Agenda item

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

 

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Ruth Hufton, Chairman of Doddington Parish Council. Councillor Hufton stated that Doddington Parish Council object very strongly to the application and whilst in the current Local Plan Doddington is recognised as a growth village and is tasked with a 15% increase in housing during the period of that plan this was achieved in 2020 and she questioned why Doddington is being asked to accommodate a large development of 47 homes and whether the Local Plan has no bearing on what actually happens. She stated that disruption from construction traffic which will come through the quietest most historic part of the village where the Listed St Marys Church is situated and where currently in the region of £35,000 is being spent on repairs to the church wall.

 

Councillor Hufton made the point that the route to the development is through winding country lanes and through quiet residential streets which are not wide enough to take two passing vehicles and there are no parking restrictions in the area and one parked car could cause traffic congestion. She made the point that there are three very sharps bends that construction traffic would have to negotiate on the route would cause issues for heavy goods vehicles, especially for the number of large vehicles that would be expected for a development of the proposed size and it would also cause disruption to all three access roads into the village which are already very congested.

 

Councillor Hufton referred to the issue of lack of affordable housing within the proposal and added that the reason given states that viability will not allow for these to be built, making the point that this happens a great deal and the type of housing that Doddington urgently needs never materialises and she expressed the view that what is the point of policy LP5 of the Local Plan if developers are always going to be allowed to develop without the vital homes when viability raises its head.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the Parish Council have lost track of the number of times that affordable housing has been promised on original plans and then to be lost because of lack of viability and with very little if anything in the way of Section 106 contributions being offered in its place. She stated that she is of the understanding that £136,000 will be put towards increasing the facilities at the primary school in lieu of affordable housing but made the point that offering young people the opportunity and ability to buy their own homes should be more important than an extension to a playing field.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the school is at capacity now and whilst they are happy to receive the new parcel of land, it will also mean that there will be new responsibilities imposed on them by having to use teachers to police the new access gates at the rear of the school which is something that is not in their job description but something that they do in order to ensure the children’s safety. She questioned whether the new head teacher has been spoken to and made the point that she has spoken to him and she knows that he would have a number of questions and concerns if he was actually consulted.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that having the ability to expand the school by building on the land is great, but questioned whether any consideration has been given to the proposed 355 houses as part of the emerging Local Plan should actually materialize which would mean in the region of 150 extra children would be looking for a primary school place in the next 20 years. She stated that the local doctors surgery is at capacity and a recent statement from the NHS claims that the local surgery would need to employ more GP’s and nurses to accommodate the additional amount of people coming into the village from the houses and the East of England Ambulance Service have also stated that the proposed development is likely to have an impact on them servicing nationally set response times for A and E services of which they have stated that they simply do not have the capacity to meet the additional growth resulting from the development.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the car park at the doctors surgery is already inadequate and under LP2 of the current Local Plan it states that if a proposal within or on the edge of a village would in combination with other development built since 2011 and committed to be built increases the number of dwellings in a growth village by more than 15%, the scheme should have demonstrable evidence of clear local community support and the proposal before the committee does not have support, quite the opposite. She stated that since a similar appeal for a development in Manea was lost, the planning authority have again not sought to engage this part of the policy and Doddington Parish Council are very disappointed by this as it means that the opinions of the people who live in the village will not be taken into account and their views lost to make sure that the District Council do not lose another appeal.

 

Councillor Hufton expressed the view that it is a case of a tick box exercise to keep the Council safe and that within the emerging Local Plan the evidence report gives the development a score of D which means it would be rejected and, in her view, if that is the case then why is it even being considered.

 

Members asked Councillor Hufton the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there was extensive flooding in 2020 and asked whether the field was part of the flooding issues? Councillor Hufton stated that the bottom of Eastall Lane did suffer from flooding.

 

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor David Connor, District Ward Councillor, read by Member Services. Councillor Connor stated that his reasons for objection is the development is not small scale, with the previous application being refused partly due to the size of development, this although smaller development still has a cumulative effect on Doddington’s services and public when taken in conjunction with developments already approved. He referred to the comments in the committee report at 1.6 on construction traffic having a negative impact on nearby residents and made the point that this will likely be a 2-year build which will have a terrible effect for the nearby residents, with constant traffic from tradesman and deliveries down the narrow access all the way from Church Lane through Eastalls onto Bevills, in particular past Numbers 10-18 , which is as close as 4m and applications have been refused on this basis in the past and surely is not acceptable for those residents which will be detrimental for their health and wellbeing.

