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 Peter Humphrey, the Agent. Mr Humphrey stated that there is an opportunity to provide three self-build plots and he is aware that there is a large shortage of self-build plots and as Doddington is a growth village it will help in a small way to deliver some self-build plots because his client has got people looking to purchase them. He stated that the site will enhance the edge of the village development, it is also close to the adjacent Askham village community and also close to a village of holiday lodges and whilst the proposal may not be in the village it is very close to an approved ‘village’ next door, and it has dwellings both left and right.

Mr Humphrey explained that the applicant is looking to develop the land at the front as it is not suitable to farm as it is small and very difficult to work. He stated that the house types have been redesigned since the first application in accordance with the Parish Council’s comments and that if the Parish Council and officers require more amendments then these can undertaken on any reserved matters application.

Mr Humphrey stated that the Parish Council are not against the development, the Environmental Health team have no objections to the proposal and the conditions that the Highway Authority have asked for can be complied with. He made the point that there were 6 letters of support and one letter of objection to the proposal which is sited in Flood Zone 1.

Mr Humphrey stated that the emerging Local Plan proposes 311 dwellings, and this is less that one percent of the proposal and it will provide employment during the course of its construction, and asked members to support the proposal.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·       Councillor Connor questioned whether the proposed site is likely to be approved in the emerging Local Plan? Mr Humphrey stated that it is his understanding that the site is not within the new boundary, but when you look at the red line, there is also an area of red that shows that officers are content with development encroaching towards the applicants plots albeit not included. Councillor Connor stated that if the proposal was approved it would equate to 311 plus 3.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he has seen at 5.3 of the report where it states that the highways authority has no objections. David Rowen explained that there is no recommendation for refusal on highway grounds for the current proposal and the previous application was refused on highway grounds due to the fact that there were three individual access points, with the application now being amended so that there is now a single access point which the highway authority are happy with although they have expressed in their comments on what may or may not happen at the back but that would be a matter to be considered at that particular time.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that he can see the proposal as an infill development as there are buildings to both sides. He added that the Highway Authority do not object and he thinks that the dwellings will look nice as you enter Doddington.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he recalls at the last meeting that the committee were told that there were plenty of self-build plots available which is contrary to what the agent has stated. Nick Harding stated that is correct and the evidence that the Council holds points quite strongly that it is exceeding the delivery of self and custom build plots over and above the evidence that the Council holds in terms of the number of people on its register and the number of the actual completed as well. He added that members should be aware as part of the application that was submitted there was no mention of self or custom build dwellings and that has only been mentioned as part of the Agent’s presentation today.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that she has a problem with refusing the application due to the fact that there is Askham Village Community and the holiday lodge park which has 60 lodges and caravans and also Askham Row which is of a similar design and, therefore, she may well be going against the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis and she added that it has only been 2 or 3 months since the application in Hospital Road was approved and she cannot see much difference with the application before members.

·       David Rowen stated that the existence of a holiday lodge does not set a precedent for the erection of permanent dwellings outside of a settlement. He made the point that when considering the proximity of the proposal site to Askham Row, this site is another 500 metres along the road outside of the village and he drew members attention to the Local Plan and the Rural Areas Development Policy which states that ‘development will only be permitted in villages and the developed footprint of the village is defined as the continuous built form of the settlement and excludes individual buildings and groups of dispersed or intermittent buildings that are clearly detached from the continuous built up area of the settlement, agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of the settlement’. David Rowen stated that he cannot see how the application cannot be considered as within the open countryside and, in his opinion, if this is classed as being within the village then most of Fenland could be considered as being within a village.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Purser to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation, which failed on a majority vote by members.

In providing reasons for going against officer’s recommendation, Councillor Skoulding stated that under LP16 he feels the development would enhance the approach to Doddington and the proposed plans are acceptable. Nick Harding responded that he is concerned about this being the reason for going against the adopted Local Plan policy as it does not give any indication of why the existing plan policy of only allowing development in the open countryside in very limited circumstances should be put to one side in this instance, with the reason given being very general in its nature and would apply to any development anywhere in the district. Councillor Skoulding stated that he feels it is infill and enhances the area. Nick Harding stated that his concerns still remain and made the point that officers are providing a recommendation based on the Council’s adopted policy, which was approved by members. The Legal Officer added that the other aspect that should be considered is that by giving inadequate reasons for opposing the officer’s recommendation is to make a legally dubious decision should there be a challenge on the decision that is made then with regard to this application there may well be grounds to do so.

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

(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 meetings of Doddington Parish Council, but takes no part in planning matters)