Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 Lidbetter, an objector to the application. Mr Lidbetter stated that, since September 2021, he has resided in a property called Rathsome which was shown on the officers presentation and is the new build house adjacent to the north-west boundary of the applicant’s site. He stated that prior to purchasing his property he called the Council’s Planning Department to ascertain the future planning policy for Coxs Lane and its locality and the Planning Officer advised him categorically that no further development was planned for Coxs Lane and, therefore, he purchased his house.

Mr Lidbetter stated that a few weeks later a large sway of the adjacent orchard was cut down and also an oak tree which was on a site outside of the applicant’s ownership and soon after that a planning application was submitted, which is linked to one in 2019 which was refused by the Planning Committee by a large majority. He expressed the view that Coxs Lane has a charming rural countryside appearance and is very well used by walkers, runners and dog walkers, however, it is a very narrow lane with no passing places between his property and Sunnyside which is further south of his property.

Mr Lidbetter stated that the only passing places on the lane are the driveway entrances serving the five properties which are on Coxs Lane, plus the access road which serves the houses located on Barton Green, and that the increase in vehicular traffic from the proposed development will create a far more hazardous scenario for pedestrians using Coxs Lane. He expressed the view that the proposal before the committee appears to be an exact copy of the previous planning application submitted except for the provision of a pedestrian footpath which is routed over land owned by the applicant, with this footpath being a cul de sac path and only of use to the residents of plots one to four of the application site and the regular users of Coxs Lane will not benefit from it.

Mr Lidbetter stated that location of plot 1 is extremely close to his property and will invade his family’s privacy. He stated that should approval be given, in his opinion, it should be limited to a maximum of three properties but preferably two in order to retain some severance of a rural environment along Coxs Lane.

Mr Lidbetter referred to the comments made by Wisbech Town Councillors, some of whom are very familiar with Coxs Lane and who discussed the proposal on the 18 July and stated that the proposal will constitute over development of the site and the nature of the proposed development is more suited to an urban area and is out of keeping with the existing properties in the vicinity of the application site and they also expressed the view that Coxs Lane is inadequate in width to serve residential development on the scale proposed by the application. He stated that, in his view, a terrace of four two-storey five bedroomed houses will be totally inappropriate in a rural environment.

Mr Lidbetter explained that he has discussed the planning application with the applicant and advised him that he would be objecting to the proposal. He added that the condition of Coxs Lane is poor as it is narrow, bumpy, has no footpath or street lighting and no plans as far as he is aware to make improvements to the lane.

Mr Lidbetter stated that the applicant informed him that he was certain that his proposal will be approved which has perplexed him somewhat.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that members will be aware of the ongoing development taking place, including the new school on Barton Road, the nursing home to the East and the new housing along Barton. He added that he is aware that the character of the area has changed over recent years and members will be aware that the site was discussed by the committee in February and at that time the committee resolved to refuse the application due to highway passing and pedestrian safety concerns.

Mr Slater stated that the refusal was limited in its scope in that the principle of development on the site was accepted as was the house design and layout so it appears that members were largely supportive of the scheme in terms of the scale of infill housing and were encouraging in relation to the provision of executive homes, but the committee did request additional highway improvements be incorporated into the scheme to make it acceptable. He made the point that although members did not approve the scheme the clear direction to the applicant was that the developer should go away and revise the scheme and bring back a proposal to mitigate highway implications with the inclusion of passing places and a footpath.

Mr Slater stated that the applicant has redesigned the proposal with the agent to address the concerns and the confirmation of the appropriate visibility splays has been achieved by carrying out a speed survey. He added that the appropriate visibility splays are now shown both north and south of the access points and the revised scheme incorporates two passing bays along the site frontage to the general benefit of users of Coxs Lane which is achieved by pairing the access points as each pair provides a passing bay along the application verge to Coxs Lane.

Mr Slater stated that the applicant has asked him to advise the committee that the application is similar to one at Bar Drove in Friday Bridge which included three plots on a narrow road which was approved at committee with the passing bays incorporated within the entrance details. He stated that in terms of the footpath link, the applicant has undertaken extensive possibilities of incorporating a footway along Coxs Lane linking to Barton Road, but unfortunately the verge on Coxs Lane is physically not wide enough to accommodate this, and particularly at the northern end with its junction of Barton Road, but as a result the applicant has offered an innovative design solution in the form of a private footpath through his orchard to the rear of the site linking onto Barton Road and through the development to the north.

Mr Slater stated that the path is owned by the applicant and can be conditioned which will require provision in advance of first occupation with access and maintenance in perpetuity. He added a further condition could also be added to impose a lighting scheme and the footpath would link to the existing footpath on Barton Road which is being upgraded as part of the off-site highway works for the school.

Mr Slater stated that the previous scheme on the site was refused by the committee in respect of specific concerns over the passing bays on Coxs Lane and the pedestrian access to Barton Road and he made the point that the applicant and agent have provided the amended scheme to address those concerns.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that Mr Slater had made reference to the school, and she asked him whether the school has actually been approved as she was not aware. Mr Slater stated that it has had a conditional discharge submitted on it and there is an agreed footpath link along the northern side of Barton Road so it must have permission. He added that it is a special education needs school. Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification from officers as to whether the school has permission and is going ahead.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that the Mr Slater referred to a speed survey being undertaken and questioned where that survey took place as, in his view, it is not possible to speed in Coxs Lane. He added that he feels that the road is unique to Cambridgeshire and to consider building on it and utilising people’s entrances into their homes as a passing bay is not acceptable. Mr Slater stated that a speed survey was required to ascertain what the appropriate visibility splays are. He added that it is a non-classified road as it is clear that you would not be able to drive at speed down the road, with the actual speed being measured and then 80 percentiles of it is taken which gives the detail of the visibility splay and that has been detailed on the approved plans. Councillor Connor asked what the speed was and Mr Slater stated that he believes it was between 30-40mph.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the view that he was astounded at that result as he would not drive more that 15mph along that road.

