Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Derek Widdowson, an objector. Mr Widdowson stated that he represents all those neighbours affected which have objected unlike positive comments made by persons who are not affected by the development. He expressed the view that the application is identical to that submitted in 2016 and again in 2017, these applications being refused and dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State.

Mr Widdowson expressed the opinion that the proposed build of 4 houses is on back land and a land locked site behind existing buildings and has no street frontage, with the access being very limited and not in the best interests of Guyhirn. He made the point that Gull Road at times can be busy with heavy haulage and farm traffic and this would not be assisted by new residents and service vehicles having to turn into the narrow access road making a left turn from Gull Road causing some vehicles to use the off side of Gull Road against oncoming traffic, with the 40mph speed limit not being adhered to.

Mr Widdowson expressed the view that the access road itself is only single access in width, unlit and narrow to a gate width from the corner of his property and his neighbours, there would be no room for a passing place to be made and vehicles would have to back up. He stated that his two main bedrooms adjoin this access road which he feels would be affected by noise and light pollution from persons entering or leaving and currently they have a view of an expansive field that is shielded by a row of conifers on the western boundary, with such large and imposing houses being intrusive and blocking out his natural light.

Mr Widdowson stated that the land in question sits higher than his ground floor and with current regulations would force the builder to raise the ground floor height against the possibility of flooding this would cause his bungalow to be overlooked by all four houses, with his hedge being 7 foot high but this development would dwarf this and be intrusive to his privacy within his house and garden. He feels the possibility of up to 14 additional vehicles from dusk to dawn will mean their headlights would shine directly into his living room and rear bedroom and a further problem may be the water table as the land in question is higher and may affect their drainage and biodigester.

Mr Widdowson stated that at present the water pressure is very poor, which causes most of the residents in Gull Road to complain and, in his view, additional houses in this part of Gull Road would be a further drain on the water pressure. He stated that he has no problem with the expansion of housing, currently supporting other applications that are going to front onto Gull Road and as he understands it previous applications to build elsewhere on Gull Road have been rejected and he hoped the status quo could be maintained.

Mr Widdowson made the point that no new amenities have appeared in Guyhirn since the current building projects have been agreed and at what point does new housing to Guyhirn become unsustainable. He raised concern that this is only the start of possible further developments by The Chase and other matters would be the collection of refuse and would the collectors use an unadopted road or would the bins be on constant display on Gull Road, 4 houses, 12 bins plus 3 from The Chase.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Russell Swann, the agent. Mr Swann made the point that the application has support from most of the statutory consultees including Highways, Environmental Health and the Internal Drainage Board and the officer in the report recognises that there are no issues with the design of the dwellings, no issues with any impact on the neighbours’ amenities through noise, light, privacy or the driveway. He stated that the whole of the site is within Flood Zone 1, exactly where new residential development should take place.

Mr Swann referred to the reason why the application is being recommended for refusal, whilst he respects the officer’s opinion he does disagree with it as since the previous refusal on the site at least 8 separate planning applications for 21 new dwellings have been approved for development behind the linear form in Guyhirn and, in his view, this fundamentally changes how this application should now be viewed and this does not include the historic sites such as Woodland Gardens, Nene Close, Spencer Drove, etc. He expressed the opinion that the form and character of the village of Guyhirn is linear development with pockets of residential development behind and he referred to a map on the presentation screen which demonstrated this point.

Mr Swann stated that LP3 says that new development will be acceptable in Guyhirn if it is limited to small residential infill and showed on a further slide that this is the case for this site, showing other sites where development has taken place behind the residential linear development referring in particular to Lake View, with the nature of this site being similar in character to this proposal, it is located behind the built form and accessed off a small drive between two existing dwellings, with this dwelling being approved under delegated powers in 2019. He expressed the view that as mentioned many times at the committee parcels of land like this are massively valuable to housing supply in the district, plots like this will be developed by self-builders or smaller developers that are usually priced out of the large developments due to the costs of the infrastructure and land price, with small builders and self-builders employing local tradesmen, buying from local merchants which in turn contributes to other businesses in the District.

Mr Swann expressed the opinion that the site is typical of the form and character of Guyhirn, it does comply with LP3, LP12 and LP16 and it is already a residential site, it is within Flood Zone 1, has no objections from Highways, Environmental Health or the Drainage Board and the Planning Officer is happy with the design and the amenities of the proposed site and the existing dwellings. He requested approval of the proposal with any conditions deemed appropriate.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the numerous refusals on the site and the dismissal at appeal and asked apart from other houses being built in the vicinity what has changed from these previous refused applications? David Rowen responded that there has been no changes to the site or the circumstances in the immediate vicinity of the site since the last appeal decision.

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