Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

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 George Le Cornu, an objector to the proposal. Mr Le Cornu advised members that he lives at 55 Cattle Dyke and has lived in the Fens for over 14 years, buying this property as his forever home on the understanding that the current Fenland plan and the future emerging Local Plan would prevent any development to the rear of his house. He is requesting that the committee agree with the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

Mr Le Cornu expressed the opinion that the proposal is contrary to multiple planning policies by being backland with no road frontage on previously undeveloped land in Flood Zone 3 and he feels the proposal has no merit and should be refused. He expressed the view that development on this site would result in an irreversible loss of habitat with the site being in the Great Crested Newt amber zone and in addition the strip of woodland on the south of the site is home to bats and other protected species and this should not be disturbed.

Mr Le Cornu expressed the opinion that on preparation for this development a water body has been filled in to prevent any requirement for an ecological survey and as a small village only residential infill or use of previously developed land would be suitable for development, with this site meeting none of the criteria for a brownfield site as it has had no previous development. He expressed the view that the agent, Mr Humphrey, has attempted to support the infill criteria by producing a misleading map as part of the application attempting to show a domestic property shown as No.59 but in reality this is an open sided pole barn used for agricultural purposes and No.59 has been invented for this application.

Mr Le Cornu stated that as there is no road frontage this proposal cannot be considered, in his view, as infill, the site has had no previous development and because of this Gorefield Parish Council have also objected, with the site gaining very little support with only one comment of support at the expiry of the consultation period and Mr Humphrey’s office was well aware of this as well as the lack of merits of the site and was granted an extension to source and submit a further five letters of support in order to force this application to committee as they were fully aware the Planning Officer would recommend the proposal for refusal. He showed on the presentation screen four of the canvassed responses, all looking the same, not submitted by Gorefield residents but, in his view, by Mr Humphrey’s office.

Mr Le Cornu displayed a letter submitted by Mr Humphrey’s office under Mrs Parson’s name following the same formatting and when Mrs Parson’s objected to a previous planning application she was very capable of presenting a well-formulated argument unlike the single sentence as shown on the screen and the single point is that the proposed site would be within easy walking distance of the village facilities despite it being further away than the site Mrs Parson objected to. He expressed the view the site will not be within easy walking distance as there has been no provision for a pavement meaning this development will be separated from the village as the highways agency requires a minimum of 5 metres for vehicle access and if a further 2 metres is provided for a pavement this would result in a ridiculous situation where the majority of No.45’s property frontage would be taken up by access down a long narrow lane to the rear of their neighbours properties and the refuse collection to the front of the roadside.

Mr Le Cornu stated that the site is in Flood Zone 3 meaning that a sequential test must be conducted to prove that there are no other sites available for development and the Council has identified 3 sites for development providing the village with a potential 73 new houses all of which are outside Flood Zone 3. He expressed the opinion that Mr Humphrey has himself conducted a sequential test and unilaterally decided that this application passes the test and incorrectly Mr Humphrey’s agent concludes that there are no available sites within a lower flood risk zone, showing a screen shot submitted by Mr Humphrey as evidence of this and feels he has somewhat misled the committee as when he states that there no other suitable locations he has limited his search to a quarter of the mile of the village centre and the website even suggests on the lower half that by increasing the search radius to half a mile that it would return with 2 plots for sale.

Mr Le Cornu referred to a report on the presentation screen that was only made available Friday afternoon so he has had limited time to digest it but following a very brief search he has found a further 3 plots of land for sale in the local area all of which are available for development and lie wholly within Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk category. He expressed the opinion that with 73 houses on the horizon there is no demand for more developments in Gorefield and No.43 built less than 15 years ago, a 4-bedroomed 2-storey house, has been on the market for over a year with no offers.

Mr Le Cornu summarised that the land is not residential infill, there is no road frontage available, it would be disconnected from the village, the land is agricultural backland with high levels of biodiversity, the site lies in Flood Zone 3 with other sites available in 1 and 2, there is minimal local support with Gorefield Parish Council objecting, vehicle and pedestrian access is inadequate, there are 73 houses being built in the village and there is currently low demand for this type of housing.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that some people do not have access to computers so yes he does letters but his company does not sign them but it is asked that they are collated at the office so they know how many letters are submitted to the Planning department. He referred to the Council’s Ordnance Survey map which shows No.59 and he has not fictitiously added it so he takes offence on these comments.

Mr Humphrey referred to the comments regarding the access stating that you can have 4 properties off a private drive and they do not need to have a footpath. He referred to the reasons for the refusal, one of which is the land is outside the developed footprint but expressed the view that the Council does not have a footprint of Gorefield so therefore the proposal abuts existing dwellings, the site is in a small village for new development which has recently allowed 38 dwellings off Back Road supported by officers and there is also no mention in the officer’s report of the appeal decision for No.43A reading point 8 “I accept the Council’s contention that the locality mainly features frontage development but that does not necessarily mean that non-frontage development is harmful. In this instance where the development would have no material effect on the street scene and only very limited effect on other views the local distinctiveness of the area would not be eroded by the development”, this is for an appeal adjacent to this site.

Mr Humphrey stated that a Flood Risk Assessment has now been submitted and he would contest that there are no sites for 4 plots available within the settlement of Gorefield, those that were shown on the screen were for Parson Drove and villages surrounding. He expressed the opinion, as could be seen on the location plan, there is clearly other backland development and he, therefore, requested that members support the application.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated that he has visited the site and is not convinced it stands particularly well where the land is, whether it is infill or whatever, it is behind the properties and does not sit where he would expect it to be sitting.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the sequential test with it being pointed out by the objector that there is various land available elsewhere but Mr Humphrey says there is not in Gorefield and asked for clarification on this. David Rowen responded that as Mr Humphrey indicated some of the examples that were given by the neighbour relate to other settlements, one in Leverington and another in Parson Drove, so for the purposes of the sequential test these would not normally be taken into account if you are looking at a purely settlement base so from that point of view Mr Humphrey’s sequential test is possibly accurate but the issue that officers have with the sequential test is that as this is looking at a level of development over and above that which is set out in the settlement hierarchy officer’s view is that the sequential test should be on a wider basis because if you are proposing a scale of development over and above that set out in the settlement hierarchy it is always going to be sequentially acceptable as there are not enough permissions elsewhere in the settlement to outweigh the proposal site.

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