Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 Cooper, the applicant. Mr Cooper stated that all he wants to do is take an old derelict building and build a family home for him and his family. He stated that he has lived in Elm all his life and comes from Newbridge Lane Caravan site moving up to Belt Drove with his family and his Dad and has worked on every farm in the area.

Mr Cooper expressed the view that the way house prices have gone up how can you afford them, he has lived in Elm all his life, he is not doing anything different just taking an old derelict building, recycling it to make a family home.

Members asked questions of Mr Cooper as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how long it has been derelict? Mr Cooper responded that he brought the property in 2018 and it was derelict before this.

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

·       Councillor Purser expressed the opinion that this is a site of an old hut which has been left unattended and in relation to traffic, in the days of the Scouts there would be cars in and out all of the time and this is just a family home so there would not be cars in and out all the time. He feels it is recycling of an old site which he thinks is a good thing to make it into a nice family home. Councillor Purser referred to the comment that it is functionally isolated so it is miles from anywhere and he has friends who live 1½ miles from the main road being functionally isolated and they are perfectly happy there so why can’t this applicant not be the same.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that when members visited the site one of the observations that the officers made was that the access was on a sharp bend and a blind spot and he wanted to know if the applicant has plans to make the access safer and as it was a scout site before it would have been very well used by people coming in and out and being developed as a family home he feels the issue with traffic would be minimised.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that Highways have said it is not a significant harm, although they are not totally happy with it, and it depends upon how much weight members give to highway comments.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that he has looked at the site and he does not deem it to be an exceptionally sharp corner.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that Highways are not objecting to the proposal and at the moment the site is an eyesore so this application would get rid of the eyesore and produce a home for somebody.  

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that it is on a bend but it is not a 90 degree elbow bend and there are plenty of houses built throughout the whole country that are on slight curves rather than bends. He made the point that this is a derelict piece of land and this looks a nice house, with homes needing to be provided for people and he can support this application.

·       David Rowen stated that the Highway Authority have not objected and the issue of the bend is not a recommended reason for refusal. He made the point that the Council has a clear settlement hierarchy and as part of that developments in locations which are elsewhere, ie outside established settlements, should be refused and the fact that there has been an existing use on the site and there are derelict buildings which may be an eyesore, is not a justification for overriding the settlement hierarchy. David Rowen stated that the site is also in Flood Zone 2, it is sequentially unacceptable and there are two strong policy reasons to refuse the application. He notes the comments with regard to the need to deliver housing and fully appreciates that each application site is dealt with on its own merits but there was an opportunity earlier at this meeting to deliver 110 houses on the edge of a sustainable settlement which the committee refused so there does need to be an element of consistency with members decision making.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that the committee are told here and at planning training last week that each application is taken on its own merits and feels it is wrong to bring back an application that has previously been refused, which was refused for various reasons and as a committee members are being told consistency, which he agrees with, but this application is being taken at face value on what this proposal is and not what happened on previous applications. David Rowen stated that he feels it is important when the committee is making decisions relative to the interpretation of the settlement hierarchy that there is an element of consistency and he wanted to flag this to members but it is members gift to completely ignore his comments.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that if you look at the 2014 Local Plan all the growth was in the BCPs, which have not been delivered and if it was not for committee passing small little houses like this there would not be homes for people to live in and as much as there are policies this is what decision are based upon, with decisions being interpreted differently at times but this policy has failed and it has failed to deliver the numbers. David Rowen responded that he does not want to debate the merits or otherwise of the 2014 Local Plan but the point he was making that there needs to be an element of consistency through decision making in terms of the interpretation of and application of the settlement hierarchy.

It was proposed by Councillor Hicks to go with officer’s recommendation, which did not receive a seconder.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that whilst the proposal would be in the open countryside the whole of Fenland lies in the open countryside and it felt that this proposal would not harm the character of the area but create its own character which may be to the benefit of the area and that the delivery of housing outweighs the low flood risk issue and the need for a sequential test.