 

Councillor Connor stated that the vehicle tracking diagram provided by the applicant and as extract provided by handout shows two lorries passing at the entrance next to No. 10, which clearly shows the two lorries overlapping in multiple locations and will, therefore, cause lorries to mount the path to pass, creating continuous damage to pavements all through the existing Eastalls and Bevills estate. He expressed the view that this will be dangerous for pedestrians again for the duration of building work and no doubt be left to the Highways authority to fix.

 

Councillor Connor questioned that, even if a Construction Management Plan is provided advising that deliveries are staggered, where will waiting lorries be asked to park/wait? Church Lane? Further away in Wimblington? Where will lorries and vans wait if they arrive before working hours allow? Will construction work be located at Church Lane entrance to manage the traffic and turn away unscheduled lorries? How and can this even be enforced? He referred to the constant issues with mud on the road that happens on nearly every large site approved.

 

Councillor Connor acknowledged that after the development is complete the traffic will obviously reduce, however, there will be ongoing large vehicles using the access, such as removal lorries, delivery vans/lorries, emergency vehicles, refuse lorries, which, in his view, will struggle to pass another oncoming vehicle even if it’s a car. He referred to the displaced Parking for 10-18, with there being a rough marked out area on the site plan for displaced parking, but no details of how many spaces or turning would be provided, with a minimum of 6 cars appearing to be required but only 2 are indicated on drawing 53-SL-01, therefore, 4 cars along with any additional visitor cars will be required to park on the road at the entrance where vehicle tracking already is shown not to be achievable.

 

Councillor Connor referred to the comments of Cambridgeshire Constabulary whereby the officer has queried the buffer zone and its management to ensure this is a safe area, which could be a significant problem for the future for anti-social behaviour for both new and existing nearby residents and left to be someone else’s problem because of this poor design. In relation to health and well-being, he feels the existing properties at the new entrance will not only be subject to the construction traffic impact as mentioned but the ongoing vehicle movements in close proximity will not stop there, with lights and noise from vehicles being noted in the committee report as being 20+ vehicles in both directions at peak times, which will again have a significant impact to those existing residents in particular no. 18 where vehicle headlights will be constantly shining in their lounge window.

 

Councillor Connor referred to the officer’s report at 5.16 and 5.17 where it states that there would be an impact on blue light service and doctors, with money proposed to mitigate this; however, this does not solve the issue that the doctors cannot recruit new staff to cope with the current patient numbers, therefore, 151 more patients as noted in the report will add increased pressure on appointments. He expressed the view that the infrastructure within Doddington just is not sufficient for this growth.

 

Councillor Connor referred to Lionel Walden School and that the headmaster says that no one has spoken to him in an official capacity in relation to the plans, with his initial opinion being that if it keeps the children safe then he is of course in favour of the provision for a back way into the school. He stated that currently the back fence has just been replaced at the school and the current gate opens into the school field, this will require a path if it is to be used and also security needs to be considered, with a member of staff standing at the front gate to welcome the children in, another will be required if a back gate is also to be used.

 

Councillor Connor referred to consideration if the back gate is locked (ie, late arrivals) the children will then have to walk around to Ingles Lane which has no path, and this will make them even later as well as being dangerous, which is without even considering the fact that some of the children will not even be able to attend even if they live on this proposed new development as the school is heavily oversubscribed and some years are already full!

 

Councillor Connor expressed the view that the proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land, with the site having been farmed for many years and no evidence is provided to justify the development on such land including exploring lower grade land in the area as required by Local Plan Policy LP12i. He expressed the view that although little weight is currently given to the emerging Local Plan at this stage, he would like the committee to note that this site is not currently included as a suitable site within the consultation document, therefore, if it is not suitable for the new Local Plan why is it now?

 

Councillor Connor asked members to consider going against officer recommendation and refuse the application on the following policies:

·       LP16e – health and well-being of the nearby residents both during and after construction as previously refused on this site and others

·       LP2 and LP17d – helping to reduce crime, avoiding adverse impacts, the footpath/buffer zone around the site

·       LP12i – agricultural land as no documentary evidence required by the policy has been provided to justify this, therefore, this application is incomplete

·       LP15 and Paragraph 111 of the NPPF – highway safety during construction and when compete.

