressed the view that officers have made the correct recommendation which the Parish Council have also agreed with, along with two decisions made by the Planning Committee using the current Local Plan and four decisions in the previous two Local Plans, of which one application went to appeal and was dismissed. Councillor Sutton stated that there needs to be acceptance that there are some areas which are not suitable for development, and this lane is one of those areas in his opinion. He made the point that whilst he appreciates that it is nice to see attractive dwellings in the area, it should not be at the expense of making the road more dangerous by infilling where it should not be infilled. Councillor Sutton made reference to previous applications at the site, where Councillors Miscandlon, Connor, Murphy, and Councillor Mrs Mayor along with himself were all members of the Planning Committee and a unanimous decision was made to refuse the applications and he stated that he would hope that the current committee will support him as the Ward Councillor and the Parish Council by agreeing the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he remembers the visit to site very well due to the narrowness of the lane and he agrees with point made, that the location is inappropriate for development in the way that has been proposed as it is a dangerous road, and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is very sad that the hedgerow has been taken out for financial gain. She stated that she fully supports the officer’s recommendation.

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