·       Nick Harding stated that he can confirm that there is a planning consent granted on planning application reference 21/215 and subsequently there have been discharge of condition applications and more recently a non-material amendment to that original planning permission. He confirmed that planning permission has been granted for a 60-place social, emotional and mental health school for pupils in key stage three and four, which is ages 11 to 16. Councillor Connor stated that he is very happy to hear that news.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the speaker made reference to the previous application, and it would appear that there are no issues with the scheme apart from the highway elements and he questioned whether that is correct. He added that it may be the case that the application was refused for highways being one of the reasons, but he cannot recall the committee ever confirming that they support the design layout and other elements of the scheme. Nick Harding stated that the recommendation before the committee only has one reason for refusal which is the only issue that officers are concerned with in relation to scheme. David Rowen stated that when the previous application came before the committee, there were three or four reasons which members did not agree with, which left the highways matter the only reason for refusal of the previous application.

·       Councillor Connor asked the Highways Officer for his thoughts on the proposal and Shane Luck stated that the question surrounding speed based on the visibilities as shown in the drawings are interpreted to an observed speed of in and around 40mph. He added that the reason that a visibility speed survey was requested is that it is unlikely that vehicles will travel at 60mph on such a road, although they are legally allowed to do so but the reason for the survey in this particular case is to demonstrate that the achievable visibility was acceptable based on the actual observed vehicle speeds. Mr Luck made the point that the main concern is the width of Coxs Lane, and it is of a width only suitable for a single vehicle and there are no passing places for other vehicles to pass each other. He added that whilst they could pull onto the grass verge to pass, he does not advocate this as it is unsafe to do so and could drag any loose debris and mud into the carriageway which in turn could endanger other road users. Mr Luck added that the presentation referred to a precedent being set for nearby permissions and it is his understanding that one was for a replacement dwelling and one replaced a mobile catering unit operated as a catering business and, therefore, in both cases the highway position would not have been a material intensification above the existing positions, however, four new dwellings will bring an increase in traffic flows to Coxs Lane and typically two to three two way vehicle movements per dwelling per day is what officers would anticipate. He added that although that may appear to be a modest figure it does increase the risk of vehicles meeting and being allowed to pass. Mr Luck stated that he does not agree with the applicant that the shared accesses can be used as passing places as they are access points to private dwellings which may or may not be occupied by private vehicles at any time. He reiterated the point that was made by highways officers in the report which was that vehicles entering and exiting or using the access passing places may obstruct visibility for other road users. Mr Luck stated that Coxs Lane is a minor road in the sense of the traffic it accommodates under the construction specification of it but each new dwelling that is permitted slightly increases the risk of conflict occurring due to the substandard cross section. He added that the total magnitude of safety impacts may be modest, however, in his opinion, the application would adversely impact the risk along the road.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he totally agrees with the comments made by the Highway Officer and added that when members went on the site inspections, they saw just how difficult it can be for vehicles to pass each other and, in his view, the more dwellings built there will only exacerbate the already problematic situation. Mr Luck stated that he would agree, and each dwelling adds a modest worsening situation and over time it is a cumulative impact and the risk of vehicles meeting up in the past can be mitigated by the inclusion of passing bays or character widening works but it is his understanding that no such works are proposed.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he agrees with the point made by Councillor Murphy with regard to the issues encountered when vehicles are trying to pass and added that one of the existing properties must be getting frustrated with vehicles using the driveway as a passing place as they have no installed gates. He made the point that the officers have made the correct recommendation and he will be supporting them.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he agrees with the view of other members and made the point that Coxs Lane is not suitable for the traffic. He added that he agrees with the officer’s recommendation, expressing the view that it is an undesirable development in a very narrow dangerous lane.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Miscandlon and expressed the view that the road cannot take anymore development, with there being a request in years to come for a highway improvement which will cost a significant amount of money. She thanked the Highway Officer for his input and his professional opinion.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that at the last application he had raised the issues of passing places and had at that time given the opinion that he would be more in favour of the application if there were some decent passing places, but they still have not been brought forward. He added that Mr Slater raised the Bar Drove site and he is incorrect in saying that there are passing spaces on Bar Drove, however, he does not think that those passing places are deliverable in the same fashion because one of the passing places on Bar Drove is associated with an entrance into three dwellings but the other one is on the opposite side of the road.  Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the application is not deliverable in the proposed location and he cannot support the application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees with the officer’s recommendation and made the point that the Highways Officer has attended today and given his professional opinion to the committee and that needs to be taken into consideration. She stated that on the site inspection, the bus also came across two joggers who were only within a few feet away from a very deep ditch. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that pedestrians also need to be considered especially as there is no lighting and expressed the view that she does not think that the proposal is in a safe location.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is her understanding that the SEN School would be built first and then another which will be from nursery school age up until post 16 years of age. She added that she is delighted to hear that the school has commenced construction.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application should be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.