 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the schedule of house types and plot numbers with differences between drawings and asked for clarity over the detail of the house types, as there only appears to be a proposal of two bungalows within the development, which he feels does not coalesce with the rest of the estate which is a good mix of bungalow and house tenure. He expressed the view that the anomaly in the two schedules is unprofessional. Theresa Nicholl stated that there have been numerous iterations of the drawings and plans and with regards to whether two storey dwellings are acceptable or appropriate in relation to Bevills Close, there are more bungalows on Bevills Close and the surrounding development which is stated within the officer’s report, however, that does not mean that there needs to be the same mix of bungalows and dwellings on the application site. She explained that there are two storey dwellings in the surrounding development and the site itself is very well contained by landscaping, making the point that if the proposal had included any three storey houses, then officers may have had a different view but, in her opinion, two storey dwellings are not out of keeping with the surrounding area. Theresa Nicholl added that just because there are less bungalows included as part of the proposal cannot be used as a reason to refuse the application.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that on at least two occasions it has been stated that the current site would not be acceptable under the new Local Plan, and he questioned why the application should go ahead now due to the fact that the time the site is built out the new Local Plan will be in place. He asked whether that point has been considered by officers and also asked whether there has been any local consultation carried out? Nick Harding stated that with regards to the emerging Local Plan, there is a document published on the Council’s website which shows that the site was assessed on a different basis to the application before the committee, with the capacity of the site being 100 dwellings and the proposal before the committee is approximately half the size in terms of numbers of dwellings. He explained that the reason why it was rejected is because it was considered that access was constrained, and it identified that there was the potential for a new access to be provided to the A141 and the Highway Authority are content that the development can be served through the existing highway network with no new connection to the A141 required, with it stating that the connection to the A141 is a barrier to the delivery of the site and is no longer needed and it also states that the deliverability of pedestrian and cycle links to access village services which in the plans show the connections to the existing road network enabling quick access to the local amenities of the village along with the rear access to the school for pedestrians. Nick Harding explained that when it was assessed for the purposes of the emerging Local Plan it was a different proposal against which it was being assessed compared to the one before the committee.

