Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members 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 Mrs Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is an application for two dwellings and is submitted in an outline form with all matters reserved. She stated that the proposal has been recommended for refusal under reasons of principle and flood risk and made the point that Turves is classed as a small village within the Local Plan and in small villages infill development is supported.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application site is located between two built up frontages of Whittlesey Road and March Road and it is a gap within an otherwise built-up frontage and would meet the definition of infill development and it would also round off the existing built form in a logical way and, therefore, the principle of development in respect of Policy LP3 is supported. She stated that with regards to flood risk, the reason for refusal states that the search area for land for development should be the whole of the district given the location of the site but she disputes this, given that the dwellings in question would serve local amenities and facilities within the village and are positioned within the existing footprint of the village she feels the search area should be Turves itself and not the whole district.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the sequential test has proved that there are no alternative plots available to serve the development and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the dwellings will be technically safe from flooding, which the Environment Agency have accepted and, therefore, there is no harm caused in respect of flood risk. She pointed out that it can be seen that the scheme itself is very similar to the scheme at Red Barn which was approved and received officer’s support, with the application being supported by March Town Council and local residents, and, in her view, resulting in no conflict with planning policy which has been assessed in the reasons for refusal.

Members asked officers the flowing questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she recalls visiting this site in the past and referred to the planning site history which she believes maybe incorrect as she can see no reference to the application which caused her to visit the site. She added that she would also like to make the point that the application site is in March and is not in Turves as the site is in her ward. David Rowen responded that there was an application a few months ago which was further along March Road which was an agricultural building which was to be demolished to make way for a dwelling which the committee had resolved to approve but, to the best of his knowledge, he is not aware of anything on the proposed application site.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked officers to explain what the difference is between the application and the built form of number 733, with number 733 being away from the carriageway and was still able to be built. David Rowen stated that 733, 731 and 729 to the north of it were granted on an outline planning permission in 2007 and at which time they were within the development area boundary which was set out in the Local Plan because it was a farm building grouping. He added that the characteristics were very different to the site that is now before the committee, which is the corner of an agricultural field, not fronting the road and not following the prevailing pattern of development. Councillor Cornwell stated that 733 is built off road anyway and, in his opinion, even in the current form he cannot see how there is any real difference. He added that the building line also fits the proposal in his view. David Rowen stated that he is not sure how it could be said that the proposal respects the building line when the southern most dwelling site is behind the line of the properties fronting March Road. Councillor Cornwell stated that, in his view, 733 is not on March Road and it is on the private road.

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarity over access, and for officers to confirm that in order for access to be given to the proposal site, it will require permission to be granted by the owner of the private road? David Rowen stated that issues have been raised by the County Council’s Rights of Way team who have set out that because this is a public right of way then there would need to be a legal right of access proven across the public right of way to actually access any dwellings that are erected. He added that if the legal right does not exist then regardless of whether the application is approved, there will still be a question mark concerning the actual delivery of the development.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.4 of the officer’s report where it states that Public Footpath 29 must remain open and unobstructed at all times as it is an important footpath.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he can see similarities between this application and the earlier application at Red Barn that members had considered. He added that it does not protrude out into the open countryside any more than the garden of number 464 and, in his opinion, it finishes that area off. Councillor Benney stated that if the right of way issue does not get resolved then no development will be able to take place. He made the point that the barn that is being demolished and has received planning permission, which Councillor Mrs French had referred to, is even further out into the open countryside and the current proposal will square off the junction and bring a further two houses to the areas which also means further Council Tax income.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he will also support the application and added that the point he was making earlier was with regard to permission being sought before development can commence. He made the point that on the site inspections from the development site you can view the back garden of 464 Whittlesey Road and, therefore, you are not encroaching further into the open countryside.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she had considered supporting the officer’s recommendation, however, due to the fact that the garden extends, and the two houses are not going any further than that, she has now changed her mind and will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he also agrees with the comments made by Councillors Murphy and Benney. He added that he likens the proposal to that of a previous application in Eastwood End which was refused, and it went to appeal, and the appeal was lost. Councillor Sutton made the point that it is adjacent to the built form, and it is not infill development.

·         David Rowen pointed out that members have addressed the first reason for refusal during the debate with regards to the built form and the hierarchy issues, however, the second reason for refusal is with regard to the sequential test and if members interpretation is that the site is within Turves, rather than a site in the countryside, then sequentially they may feel that the test only needs to deal with the settlement of Turves. He stated that planning permission was granted for five dwellings in Turves previously which would count as being sequentially more preferable than the current location which members need to consider.

·         Councillor Mrs French reiterated her view that the site is not in Turves, it is in the ward of March West.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French about the site being in her ward, however, in his view, it is the relationship element that needs to be considered and there is no relationship to March when considering the planning site as it relates more to the settlement of Turves and anybody living there would class themselves as living in Turves. He made the point that the sequential test has been carried out in Turves and there is nowhere else with the lesser risk of flooding to build.

·         David Rowen stated that there are five dwellings that have been approved this afternoon in Turves which are sequentially preferable. He added that in terms of applying the sequential test in the SPD, it is currently accepted that if there are alternative sites which already have the benefit of planning permission then they are sequentially preferable.

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

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the proposal is not in an elsewhere location and is adjacent to the built form, and they feel that as the proposal is related toTurves a sequential test has been carried out in Turves that is satisfactory.