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 Gareth Edwards, the Agent. Mr Edwards explained that it states within the officer’s report that the Agent has gone to great lengths to answer the points raised by the technical consultees and achieve their support of the application, and he is happy to accept the conditions they have proposed, thanking them for their support. He stated that extensive negotiations have taken place over the last year with officers to bring the application in front of the committee, which, in his opinion, addresses all of the concerns in the main to produce a high-quality scheme which is consistent with the Local Plan.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency maps which is not always the case, and the scheme is supported by the Lead Flood Authority. He pointed out that the site is currently pasture land, which has not been in food production for many years and the site is cut a few times a year and bailed so there is no loss of food producing land from this application.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal has 18 letters of support from neighbours and villagers, showing, in his view, overwhelming local support for the scheme. He added that the site is within the built up area for Wimblington, which is a growth village within LP3, where development and new service provisions either within the existing urban area or a small village extension will be appropriate albeit of a considerably more limited scale than that appropriate to the Market Towns, and in his view that is exactly what has been provided in this application.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that this part of Wimblington has seen a modest amount of development over recent years both approved by the Planning Committee and at appeal, however, none of the applications have provided the level of community benefit that the current application will provide.  He stated that the proposal will provide a public open space along with pedestrian and cycle route to connect the existing footpath on Eastwood End to the north east, and this in turn will provide a safe passage for both current and proposed residents to access jobs at the industrial area to the north and to the facilities with the main part of the village including shops and school.

Mr Edwards explained that the roads and footways on the site along with the public open space are to be maintained via a management company which will be funded by the nine dwellings proposed.  He feels that Wimblington has a real mixture of dwelling types throughout, and believes that the scheme will enhance the area and provide large family homes on large plots with adequate separation distances so there will not be a significant detrimental impact in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, light or outlook, which is highlighted in the report.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that the site is a comprehensive development which is consistent with Rhonda Park to the east, where a comprehensive form of development exists, and the scheme has been purposely designed so as to have minimal impact on the existing established trees on the site which has reduced the numbers proposed and provides ample space for individual households and the community as a whole. He added that it should be noted that there is currently no provision for open space in this part of the village and the site presents an exciting opportunity to include a style of dwelling that is of a high architectural quality picking up features from the adjacent area all be it with a contemporary twist, and this is an aspirational and rare opportunity in the district to provide dwellings of this calibre which has ideal access to employment and leisure both within the village and district as a whole.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that the development will provide a positive contribution to this part of the village and enhance the street scene and will reinforce the landscaping belt along the A141 Isle of Ely Way and will provide for the requirement needed to mitigate any impact from the adjacent industrial enterprises and Isle of Ely Way. He asked the committee to support the proposal and approve the application with the conditions that they deemed appropriate, making the point that he has addressed the points from the technical consultees so that it achieves their support which includes that the design picks up on features from other neighbouring dwellings, addresses the street scene, it is a transitional approach which takes into account adjacent businesses and dwellings, is within Flood Zone 1 and it is Policy LP2, 3, 12, 15 and 16 compliant.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for confirmation as to who will be responsible for the maintenance of the bunds? Mr Edwards responded that it would fall to the responsibility of the  management company.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether any contact had been made with the Internal Drainage Board (IDB).  Mr Edwards explained he had only contacted the Lead Local Flood Authority. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would have expected him to have contacted the IDB initially as the water would eventually have to be discharged into their drains. Mr Edwards explained that he has consultants in place who oversee that aspect of an application on his behalf.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that it is a very dangerous road and to implement a roadway and cycleway on the edge of the road is not a good idea and asked whether it would not be possible to include it on the development site instead and then come out at the junction? Mr Edwards stated that initially it was going all the way through the site, but the advice given from the Crime Prevention Officer required that it was formed in front of the hedge as opposed to behind it as they were not happy with the layout and asked for it to be brought forward which is why it was changed.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether Mr Edwards would be prepared to install a metal barrier along the road for the safeguarding of pedestrians and cyclists? Mr Edwards stated that he would be prepared to accept a condition for that.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion a barrier would not be a suitable option as he has seen them damaged in other locations.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Nick Harding addressed members and explained that in terms of the position of the footway in relation to the hedge, it his understanding that the Crime Prevention Officer has concerns that if the footpath is at the back of the hedge, there would be no natural surveillance for people using the footway and cycleway whereas if it is adjacent to the highway there will the users of the highway who are observing the users of the footpath. He added that with regards to barriers, in his opinion, he does not think it would be appropriate to insist on the installation of a barrier as that would be the decision of the Highway Authority as it would be a piece of infrastructure that they would need to maintain going forward.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the road is a 50 mph road and questioned how pedestrians would be expected to cross the road at that point? He added that if pedestrians are being encouraged to use a northern footpath the whole point is to connect it to the village, and asked whether there are plans to introduce a crossing system at the location? David Rowen stated that at the southern end of Eastwood End, there is an island in the road which is a crossing point over the A141 from Eastwood End to King Street and the Highway Authority have expressed the opinion that it is an inadequate width to serve the footway and the footway on the other side of the A141 at King Street is also an inadequate width. He explained that is part of the reason for the recommendation of refusal as the linkage and highway infrastructure that the footway would link into is considered to be of a substandard nature.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the concerns of the footpath and he referred to the plans within the agenda pack where it shows that the footpath is within the site. David Rowen stated that a new plan has been submitted and the footway is on the other side of the hedge and, therefore, between the hedge and the A141.

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

·         Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that a four bedroomed house will provide a family home and the fast road does concern him especially if there is the requirement to cross the road.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he observed the place where the footpath would come out and he is also extremely concerned about pedestrians crossing the A141 and cannot support the application until better safety measures are implemented.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the existing crossing at Eastwood End is not adequate and if it is moved towards King Street is not helping the situation. He added that he would not like to be seen as somebody who supported a proposal which is so dangerous, and he cannot support the application. He added that there has to be a safer means of enabling pedestrians from the Eastwood End area to be able to cross the road.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he is not against the houses, but, in his opinion, the proposal is in totally the wrong location. He added that in its current form the application is totally wrong, and he agrees with the points made by Wimblington Parish Council.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, in his view, the committee cannot be consistent by refusing the application. He expressed the opinion that the application is no different to the three dwellings that were approved previously and to remain consistent the application should be approved.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the houses are needed for the area and it is the responsibility of parents to safeguard their children, by either transporting them to school in a car or accompanying them when crossing the road. He added that it is a rural area with public transport and there are cycle ways in place, however, people still use their vehicles and will continue to do so. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the development will probably be better without a footpath as pedestrians would then have to go through Eastwood End to get to the crossing. He stated that the development is excellent, and the houses will make a nice addition to the area, and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that with regards to the point made by Councillor Sutton concerning decisions of consistency, the committee have twice turned down development near the Peashill roundabout in March at the old Whittlesey Road site on exactly the same points that some committee members have made with regards to the application before them and the concerns they have of crossing the Isle of Ely Way and if the current application is approved, in his view, he would expect to see further applications being brought before the committee at the old Whittlesey Road site. Councillor Sutton stated that the difference is that two years ago the committee approved an application at this actual site.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that, in her opinion, the actual development is good and if a better crossing place was implemented it could be a good development. She added that family homes are required in Fenland and family homes have been approved in that area previously and she will be supporting the application.

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

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney, and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate suitable conditions.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation for refusal as they feel that the development does not harm the open countryside and does not adversely impact the character of the area.

(Councillor Mrs Davis declared that she is the Chairman of Wimblington Parish Council and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon on this item)

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows the applicant for this application and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item)