·       Councillor Cornwell questioned whether there had been any consultation undertaken as there appears to be little or no support for the application. David Rowen stated that a consultation exercise has been undertaken as part of the planning application which has resulted in 166 letters of representation. He made the point that the issue appears to be the policy of the Local Plan which requires that level of support to be demonstrated for proposals of 15% in growth villages. David Rowen referred to Councillor Hufton mentioning within her presentation that since the appeal decision concerning the site in Manea a few years ago when the Council lost the appeal and had costs awarded against it for use of the policy, it has generally been the approach of the Council not to implement that element of the Local Plan. Councillor Cornwell stated that, in his view, a lot of the comments made appear to be based around access to that particular area and whilst he can see that the Highway Authority have made their comments, the local residents have also made their feelings known and, in his opinion, Doddington has become slightly isolated because of its location compared to the Isle of Ely Way. He added that it would have been easier to understand the access issues if a broad concept approach had been applied to that part of the village as over the years there is going to be pressure there regardless of what the existing or emerging Local Plan says. He added that had a broad concept plan been in place, it would deal with aspects like access to the Isle of Ely Way, but that was not considered both from the earlier large application that had been referred to and now the application before the committee.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that 47 houses is an increase in 4.5% and asked officers whether they agree that is too much of an increase for Doddington. He added that with regards to the Conservation Area near the church, the committee have been advised that £35,000 has been spent on the repair of the wall and if there are lorries using that area then the situation is going to get worse along with the two Listed Buildings that are also in the vicinity who may also suffer. Councillor Skoulding stated that on the site inspections, the coach that members travelled on met an ambulance travelling in the opposite direction and the coach had to get onto the pavement to let the ambulance through, however, had a lorry been there the ambulance would have had significant difficulty in being able to pass. He asked officers to explain why they think that the proposal is acceptable? Theresa Nicholl stated that the questions that he has posed have been answered in the committee report and she appreciates that people may not agree with her opinion, but consideration has been given as to whether 47 houses are too much for the village of Doddington, but it is a growth village and there are several sites proposed in the emerging Local Plan and, in her opinion, 47 dwellings looking at the application on its own merits is not too many for Doddington and she would struggle to see how the application could change from what is classed as being acceptable into being too many, especially when the whole of the site is looked at in relation to the whole village. She stated that in terms of the Conservation Area and listed buildings, construction traffic would need to pass through them to get to the site, but that would be true of many developments in this area and elsewhere where construction traffic has to go past Listed Buildings to get to a site. Theresa Nicholl added that, in her view, it would be very difficult to find evidence to support that damage is going to be caused by construction traffic to the Listed Buildings on the way to the site and whilst she appreciates that it only right that there would be concerns regarding it, if the application is refused and goes to an appeal then there will be the requirement to provide evidence. Theresa Nicholl pointed out that in terms of the traffic concerns there have been extensive consultations with the Highway Authority who do not object to the application and she has gone back to them on several occasions questioning them about construction traffic because their original responses had not alluded to that at all which is not unusual as their view is that it is acceptable as all development have construction traffic but due to the local circumstances she has asked them about it and they have not raised any objections and have stated that the proposed condition for the construction management plan is acceptable. She explained that the proposed width of the new roads is the same width as Bevills Close and the other local roads and it meets the highway standards for that type of development. Theresa Nicholl made the point that she cannot see any reason to be able to object to the views of the local Highway Authority and say that the proposed road width is not acceptable as it does meet their standards.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the Section 106 contributions where there are no affordable homes proposed for the village and all villages are in need of affordable homes, which is seen very frequently where the developers get approval and then do not include any affordable homes within their development. She stated that to see not evidence of any affordable homes out of a proposal of 47 dwellings is disgraceful. Councillor Mrs French questioned whether Doddington has its own Neighbourhood Plan and Councillor Mrs Davis responded that there is an emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is appalled that there is no capacity within the education system for any children who will reside in the new homes asking where are these children supposed to go to school, and she asked officers whether they have had serious conversations with the education department at County Council concerning this issue as they have a statutory duty for children to be educated. She made the point that she is aware that the Council does not have a statutory duty to supply the Section 106 money as that is down to the County Council but, in her opinion, she does not feel that there have been enough discussions with them on this matter. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the proposed road layout is not acceptable and will prove to be extremely problematic for those local residents making the point that the Highways Authority have not considered the proposal properly and she will be taking this type of issue up with the County Council. She stated that the education department appear to be content to accept a small piece of land for a play area, but that will not solve problems in the future.

·       Nick Harding stated that in terms of the Section 106 position all members will be aware of the piece of work that was undertaken in connection with the emerging Local Plan which is the Strategic Viability Assessment, which had indicated in the north of the district no Section 106 contributions could be secured and there would be no contributions towards affordable homes either and in the south of the district there would be scope for some affordable homes and Section 106 contribution of approximately £2000 per property. He stated that where a developer comes forward and they submit a viability claim then they have to submit information that demonstrates that their build costs are above normal and above the benchmark figures that have been assumed within the Council’s own commissioned Strategic Viability Assessment and that is exactly what has been done and the information has been scrutinized by the Council’s own Section 106 Officer and also by the County Council as they normally ask to see the viability information as well as they are the education authority. Nick Harding stated that officers are satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the development costs for this site are above that of which you would normally expect and, therefore, a reduction in the Section 106 contribution compared to usual is acceptable. He made reference to the comments with regards to education provision and explained that the information has not been indicated to officers in the response that has been received from the County Council and added that he would not expect that type of information to be provided but he is mindful that if that is a concern of members then under the emerging Local Plan the Council is proposing to allocate more sites for residential development in the settlement.

