Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Bryant, an objector. Mr Bryant stated that he was representing more than a third of the properties on this adopted highway who oppose the application and despite appearances this is not nimbyism but is a local community asking the Council to uphold the Local Plan, NPPF and previous application and appeal decisions. He made the point that in April 2022 the committee unanimously rejected the previous application on multiple grounds, with the applicant trying to make this application different by including a turning head but the Local Highway Authority (LHA) state “it does not benefit for LHA to adopt this turning head” so any supposed benefits fall away and the application becomes identical to that which was refused in April.

Mr Bryant referred to the decision notice for planning application F/YR21/1536/O making it clear that no modification to the application could overcome the fundamental planning based problems showing this informative on the presentation screen so with or without the turning head the application, in his view, still fails to comply with the Local Plan and must be refused. He referred to the supporter comments which do not address the planning problems in the application but expressed the opinion that it is wrong for a site to gain a planning benefit because owners have let it become an eyesore and apparently used it to start dumping their building waste as given that this plot was previously a wildlife haven fronted by an ancient hedge, it would be particularly egregious for it to gain planning benefit having now been laid to waste by owners.

Mr Bryant made the point that half of the support live outside the hamlet and not one of the remaining supporters live on the adopted highway in the vicinity of the plot. He expressed the view that the emerging Local Plan is irrelevant but in any case this application lies outside the proposed settlement boundary and, therefore, would invite automatic refusal.

Mr Bryant stated that traffic safety perceptions differ and living in the area is very different from driving through referring to two recent incidents, with him having to thump a vehicle trailer twice and shout at the driver to prevent it reversing into him as he stood on his driveway and a resident who lives opposite the site had to take urgent avoiding action to prevent a collision whilst entering the lane as a car was travelling too fast around the corner and although the other car took avoiding action it then only narrowly avoided striking the property opposite. He expressed the view that these close shaves are not uncommon and a further property roughly opposite would increase this hazard level substantially.

Mr Bryant made the point that the Council’s Refuse Team would not gain from the turning head and it could be detrimental to the immediate residents representing a loss of privacy, safety and security. He feels the Highways position is very clear, with the report noting their position was at variance with their 2015 appeal position, but, in his view, much has changed since then with the LHA installing signs at the entrance to Colletts Bridge Lane to minimise unintended entry, there being many small to large vans delivering along the lane and supermarkets are sending larger vans to make home deliveries so, in his view, the highways revised opinion is accurate as it reflects their experience of the lane providing quotes from members at the committee in April about the dangerous conditions, with there being no public space on the lane for cars/bikes/people to escape oncoming traffic and the only avoidance is onto private land.

Mr Bryant expressed the opinion that, as with all previous application, this proposal fails to meet many Local Plan policies, DM3 and NPPF, especially LP3 and he is pleased that Highways now object in line with residents lived experience. He stated that development has never been considered acceptable by the Council for this plot and both the committee and the appeal inspector have previously confirmed development is contrary to the Local Plan and was/should be rejected.

Mr Bryant stated that the committee voted unanimously to refuse last time and, in his view, nothing has changed so urged members to do the same today adding highway safety as an additional reason for refusal.

Members asked questions of Mr Bryant as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if she had heard Mr Bryant say that the owners of the land had started dumping rubbish on it? Mr Bryant responded that there has been one instance of some rubble and broken paving slabs placed behind the fences that are along the site. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is sure officers under Section 215 can deal with this.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from James Burton, the agent. Mr Burton stated that this is an outline application with all matters reserved offering the opportunity to deliver high quality housing within the district, with the application being before members today due to the amount of local representation received both supporting and objecting, with nine letters of objection from eight households being received and the prominent point in residents’ objections is the road and in particular the lack of turning with vehicles using private drives to turn and pass which they have sought to address through the introduction of a turning head. He made the point that eight letters of support have been received with a number from the immediate vicinity around Colletts Bridge confirming the lane is safe, there is no issues with access, the turning head would improve this, there is street lighting with one outside the plot and accidents recorded are around the A1101.

Mr Burton stated, as noted in the officer’s report, there have been a number of refusals on this site and during the previous debate members made comment that there was no turning along the road, with the applicant reflecting on this issue and the key difference in this application is the inclusion of the turning head to provide the option for turning three quarters of the way along Colletts Bridge as well as providing a safe passing place without using the verges or residents driveways. He made the point that the intention is to provide a betterment for residents and improve safety and agrees with officers that a highway reason for refusal would not be appropriate as highways have previously offered no objections to development of this site including their response only last year and the inspector also considered the access was acceptable.

Mr Burton stated that local residents have informed them that oil tankers and sewage lorries attempt to turn when using the lane and use the land adjacent Hazels, however, there is a no turning sign on this access. He is also led to believe that a turning head has been requested in the area, with the turning head proposed being of sufficient dimensions to allow a car to pull over and act as a passing place as well as a turning head for large vehicles it also widens the road at this point to over 5.5 metres for a distance of 13 metres, which is wide enough for a lorry and car to pass and is the width of new housing estate roads so they consider this provides a benefit to the wider community and other services including refuse, oil deliveries, sewage and fire appliances.

