Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Bob Harrington, the agent. Mr Harrington stated that he would use his presentation to address the recommended reason for refusal and made the point that the site being considered is one that has previously been developed with about 40 garages that served the surrounding houses, all accessed from Grounds Avenue. He added that it also includes a parcel of undeveloped land that has access onto Hurst Avenue and this undeveloped part is not under contention so his presentation will concentrate on the larger garage site.

Mr Harrington made the point that the garages were demolished some time ago so the land now sits in a derelict state surrounded by housing that is all occupied and the site is in desperate need of some attention to bring it back into use and to improve the environment of the people living close by and in this part of the town so a residential scheme is appropriate. He stated that the outline application was submitted to the Council some time ago and since then they have worked with the Planning Officer to overcome the concerns identified by the various statutory consultees to demonstrate that the site is capable of redevelopment with a residential use and can make a positive contribution to this area, going some way to working to overcome the current housing shortage.

Mr Harrington referred to the single reason for refusal being the contention that the layout of the site and design of development are not acceptable and as such demonstrates the site cannot be redeveloped with 6 dwellings but he reminded members that the application is an outline one for up to 6 dwellings and that all matters relating to design are reserved except the question of access which has been resolved so the terms of the application are satisfied. He made the point the questions of design, siting and materials would all be dealt with in a Reserved Matters application subsequent to an outline approval.

Mr Harrington stated that the application was supported by a layout showing how 6 dwellings could be accommodated but the plan was purely indicative, no details of any dwellings were submitted and the question of design has not been part of any negotiations with the Planning Officer and there are no designs for the houses. He suggests that the grounds for refusal are erroneous to not relate to the terms of the outline application as submitted which seeks approval only for the principle of development of up to 6 dwellings and this seems a reasonable position considering the site is within the existing residential part of the town and the site was previously developed.

Mr Harrington expressed the view that the site is about 0.55 acres so 6 dwellings would equate to a density of about 11 dwellings per acre consistent with the surrounding area. He stated that it is recognised the issues of density, layout and design hence the reason that when the application was made it was for up to 6 dwellings not a precise number.

Mr Harrington asked committee to consider the application in terms of the way it was submitted that is as an outline application with all matters of siting, design and external appearance to be dealt with by a Reserved Matters application.

Members asked questions of Mr Harrington as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is up to 6 so this does not mean that 6 is going to be applied for, it could be 4 or 5 if approved. Mr Harrington confirmed this to be correct.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification if at the top of the plan was that a footpath that takes you out to the top road? Mr Harrington showed on the plan that there is an access for the former garages that comes of Grounds Avenue which is both a footpath and a vehicular right of way that leads to another footpath to the main road.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked how many similar developments are there in the area that have the same access size restrictions? Mr Harrington responded that the access is about 3 metres wide and 12 metres long and confirmed that there were similar accesses in the area.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that there are no details as there is no design so she is confused as to the recommendation as it is not known what is going to be built on the site so how is it known that it is not going to be a high quality, safe environment when it is an outline application. Nick Harding responded that when an application is received in outline and it has an up to figure relating to the number of dwellings officers look at it as to whether or not there is a realistic prospect of 6 dwellings being accommodated on that site and in this case officers do not think that 6 dwellings could be accommodated with an appropriate juxtaposition with each other and adjacent land uses. He stated that there are no worries over the principle of development, it is a Brownfield site in a residential area, both access points have previously been used for access and in the case of the Grounds Avenue access it falls well below modern standards but its current lawful use is a car park for 40 cars so that is a given. Nick Harding added that officers do have concerns in relation to the northern section of the site and it is not thought that it can reasonably accommodate 5 properties, a lesser number officers would be comfortable with.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows this site exceptionally well and it is part of her County Council Division. She made the point that it is a brownfield site, something needs to be done with it, with quite often it being a dumping ground for flytipping and she cannot say whether 6 dwellings can be accommodated but this is an outline planning application so this will not be known until a Reserved Matters application is made. Councillor Mrs French stated that she supports this application and cited LP5, housing needs, as there are over 3,000 people on the housing waiting list and there is a desperate need for homes and LP7 making efficient use of land as well.

·       Councillor Marks stated that the area needs houses and this is a piece of land in the middle of a residential area that is sitting there doing nothing. He acknowledged that though one of the accesses is not great, 40 cars previously used it and even if there are 6 dwellings on the site with 2 cars per household there is going to be less vehicles going up and down this access. Councillor Marks understands that the access is 12 metres by 3 metres, and referred to the Dairy Yard at Manea which was for 9 properties plus a business and this roadway was 2.5 metres and almost 35 metres long so he does not think the access for this application will cause an issue. He feels that these dwellings will be for families, there is a footpath and people are going to be walking to and from town and it is not known what the size of housing is being proposed, which could be a small starter type properties so there could probably be 6 accommodated on the site and it will give somebody a start.

·       Councillor Connor referred to Councillor Imafidon’s question and stated that there have been two applications in the last couple of years in Whittlesey which had 3 metre entrances with a 40-50 metre run off to the application site and are similar to the entrance proposed on this application.  He feels those sites are not as good as this one as you are coming more or less off the road on this application site, there is room to turn a lorry around for construction traffic, there is hardly any water retention, it is a brownfield site, it could become a dumping ground, it is in the middle of other houses, it needs something doing with it, there is a need for houses and as this is only an outline application, it is not known whether 6 properties can be built on the site but it is known that something can be accommodated on the site.

·       Nick Harding clarified that the application is for market housing not for affordable housing so in terms of housing need there is a five-year land supply and the housing delivery test is being passed so there is no imperative need at this moment in time.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that if 6 dwellings or up to 6 are placed on the site the likelihood is that they are going to be small units so they will almost be classed as starter type units and give a family a step up and will be affordable in other senses.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the report from Cadent Gas and there are pipes that run across the site and asked, if this is approved, can it be undertaken at this stage or Reserved Matters, that permitted development rights are removed? Nick Harding responded that it is not possible to remove permitted development rights on an outline planning permission it would be at the Reserved Matters stage and if there is way leave in relation to any of the utilities that pass through the site then that will be alerted to the homeowners when they purchase the property.

Proposed by Councillor Hicks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the access is not poor, the application is outline only and it is not known at this time how many properties will be proposed for the site, there is a need for housing and the proposal makes efficient use of the land.

(Councillor Benney declared that this is a Fenland District Council application and this falls under his Portfolio Holder responsibilities, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she is a Cabinet member but this application has not been discussed by Cabinet and she is, therefore, not pre-determined)