·       Councillor Marks asked what size of lorry the Highway Authority base their assessment on as he has driven an articulated lorry in Church Lane and when you get to the top you cannot turn a low loader around as the turning area is too tight. He added that he has heard through the discussion that at one point the road is four metres wide, but two vehicles can pass, however, he questioned how two 2.5-metre-wide lorries would be able to pass? David Rowen stated that one of the plans submitted as part of the application indicated an 11.5 metre lorry body as the template for the tracking and, therefore, the Highway Authority have based their consideration on that detail. Councillor Marks stated that would then mean that an articulated lorry with a 13.6 or 14 metre trailer is already over what has been provided and most bricks blocks, wood and roof tiles would arrive on a lorry bigger than what has been worked out based on their projections and asked officers if they would agree? David Rowen stated that he is not a Highways Officer and is unable to comment.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that officers have made the point that access will be constrained and access for construction traffic will be difficult, and, in her opinion, she feels that is an understatement. She asked whether the Highways Officers undertook a visit to the site or whether their report was a desk stop study? Theresa Nicholl stated that the application has been reviewed by more than one Highway Officer and she is aware that an on-site visit did take place. She cannot determine how the Highways Officers have made their assessment of the application and can only advise of the communications that she has had with them which has included her questioning them on the points concerning construction and traffic management. Theresa Nicholl explained that the update report provides the latest response from the County Council which she had sent to three separate Highways Officers to outline the proposed highway conditions she was going to include as part of her recommendation. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she would have liked a Highway Officer to be present at the meeting to provide an explanation.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that on the house type schedule is states that there are four number Warwick style homes but on the plot schedule it states that just number 41 and 47 are Warwick type homes and there are also other anomalies which really do need to be looked at as you could be approving a house type which is not where you think it is. He added that it does say in the officer’s report that a Highways Officer visited the site.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the point that if more than one Highways Officer has been involved in the application then she questioned whether they have all been on site.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the Highway Authority normally state that the limit is 100 vehicles in and out of a junction and with 47 dwellings being built there is going to be more than a hundred vehicles. Nick Harding stated that he is not aware of that limit being imposed by the County Council’s Highway Authority. Theresa Nicholl stated that she believes that there is a misunderstanding concerning a hundred vehicles being the maximum, which stems from the Highways Authority having concerns that there was only one vehicular access serving the development and if there had been an emergency on site, with their proposal for resolving that was to provide the emergency access point. She stated that they are not saying that there has to be two standard vehicular access points to serve the site and that was the advice that they had provided. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that there are bollards at the emergency exit so if an emergency vehicle needed to use that exit point, their egress is time critical, and it could therefore put lives at risk.

 

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

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that the proposal is for too many houses and the lack of security at the new entrance of the school is also a concern to him. He stated that there have also been instances of flooding in Church Street, with the extra development only increasing the problems and he will not be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he grew up in Doddington and knows the area well and feels that members cannot go against the opinion of Highways Officers, and have to respect their opinion and accept what they say although members may not agree with it. He added that the key issue appears to be surrounding the number of proposed dwellings and he expressed the view that in the context of the village of Doddington, it is a large development and given that Doddington already has 127 dwellings as their threshold, they appear to be way over their 15% as they now have 196 according to the threshold position statement which is 23.5% above what was agreed in the Local Plan and the plan was found to be accurate and sound by the Planning Inspectorate. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it is not correct to keep adding to villages and stated that the emerging Local Plan proposes another 355 dwellings which he finds very difficult to understand how the Planning Policy Officers can be seriously considering this. He stated that in the 2014 Local Plan, the village of Doddington was classed as a growth village but it was never to grow as big as the town of March. Councillor Sutton stated that the application is not a small development, and he cannot support the proposal.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that knowing that Doddington has now already achieved its housing target, and the fact that the proposal does not have the support of the village, in his view, he cannot support the application if the local people do not want it.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there appears to be too many issues with the proposal and she has spent a significant amount of time in her role at County Council with the Local Lead Flood Authority, reviewing the flooding issues that have taken place including the dykes and drains across the whole of Fenland and she questioned who would be responsible for the drain, if it is filled in and not piped properly and causes flooding. She expressed the opinion that whilst the County has experienced Highway Officers the highways assessment of the site is wrong, and the County Council has a responsibility to supply school places and she cannot support the application in its present form. Councillor Mrs French stated that consideration could be given to defer the application so that the Local Lead Flood Authority, Highways Officers and somebody from the Education team comes and provides an explanation to the committee, but she cannot support it in its current form.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he has considered the points raised by other members and is unable to support the application, but added that the construction traffic noise and vibrations may also cause damage to the existing dwellings and affect their insurance policies.

