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 Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens referred to the officer’sreasons forrefusal inthe executivesummary and stated that at 1.2, the previous scheme for 2 bungalows adjacent to this scheme approved back in2019 wasnot residentialinfilling either,but members agreedthat afurther 2dwellings along this section of road followed the general pattern of development along Wype Road which is ribbon or frontage development. He stated that he disagrees with officers that this proposal would fail to respect the core shape and form of the settlement by virtue of following the pattern along Wype Road with frontage development.

Mr Bevens referred to 1.3 and stated that hedoes notbelieve thatthe siteis contraryto PolicyLP12 Part A(a, c,d, and e) as the site isadjacent tothe existingdeveloped footprintof thevillage, beingthe twolarge, detached bungalowsto thenorth-east and, in his view, itwill nothave aharmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, as the dwellings proposed will be single storey in height and reflect nearby dwellings. He expressed the opinion that the proposal is of a scale and in a location that is in keeping with the established form of Wype Road, which is frontage development, and it will not adversely harm the character and appearance and finally it will extend the linear features of the settlement but in a mannerwhich isproportionate tothe smallvillage ofEastrea and willprovide 2bungalows offering a wider choice of housing.

Mr Bevens added that officers have referredto Policy LP16 (cand d)in their recommendation andthe site does retainthe hedgerow tothe frontof thesite and thiswould bereinforced ina futurereserved matters application and could be conditioned. He feels the scheme will improve the character of the local area and does not adversely impact on the street scene, settlement pattern or the landscape character.

Mr Bevens pointed out that theapplicant and LBevens Associateshave spentsome 18months agreeingthe relocationof the speedsignage intoEastrea along WypeRoad toslow downtraffic enteringthe village and he referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that that this will see an improvement in speed reduction, with the 30mph speed limit being moved some 70metres south-eastfrom itsformer positionand the nationalspeed limitexiting the village being moved some 140m southeast from its former position. He stated that theapplicant haspaid forall theworks tobe carriedout for thedesign andinstallation ofthese signs and explained that theproposed scheme will offer welldesigned bungalows, whichwill meet local demand.

Mr Bevens stated that theTown Councilsupport theproposal, EnvironmentalHealth and Highways have raised no objections. He explained that thescheme hasbeen amendedto extendthe footpath onthis sideof theroad toallow pedestrians safe passage into the village centre and he asked members to re-consider the recommendation for refusal and approve the proposalbased uponthe localsupport forthe scheme and thepoints inhis presentation.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the site is located on farmland or is it adjacent to farmland? David Rowen confirmed that it is an agricultural field.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the officer’s report at 5.2 and asked for clarity and an explanation on the term of noise sensitive dwellings? David Rowen stated that it is a term used by Environmental Health colleagues with regards to householders being sensitive to sources of noise from agricultural machinery.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he has reservations with regards to the application and stated that on the previous two applications the committee voted against the officer’s recommendation which was based on a balanced decision that it was adjacent to the built form and that it did comply to LP12. He expressed the view that the application before the committee now is similar and stated that if an additional two dwellings are approved, with the same reasoning, that it is next to the built form then it could be seen as a step too far. Councillor Sutton stated that if that mode is continued then the village of Eastrea will become joined up with the village of Benwick and it cannot be argued that the proposal is infill and, in his view, the officers have made the correct recommendation.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Sutton and added that there should be no more development in that location.

·         Councillor Benney stated that, in his opinion, the two bungalows at the entrance to the village look very nice and are pleasing to the eye when you enter the village. He added that there is a natural boundary as the road drops away along with the railway line and as the land drops away at some stage it will be in Flood Zone 3. Councillor Benney stated that he supported the previous two bungalows, and he will support this application, but he will not support any further house building in that area. He added that he appreciates the comments made by Councillor Sutton with regard to balancing up but the bungalows already on the site are lovely and the plots are nice big plots, and it will add to the village as you drive in reiterating that he will not support any further house building in that area.

·         David Rowen drew members attention to the policies of the Local Plan, which seek to limit the expansion of small villages such as Eastrea into the open countryside to retain the agricultural character at the edges of the settlement. He added that members approved the two existing bungalows against the officer’s recommendation, and he referred to the point made by Councillor Sutton with regards to where do you draw the line and stop development in this location. David Rowen made reference to the policy of the Local Plan and national planning policy which is to control the expansion of villages so that they do not encroach into the open countryside to the detriment and appearance of the countryside.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Murphy that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.  This was not supported on a majority vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with reasonable conditions to be delegated to officers.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is within the village boundary, is within the existing development footprint of the village, there is the need for good quality bungalows and the benefits of the development outweigh the detriment of building out into the open countryside, it will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and farmland, is extending the nice entrance into the village and it will enhance the local identity of the village.

(Councillor Connor wished it to be recorded that Councillor Mrs Laws is Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhood Planning and the applicant is a relative of her late partner, but she has taken no part in the consideration of this application by the Council.  Whilst he knows Councillor Mrs Laws, has met the applicant once at a function and sometimes attends Full Council meetings of Whittlesey Town Council, he has not entered into discussions on this application and considers that he is open-minded and will take into account the debate before reaching his decision on this application)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct onPlanning Matters, that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and the applicant is also known to her, andtook nopart in thediscussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct onPlanning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took  nopart in thediscussion or voting thereon)