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 George Boreham, on behalf of the agent.  Mr Boreham stated that there are no technical objections to this application and all letters of support submitted are from Doddington Road where this proposal is located indicating local support.  He made the point that Benwick has a shop, primary school and roads connecting to Whittlesey, Chatteris and the surrounding villages.

Mr Boreham stated that the site is located in Flood Zone 3 and a detailed Flood Risk Assessment has been provided and approved by the Environment Agency with mitigation measures which will comply with Policy LP14.  He made the point that the majority of Benwick lies in Flood Zone 3, with a limited amount of land in Flood Zones 1 and 2, which has been developed.

Mr Boreham expressed the view that the proposed dwelling is a modest 3-bed chalet bungalow, which limits the height of the dwelling.  He referred to concerns regarding on-street parking but stated this would not take place as the proposal provides off-street parking for both the proposed and existing properties.

Mr Boreham explained that the proposed dwelling will have an air source heat pump and solar panels to ensure energy efficiency for health and well-being as per LP2.  He referred to a map displayed on the presentation screen and pointed out that when you view along this section of Doddington Road there is Fountain Close, which extends further away from Doddington Road rather than just frontage development, and further west into Benwick along Doddington Road other developments have been allowed, such as Heron Way and Cricketers Close, which extends back from Doddington Road.

Mr Boreham referred to 10.5 of the officer’s report which advises that the design and materials will not be incongruous with the surroundings and under 10.7 there would not be adverse impact on residential amenities.

Member asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked someone to explain what is the difference between this application and the previous one as all he can see is referral to the number of supporters?  David Rowen responded that this is an identical application to one that was refused planning permission earlier in the year other than this application has been accompanied by letters of support asking it to be referred to Planning Committee.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the reasons the previous application were refused have not been addressed?  David Rowen responded that to be fair to the applicant it is difficult to address the issue of back land development, the site is where it is but nothing has changed from the previous scheme.

·         Councillor Murphy referred to the letters of support and expressed the view that these were proforma letters with names and addresses added and feels this does not constitute letters of support.  David Rowen confirmed that the letters of support were not individual bespoke letters they were of a uniform nature.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he looked at comments on public access and did note that if it is the person he thinks it is there is a comment from a former District Councillor in a neighbouring authority who is very experienced and sat on their planning committee for a number of years and responded using policy numbers objecting to this proposal, which he feels is the right approach.  He made the point that applications often receive letters of support, with people not understanding that material planning considerations are required and some comments have to be disregarded.  Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the proposal is back land, it is out of keeping and despite what the agent said the areas he referred to are more in the core of the village.  He feels this would set a precedent and that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that some people might think this is playing the system as the previous application was refused and this application is exactly the same, the only difference being that there are now people supporting the application.  She stated that she is happy to go with the recommendation as she does not feel that anything has changed and those 7 supporting letters do not make any difference.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he knows Benwick well and he feels that villages struggle, including the shop, and the whole community will lose out as potentially the shop will cease trading.  He has been on the committee for 4 years and he has not seen an application come through that has been passed for housing in Benwick and if villages do not get growth they will shrink and die and people are needed to keep facilities viable.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that Doddington Road has Fountains, which is just further up going into the village, and Heron Way, which is also built back with the river behind it which is a natural buffer zone.  He does not see any problem with approving this application, there is only 3 or 4 other houses between Fountains and where this application is and feels it is a good place to build a house and possibly more.  Councillor Benney questioned whether this would bring more development, which it could do, and referred to the development and growth that had taken place in Manea, which is now a thriving community.  He stated that he is minded to support the application as Benwick needs housing, which would provide community benefit.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis pointed out that Benwick Parish Council has said that they did not want individual back land development when there are so many brownfield sites that could be developed and there has to be something wrong if developers are not coming forward.  She stated that she does not like this application as it is back land development and whilst she hears what Councillor Benney is saying she wonders why the developers are not coming forward and questioned whether it was that people do not want to live as far out as Benwick.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with 99.99% of what Councillor Benney has said but this proposal is not the way to get development because 1 dwelling is not going to keep the shop open and these issues need to be addressed through the Local Plan review as it not only Benwick it is all the small villages that need growth and fast as all the facilities will be lost.  He expressed the view that from what he saw of the Local Plan it will ruin the villages if the proposals go through.

·         Councillor Murphy agreed that as this application is only for one house, it would not keep the school or shop going and feels the comments made the Parish Council are right, there is nothing different between the last application and this one.  He made the point that it is in Flood Zone 3 and does not address the reasons for the refusal.

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed with the previous speakers that nothing has changed, but in relation to Councillor Sutton’s comments she stated she is on the Local Plan Working Party and she believes the new documents are out today and he will get a surprise with what is being presented to Cabinet on 13^th.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows Matthew Hall, the agent for this application, he has undertaken work for him and is doing work for Chatteris Town Council which he is involved with)