·       Nick Harding stated that in terms of the scale of the development, there has been a history of refusals which have cited the scale of development proposed being over and above something that was deemed suitable for the settlement and the application before the committee is a far smaller scheme than there has been in the past. He added that with regards to the village threshold the Council has lost an appeal and since that time it has been presented to committee and accepted by the committee that going through the community support route is something that officers would disapply and therefore it is not something that applicants are asked to do anymore, and it is not a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Nick Harding stated that there is no need to reintroduce that in this particular instance and in terms of comments from the public it is all about giving weight to the content of those representations and not just the number of representations made because applications need to be determined on those aspects which are material considerations. He made reference to the points raised concerning the scale of the development and whilst he accepts that the emerging Local Plan is only something that can be given exceptionally limited weight to, consideration needs to be given that the fact that a significant scale of development has been identified by the Council’s draft policy for development in the Doddington area does put forward significant growth and, therefore, if the application is refused on the grounds of excessive scale of development then it would prove contentious when comparing the 300 plus dwellings that the Council as an authority is currently putting forward in its emerging Local Plan. Nick Harding stated that the existing road network leading up to the application site has a width and alignment associated with it and that width and alignment is standard and is of a style and dimension that is rolled out on new developments and, therefore, members need to determine why it is not appropriate for that road network to be used in this instance as opposed to any other that the committee has previously approved. He added that there will be inconvenience and disruption during the construction phase but that is inevitable when new development takes place and officers along with the committee have approved a significant number of planning applications which have utilized existing road  networks to construct new dwellings and the council has itself got a planning application submitted in the Chatteris area which is proposing to use existing road networks through a residential development in order to gain access to its proposed development site. Nick Harding stated that he does understand the inconvenience that the construction will cause to existing residents and with regard to the vibrations caused to properties, if the committee tried to refuse the application on the grounds of vibration from passing construction vehicles, he questioned where it would leave the Council in relation to all the other applications that come before the committee for determination. He stated that with regards to the onsite drainage features, they will be under the control of a management company for the site and in his experience sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not but given that adoption cannot be forced on Anglian Water (AW) and the Environment Agency (EA) the Council is either forced to refuse every application that does not propose to have it adopted by AW or the EA or allows the management companies to be responsible. Nick Harding stated that the Council has no legal powers when granting planning permission to require adoption by the EA or AW and whilst sometimes there are issues which occur to do with the highway or the drainage features on residential estates there is very little that the Council can do about it.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that it is her understanding that no more development should take place in Doddington or Wimblington until the issue of drainage and sewerage is resolved and although AW have stated that they are working on the issue there will not be a satisfactory resolution for about 5 years, with AW appearing to think the situation can be resolved at the moment by shipping out the waste on open top lorries at night. She stated that Nick Harding had pointed out that the width of the roads on new estates are the same width as the current ones but that cannot be right as vehicles cannot pass. Nick Harding explained that is the current mode of designing highway networks and they are relatively narrow so when there is a parked vehicles within the highway, drivers need to take a little bit more care when passing another vehicle. Theresa Nicholl pointed out that the proposed road width is the same or very similar to the width of Bevills Close leading into it and that members maybe referring to the older roads leading up to the Bevills Close development but when the Bevills Close estate was built the construction lorries would have had to access Church Lane to access the site. Councillor Marks stated that the size of lorries were different during that construction time.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that if an articulated lorry cannot access the site, then other types of vehicles will be used. He feels the bigger worry is the contorted roadway and access into the site by numbers 16 – 18, which is extremely poor.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the points made by Councillor Mrs Davis with regards to Anglian Water shipping ou their waste.

 

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Sutton and agreed that the application should be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

 

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation for approval as they feel that the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policy LP2, Facilitating Health and Well-Being of Fenland Residents, Local Plan Policy LP3, Spatial Strategy, the Settlement Hierarchy and the Countryside, and Local Plan Policy LP12, Rural Areas Development Policy, as there will be a detrimental impact on the amenity of the existing residents, with the proposed vehicular access and lack of alternative parking for residents of 12 – 18 Bevills Close and the impact of noise and access to 12 – 18 Bevills Close and 15 Eastall Close, and the development of 47 dwellings is not in the opinion of the committee small scale and will have a cumulative detrimental impact on the neighbouring housing estates with vehicle movements into the village.

 

(Councillor Benney declared that the application may cause a conflict with his Portfolio Holder responsibilities for Assets and Projects, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

 

(Councillor Mrs Davis declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters that she is the District Councillor for Doddington and Wimblington and attends Doddington Parish Council meetings, but takes no part in planning matters)

 

(Councillor Murphy declared that the ransom strip of land associated with this application was discussed when he was a member of Cabinet in 2009 and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)