Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

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 Mr Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand stated that the applicant had recently inherited the property which was originally owned by his grandparents who lived in the former farmhouse that was situated in the north-east corner of the application site amongst the trees which have Tree Preservation Orders attached to them. He expressed the view that the application falls to be determined by the Local Plan adopted in 2014 and, therefore, Section 9.4 of the officer’s report should be ignored as it refers to the future replacement Local Plan which is only at its early consultation stage.

Mr Brand stated that under Policy LP3 of the Local Plan, Wimblington is shown to be one of the four growth villages and the next tier down from the four Fenland market towns, with in growth villages, development being acceptable within the existing urban area or as a small village extension and the proposal is for a small village extension which partially fills the present gap between Eastwood Hall and number 33, the old Toll House, with frontage development. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out a photograph which shows on the western side of March Road continuous frontage development extending from 33 to 69 March Road on the parish boundary and then a further photo which shows 33a March Road which is one of several properties of the scale to the north with deep rear gardens up to Linwood Lane byway.

Mr Brand referred to a further photograph which shows three recent executive dwellings built at New Woods Drive with a shared private access road opposite the site and made the point that the current application proposes the same arrangement of a shared private access road with executive self-build dwellings. He pointed out that the application is also considered to be against rural area policy, LP12 (a) , even though Wimblington is a top tier growth village and referred to the policy at paragraph 4.73 which states that the Local Plan has no fixed area boundaries around each settlement and the report states that the proposal is contrary to five points of the policy as well as the two footnotes which are related to the first point.

Mr Brand stated that on the first point there is continuous development opposite the site and further to the north which, in his opinion, is developed footprint and it makes the proposal acceptable as there is nowhere in the Local Plan where it states that there is a limit mentioned for infilling gaps opposite existing developed frontage. He questioned what is special about this view compared to all other Fenland views to justify the point made which states that the development will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the current countryside as, in his view, a rural view will still be maintained through the remaining gap between the sites northern boundary and the old Toll House.

Mr Brand stated that the proposed frontage form of development is in keeping with the existing dwellings on the western side of March Road and does not extend the existing linear features of the village and, in his opinion, it infills a gap in the road frontage. He pointed out that the site retains the healthy trees and the only ones to be removed are structurally unsafe and multi stemmed poor specimen and self-set trees.

Mr Brand explained that Eastwood House and the former Toll House do not require a heritage statement in order for the application to be processed as neither are Listed Buildings or in a Conservation Area. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that Eastwood Hall is well set back behind the application site and is screened from view by a tall hedge and trees set in the grounds and the proposed dwellings will have no impact on the setting of Eastwood Hall.

Mr Brand explained that the application is for four self-build building plots and the application is submitted in full due to the custom design dwelling for the applicant on plot 1 which has already been agreed with them as submitted and the other three plots have full designs to show prospective purchasers what scale dwellings can be built and it is anticipated that any future purchasers will tailor their plots to suit their life style requirements. He pointed out that a search in Right Move has found that there are no individual plots in Wimblington for sale and the nearest property being marketed was in Hospital Road in Doddington and three off Elm Road in March, with the applicants already having had enquiries concerning available plots in the village and, therefore, he feels there appears to be the demand for the dwellings.

Mr Brand referred to the officer’s report and made the point that Eastwood Hall and all the land around the applicants property are unlikely to consent to any sand or gravel extraction adjacent to Eastwood Hall.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked officers to clarify whether or not there is another application which has been submitted for a property to be built on the other side of Eastwood Hall which would mean that the whole gap is beginning to close and there will be the loss of the open view in that part of the village. Nikki Carter confirmed that there has been an application submitted for a dwelling to the south of Eastwood Hall which is currently in its very early stages of determination.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that where the point that was made with regards to the fact that there is no identified need he presumes that is taken from self-build and custom build register that the Council holds? Nikki Carter confirmed that is correct. Councillor Sutton asked what the current figures are that are held on the register? Nick Harding stated that the last time he reviewed the register the Council were granting twice the number of applications that were needed at least in comparison to the number of people that it had on the register and that is corroborated by the information that the Council receives each year from HMRC in relation to the actual build outs of self-build and custom build properties and the Council is delivering at least 50% more than the number of people on the register.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he cannot see any mention in the officer’s report that the entrance to the development is on a blind bend and he asked the officers whether this has been taken into consideration? Nikki Carter stated that this is something that she raised with the Highways Authority, and they confirmed that the visibility splays are suitable for the 30mph road and did not raise any concerns. The Highways Officer, Shane Luck, clarified  that the highways internal policy is that a single driveway which is proposed onto a road where the speed limit is 30mph or less in an existing settlement does not require visibility splays to be provided.

