Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that the background to this application is unusual in that it is not usual for the Planning Officer to repeatedly question highways advice and apparently seek a reversal of the consultation comments made. He added that members will see from the report that the application is now almost a year old and highways have commented several times and he expressed the view that given the considerable weight and importance that officers and members usually give to Highway Authority comments both the agent and applicant are surprised at this approach.

Mr Slater explained that, in policy terms, the proposal is for limited development on the edge of a limited development village as allocated in the adopted Local Plan, and as such is in accordance with the provisions of LP3 and LP12. He added that the plan, therefore, accepts that the settlement is a sustainable and accessible location for limited new housing and as consequence is deemed to be a sustainable location having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan Policy 1, which is accepted in the officer’s report at point 10.4.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is clear that in spatial terms the site is well related to the historic core of the village and the services and facilities such as the pub, church and school that it contains and it is noted that the site is significantly closer to the centre of the village, and the bus services, along the Main Road than the draft allocations in the emerging Local Plan village insert for Elm. He stated that this gives the site better non-car access to Wisbech for higher order services and facilities than much of the recent development and the planned allocations.

Mr Slater explained that pedestrian and cycle access to the site is also available from Grove Gardens and Cedar Way which is shown as adopted highway meaning that the application site is only 87m from this junction. He stated that the planning objection is predicated on an increase in traffic usage on Atkinsons Lane which is a matter to which the County Council as the Highways Authority does not object.

Mr Slater stated that it appears to be the view of the planning officers that the use of the 87m of Atkinsons Lane as a shared road/footway is unsafe, and the additional traffic generated from up to 4 homes will cause demonstrable harm to safety such that the potential residents will be deterred from walking or using cycles to the detriment of transport sustainability, however, in the absence of an objection from highway on highway function or safety grounds it appears to him that the premise for this assessment is unsound and without an evidential basis and, therefore, he disagrees with this assessment and conclusion. He stated that Atkinsons Lane is narrow being between 2.4m and 2.8m in width, however, it has adequate width to accommodate refuse lorries, with the layout and access design within the site providing a turning space to allow the refuse vehicle to safely turn and this is accepted by the Council’s Environmental Services officers. He added that the refuse lorries enter the site only once a week and these alone will not be material in terms of the impacting on the wider sustainability and accessibility concerns as expressed in the refusal reason.

Mr Slater made the point that Atkinsons Lane is currently very lightly trafficked and widely used for dog walking and, in his opinion, the additional of trips from 4 new homes will not substantially affect this situation.  He stated that the applicant simply does not accept that the nature of Atkinsons Lane will dissuade residents from walking or cycling and it is essentially a pleasant route to walk and is lightly trafficked.

Mr Slater explained that the applicant has lived in Elm and Friday Bridge for 38 years and his wife was born in Elm some 60 years ago, they have been looking for a site to relocate to and provide a house for their son and his family for some time now and have found great difficulty in securing suitable land as most is under option, however, they are committed to the village and wish to remain there.  He feels that in the absence of a substantive objection from highways in terms of safety or environmental services in terms of bin collection, it is considered that there is no evidence the proposed access will be a deterrent to walking and cycling and as such that it is and can be considered a sustainable village development within the provision of LP3 and LP12.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he finds it strange that the Highway Authority have not raised an objection to the application as, in his opinion, the lane is only a farm track. He added that he is aware that the Highway Authority have to deem something as severe before they can object, but feels the issues at this site are severe. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that officers have made the correct recommendation. He stated that there is not an issue with developing that particular piece of land, if the applicant can come off the Begdale Road there would not be any concerns but to come down Atkinsons Lane should not be considered.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has seen the comments raised by the Parish Council who strongly object to the proposal. She added that Elm did suffer from flooding in 2020 and, in her view, officers have made the correct recommendation and she cannot support the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Sutton and concurred that if there had been an entrance off Begdale Road he does not think that there would have been any objections whatsoever but the entrance off of Atkinsons Lane, in his opinion, is a very poor decision as it is not even a cattle track as it is an appalling road. He stated that he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with the comments already made and added that if the access was off Begdale Lane it would be fine but he cannot support the application in its current form.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the lane is exceedingly narrow. He stated that, in his opinion, the access is not suitable and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that there are residents in the vicinity who are using the grass verge to cut across to go down the first part of Atkinsons Lane which is totally illegal and also brings the safety concerns into the top part of Atkinsons Lane.

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