Mr Burton stated that they were happy to accept a condition that says the turning head must be of a design sufficient to act as a passing place as well as a turning head. He made the point that there are two reasons for refusal proposed which can be summarised as the development is not infill and the enclosure and encroachment onto the open countryside setting a precedent for future development on this side of Colletts Bridge.

Mr Burton expressed the view that with regard to reason 1, as noted in the officer’s report, the site is located between two dwellings which are both two-storey and he considers this application to be an infill which is the same situation as the application shown on screen south of Colletts Bridge with the green line, this is an elsewhere location not part of Colletts Bridge and was approved by this committee within the last 12 months and requires removal of some large hedging to the front. He made the point that during the debate for this application it was noted that the site is infill as it has a house either side, no footpath and street lighting, it is a plot that will enable quality housing to support and grow the economy which should be supported and noted that the area is rural and people will use a car for travel as a fact of life in rural locations and, in his opinion, these points are also relevant and supportive of this application.

Mr Burton expressed the opinion that in relation to reason 2 the application would not enclose this side of Colletts Bridge and will maintain separation between properties and views through to the open countryside, which can be secured at Reserved Matters stage. He does consider approval of this application would set a precedent for development along this side of the road as there are no other sites that could reasonably be considered as infill and the emerging Local Plan has allocated a site on this side of the road for 10 dwellings as could be seen on the slide on the presentation screen, whilst agreeing the emerging Local Plan carries limited weight at this stage it is considered that it demonstrates the direction of travel and notes that at present Fenland have indicated a parcel of land to the west the same side as this application opposite the majority of development for up to 10 houses, with the majority of hedgerow in this area being removed, and he believes this demonstrates that the Council consider this to be a suitable location for development and that it is acceptable in sustainability and highway terms.

Mr Burton expressed the view that the scheme approved in the vicinity in April was located between two dwellings and considered as infill the same as this proposal and as such he believes this scheme is consistent with recent approvals within the village and also consistent with a number of recent approvals within Fenland to deliver quality development. He feels the proposal is infill and not open countryside providing a planning gain with the introduction of a turning head, complies with policy and results in a high-quality development without causing harm to the form and character of the area or residential amenity and as such he requested that members support the proposal with conditions deemed appropriate.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he remembers this site being considered by committee last year and he cannot see what has changed as he does not feel the turning head makes any difference. He made the point that there is a site history of refusals on this site and feels that officers have got the decision correct.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with Councillors Benney and MRs French it has come back to committee and in all fairness to the agent and applicant they thought they had added some value to their application but, in his view, it has not added any value because delivery lorries and refuse lorry do a loop and there is no need for that turning head and the County Council will not adopt it so if it is not adopted it could be gated off at any time and the applicant would be perfectly within his right. He stated that what he does have a problem with is that there is now a highways objection and he cannot understand why this is not included in the reasons for refusal, members have been told before that they cannot use highways as a refusal if committee has not got highways permission but this does have an highway objection so if it goes to appeal the Council could give this highways reason for refusal and expect highways to come and defend this and believes this should be added as a third reason for refusal.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he was not on the committee when previous applications have been considered so the proposal is completed new to him and when the site inspection bus when down this road, although he understands that the road goes down in a loop, he would not take his car down there as the road is far too bad and far too narrow and his big concern was about ambulances, fire engines, etc accessing this road which could put lives at risk as it is far too narrow and dangerous.

·       David Rowen stated that the issue with the proposed highway safety reason for refusal is clearly in members gift to add to the decision if they choose but the difficulty would be that less than a year ago the Council refused planning permission without a highway safety reason for refusal and consequently a further application has come forward on the site and should a refusal now be appealed then the applicant as he is now appellant as he would be would potentially have grounds to make a cost claim against the Council on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour for introducing a new reason for refusal, which if had been incorporated on the first application may have dissuaded them from making a second application.

·       Nick Harding added that he has been on the end of such a judgement from an inspector where a refusal reason for highways was added in following a long history of refusals where highways was not a reason for refusal and at the appeal the inspector said yes there is a highways issue but it has been introduced too late and costs were awarded.

·       Councillor Sutton stated it does not alleviate his concerns as members are only going on what they are advised by highways and if this is used as a third reason for refusal and that is challenged then it is highways that should be paying those costs not this Council as committee is only following what is advised though he takes on board what officers are saying. Nick Harding made the point that this Council is the Planning Authority and the inspector in dealing with an appeal will look at the representations made by the objectors as well as the reasons for refusal and the inspector can take it upon themselves to observe what the Highway Authority said as well as representations from members of the public and reach a conclusion on whether or not the application is acceptable in highway terms.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that whether a highway refusal reason is added or not, LP3 has been through the appeal’s process and that is a reason that cannot be changed as it is building in the open countryside, which is reason enough in itself.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.