·       Councillor Miscandlon made reference to the officer’s report where Anglian Water have stated at 5.11 that there is no connection to Anglian Water sewers and, therefore, it has no comment to make and asked whether the intention is for the proposal to have septic tanks installed? Nikki Carter stated that the proposal is to use sewerage treatment plants, adding that Anglian Water were contacted and asked to provide some further information with regards to where the nearest foul sewers were, with Environment Agency guidance indicating that the connection to an existing foul sewerage network should be considered potentially feasible where the distance is less than the number of properties multiplied by 30 in this case 120 metres. She added that the sewer near Linwood Lane would appear to be within that and, therefore, it would be necessary to condition details of foul drainage if the application is approved. Councillor Miscandlon stated that the committee are all very well aware of problems within that area when considering the sewerage disposal issues and as there is no detail having been provided it is very difficult to make a judgement of what may happen going forward.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the development so far has been on the eastern side of the road and, in his opinion, he can see pressure coming to develop the western side of the road as well. He added that the plot appears to fill in part of the area between the entry to the Rectory and the Toll House and made the point that the link to both parts of the village of Wimblington is beginning to fill up and it appears to be a natural progression to infill on the western side.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he used to live in the Toll House many years ago.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he recalls an application on the east side of that stretch of road and at the time he voted against the proposal for highway reasons and he views this existing development as being more of a danger compared to the current proposal in highway terms. He stated that on the site inspections he noted that the pavement had been marked to indicate where the highway was coming out which he found to be very helpful, and, in his view, there is easily 43 metres as it goes both ways and he does not foresee any particular problems especially with there only being one access.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the Parish Council is against the proposal on the grounds that it is felt that Wimblington has no green space left in the village apart from the war memorial playing field, which luckily is for perpetuity and can never be sold. She added that the village is becoming more like a town rather than a village and the residents are very fed up. Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that there is no development on that side of the road but there has been development on the other side. She referred to the 88 dwellings which the Parish Council objected to and stated that application followed a natural progression of filling in but the other side has always been open and, in her view, it will change the look of the landscape of the village because there will be further applications that are submitted to fill the rest of it.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does feel sorry for the Wimblington as they have had the lions share of development and, in his view, enough is enough. He added that the development on the east side of the road was approved, and he agrees with the point made by Councillor Mrs Davis that there is no green space left and the villages appear to be receiving more development compared to the towns. Councillor Connor stated that he supports the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to 5.9 of the officer’s report where the Parish Council have stated that they object to the application on the grounds of access to the site, with there being no other comment about the position of the site, only the point about it being on a blind bend. He added that he is surprised that they have not made a stronger objection.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the Parish Council do object to the proposal but only on one basis.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that at 5.15 there are supporting comments and she added that it would suggest that not everybody opposes the application.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to the trees which have a Tree Preservation Order on them, with there being an application for them to be removed. Nikki Carter stated that there is an application which has been submitted to fell four of the protected trees which are covered by the application before members. She added that the Tree Officer has considered the report that has been submitted as part of the application and has not raised any issues, although there was a query raised over replacement trees and that may form part of a condition on the application. Nikki Carter explained that she is waiting for the Tree Officer’s formal comments as part of the tree application. Councillor Mrs Mayor asked whether the trees have to be removed to facilitate the area for the proposed houses which, in her view, may only effect one or two of the plots. She expressed the view that they are beautiful trees although she does accept that one does not look to be in the best condition, and she does not see why they should be removed to provide space for four building plots. Nikki Carter explained that the Tree Preservation Order is in the north-eastern corner of the site and the report indicates that they need to be removed for health and safety reasons. She added that there is an arboriculture report that has been submitted and they were waiting for this application to be determined but have since needed to speed up the process which is why the application has been submitted to remove the trees regardless of whether the proposal before the committee is approved or not. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she does not agree that they need to be removed and she referred to the point made by Councillor Mrs Davis with regards to the loss of green space which also includes trees.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to formulate suitable conditions including a Section 106 Agreement as these will be self-build dwellings.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they do not feel that the site is a heritage asset where a heritage statement needs to be provided, that the proposal would enhance the area and does not detract from it, and that sand and gravel extraction is not an issue.

(Councillor Connor declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he represents Doddington and Wimblington as a Fenland District Councillor and attends their meetings but takes no part in planning matters)

(Councillor Mrs Davis declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is Chairman of Wimblington Parish Council but takes no part in planning matters)