Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated. He stated that further comments have been received from the Highway Authority in respect of the revised plan referred to in the update and these comments are still that it has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction that suitable visibility can be achieved.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal seeks outline planning permission for 3 dwellings, with all matters being reserved and, therefore, the drawings are completely indicative. She feels the proposal has raised issue with the principle, visual impact and highway safety and with regards to the principle the site lies within Wisbech St Mary which is identified as a growth village within Policy LP3 of the Local Plan, with growth villages being second on the settlement hierarchy demonstrating that these are the areas where the Council wants to see new housing and, in her view, it is a given that infill development is acceptable in such locations and Policy LP3 specifically states that village extensions may be appropriate.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the application site is positioned next to the built-up frontage of development to the south and this development extends from the village centre up Station Road with continuous residential development along both sides of the highway. She feels the application site physically adjoins the frontage development on the western side of the highway and there are other dwellings to the immediate north, with it constituting a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage and, therefore, she feels it constitutes infill development, which is supported in policy terms.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that if it was considered that the development did not constitute infill development the scheme would compromise of 3 new dwellings which are attached to the existing built form and as such the proposal would be a village extension and this would comply with Policy LP3. In her view, any interpretation of the site is supported in principle in planning policy terms.

Mrs Jackson referred to the issues with regard to visual impact and feels they are a misnomer as the scheme is submitted in outline only and, therefore, the specific appearance of the development is currently unknown. She feels that as the principle of development is acceptable in policy terms the physical development of this area is a given and, therefore, the second proposed reason for refusal in terms of urbanisation falls away.

Mrs Jackson referred to the update which includes a further plan demonstrating that the development can be achieved using a single point of access taken from the existing access point and shared across the 3 properties and she feels that as the existing access serves agricultural land it is capable of accommodating any number of vehicles, at any scale and at any time, therefore, it is considered that the access is capable of safely accommodating the movements associated with 3 dwellings. She acknowledged that the County Highways have requested visibility splays associated with speeds of 60mph, but, in her view, given the proximity of the site to the existing 30mph speed limit and given the junction at Volmary and Garden Lane it is unlikely that speeds of 60mph will actually take place, this is referenced as Leverington Common which is to the north of the site is a 50mph highway.

Mrs Jackson referred to Highways asking for visibility splays of 2.4 x 250 metres, which can be achieved to the north and to the south 150 metres can be achieved, which is 110 metres over what is required for a 30mph area and she feels that safe access be achieved. She made the point that there are no technical concerns with the development and the scheme is before committee with support from the Parish Council and local residents and she hoped that members would be able to grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney referred to the report stating that the safe access cannot be proven and asked if this is still correct? David Rowen responded that the advice of the Highway Authority is that it has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction that the visibility splays that Mrs Jackson referred to are appropriate and they are saying to accept a lower standard of visibility there would need to be a speed survey, which has not been undertaken.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that speeding is a problem right across the District and asked if it is possible that this application could be deferred until the speed survey is undertaken? Nick Harding responded that technically this could be done but he would counter against this because with minor applications there is the approach whereby one round of amendments is permissible with development proposals and if the problems identified by officers are not resolved after one attempt then they invite the application to be withdrawn or alternatively a decision is made on the application. He stated that a deferment is usually used to get clarification on a particular issue whereas in this instance it could be some time before the speed survey could be undertaken, verified by the County Council and the junction redesigned as may be appropriate. Councillor Mrs French questioned that officers are saying this application is not complete without the survey. Nick Harding clarified that the application is not approvable in its current state.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification that this is the second time the access has been questioned and there is a verbal response this time as someone has gone back to ask questions. David Rowen responded that Highways have provided a written response and his understanding is that initially comments were made by Highways setting out their concerns with regards to the lack of visibility splays, a drawing has then been submitted by the applicant demonstrating a lower standard of visibility splay and Highways have then said these splays are not adequate and to justify them they would require a speed survey, a further drawing has then been submitted which has sought to change the indicative layout from 3 access points to 1 shared access point and the further advice from Highways is that it still has not been demonstrated that these lower standard visibility splays are adequate as there is no speed survey.

·       Nick Harding added that the slide on the presentation screen shows that there is clearly not continuous development from the main part of the settlement, there are clear gaps between development along Station Road so he finds it difficult to agree with the comments made by the agent, it is outside the settlement and it is not an infill proposal as outlined in the Local Plan.

·       Councillor Clark asked if there is a development on-going currently on the opposite side of the road? David Rowen responded that there is a single dwelling that is being built on the opposite side of the road, which was a committee overturn and went against a previous appeal decision on that site.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed concerns over the access and visibility splays but made the point that there are 3 reasons for refusal and committee should look at what grounds it turns the application down. He believes it should be refused on highway grounds but are all 3 grounds relevant, should reasons 1 and 2 be discussed because it is only reason 3 that is of concern to him. Councillor Benney expressed the view that Wisbech St Mary is a growth village, there is building on both sides of this site so it could be said that it is infill, with it being a difference of interpretation and he could have a difference of interpretation on refusal reasons 1 and 2 but reason 3 does need resolving and he does not think it can be deferred.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney and that members need to be looking at Parish Council views and they have no concerns knowing the site well.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to 1.3 of the officer’s report where it says in relation to LP3 and LP12 “an argument that is supported by conclusions drawn by the Planning Inspector in a previous appeal decision approximately 100 metres closer to Wisbech St Mary than the current application site” and she feels it does fail on the other reasons for refusal.

·       David Rowen reiterated that from the aerial photograph he is not sure how this site can be considered to be part of the continuous built form of Wisbech St Mary given the significant green gaps that are on that photo. He referred to the comments of the agent on consideration of appearance being a misnomer, which he feels is incorrect, the issue is not one of the design of the properties but the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area being a matter of consideration by committee today and putting 3 dwellings on what is a green paddock or field and removing the front hedge is going to have an impact on character and appearance, with the officer view that this is unacceptable and committee are entitled to come to a different conclusion.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Hicks to support the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED on refusal reason 3 only in that it has not been substantiated that a suitable and safe access to the development can be provided.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation to refuse the application in relation to reasons 1 and 2 as they feel Wisbech St Mary is a growth village and the proposal is infill as it has buildings either side of the site so it does comply with Policy LP3 and the proposal would not be detrimental to or harm the character and appearance of the area so would not be contrary to Policies LP12 and LP16(d).