Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the proposal is for 5 executive style bungalows, with large gardens, double garages and all served off a private drive. He stated that previous applications on this site for 14 two-storey dwellings, 10 dwellings and 9 dwellings were all refused but were from a different landowner, the 7 dwellings was withdrawn and this proposal is for 5 bungalows with an officer recommendation to approve.

Mr Hall made the point that the Highways Authority has raised no objections and made recommendations throughout the application which they have taken into account. He stated that the previous appeal carried out on this site by others was not refused on highway grounds by the Inspector for an application for 9 and this proposal is for 5.

Mr Hall stated that all of the site is in Flood Zone 1, the LLFA have raised no objection and drainage details have been submitted as part of the application. He expressed the view that there has been a lot of work that has been undertaken on this application both by officers and his office and they have taken on board the Highway Officer comments, officer recommendations on the design and number of dwellings and also worked with the LLFA and Refuse Team at the Council.

Mr Hall referred to a Google Map on the presentation screen, which shows, in his view, that this is the last piece of land of this size in the middle of Eastrea to be developed and it could be classed as infill development, which is what it is referred to in the officer’s report at 10.10. He reiterated that there are no technical objections and the application has a recommendation for approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to pinch point of 3.7 metres as you come into the site for quite some distance and asked if this 3.7 metres is from the bungalow to the edge or is that with leaving a metre from the bungalow? Mr Hall responded that originally they showed that access where it has been reduced to 3.7 metres as wider at 5 metres as that width is available still leaving a fence and grass strip either side but highways in December last year requested it be reduced to the 3.7 metres probably to leave a grass strip either side then the fence to neighbouring properties.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that it is a good-looking application but she has concerns about the access and the narrowness of the access road because not only is there cars but there are potentially cars and pedestrians walking down that very narrow access road. She stated that she knows the road very well and there have been accidents along this road, there are cars parked on the opposite side of the road and it is in between two blind bends so there is a catalogue of potential hazards. Councillor Sennitt Clough continued that there are then potentially 10 more cars coming out with pedestrians walking down a very narrow access strip. She asked how he feels he can overcome the safety aspect and all the obstructions and hazards that are there at present? Mr Hall responded that within the site where the 5 plots are the drive is 6 metres wide and in the Highway Officer’s report it says that is too wide but it has been left at 6 metres as they had emails back and forth with the Council’s Refuse Team to ensure a bin lorry can go in and turn around. He added that at the top of the access it is 5 metres by 10 metres abutting Wype Road which is what Highways asked for so two cars can pull in together and the first part of the access road was shown wider but it was at the request of Highways to reduce that area. Mr Hall advised that a speed survey was undertaken, the cable was positioned across the road outside 36/38 Wype Road and it showed vehicles going approximately 24/25 mph and Highways accepted that so he believes they have overcome any possible safety issues.

·         Councillor Connor asked how many speed surveys were undertaken? Mr Hall responded that during the previous application, which they were not involved with, there was one undertaken and there have been two speed surveys undertaken on this application, with concerns being raised on the first. Councillor Connor asked when the second survey was undertaken? Mr Hall responded May 2023 or 2024. Councillor Connor stated that this site lies in his County Division representing Whittlesey South and he knows Wype Road is a very busy road, people do speed along here and there are cars parked opposite. He expressed concern that when you are coming out of this access and turning left you have to go over to the other side of the road so oncoming cars are going to be met. Mr Hall responded that the new access, which is a field entrance at the moment and has been since the 1970’s, is 5 metres wide so 2 cars can pull on and off similar to other developments that have been approved. He questioned whether you go onto the other side of the road, which depends if there are parked cars and is similar to other development and they have undertaken a speed survey and he is not sure what else they could have done.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked if Highways came out to the site or was it a desk top study? Gavin Taylor responded that it is not known if Highways visited the site, there is no evidence to say they did, but they have looked at the scaled plans that are provided to get an understanding of road and access widths. He agreed that Mr Hall was correct in that Highways negotiated that narrowing for two reasons he believes; to slow cars exiting and entering the site as there is the potential for pedestrian vehicle conflict and to provide more of a buffer either side of the properties and it is noted that they anticipate at the busiest periods average vehicle trip movements would be 1 every 20 minutes so it is not considered that there would be significant vehicle pedestrian conflict occurring regularly. Gavin Taylor stated that Highways have suggested to the applicant that they reduce that area on this site as a pinch point for those reasons but notwithstanding that the actual access width itself where it meets with Wype Road is a standard access width that would be secured on any application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the number of dwellings as a contributory factor to the number of vehicles, making the point that Wype Road is a ‘rat run’ as people from Whittlesey use it to get to Benwick, Chatteris and Ely and there are a lot of agricultural vehicles using the road as well as some HGVs so it is a considerable amount of traffic using it. She does not feel the safety issues have been properly addressed as this development is sandwiched in between two blind bends, cars are parked on the opposite side of the road and as Councillor Connor pointed out you would have to go on the opposite side of the road for a few metres to navigate this as you are coming out which adds another potential hazard.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the application should be approved.

·         Councillor Benney agreed stating this is a policy compliant application, it does not have a Highways objection and if it goes to appeal the Council would lose.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he hopes that Highways have undertaken due diligence on this proposal and it has not just been a desk top study as he sees it as an accident waiting to happen, although it cannot be refused on highway grounds as they are the experts.

·         Councillor Marks stated that committee debate highways month after month and the question quite often asked is this a desk top survey or has an actual officer visited the site.  He asked whether it can be reported from Highways whether they did attend the site or it was a desk top survey so the question is not being asked every time? Councillor Marks made the point that committee are local councillors who know the area and it seems to him that members are fighting someone who sits in Cambridge or wherever with a computer.

·         Councillor Benney stated that looking at the report, irrespective of whether it is undertaken as a desk top survey or not, they are signing that report off and that is the information the committee has to rely on. He added that Highways can be asked to come back if members have real concerns but every time this has been undertaken in the past it always comes back with the same answer.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that it would be remiss of the local members not to bring concerns before the committee.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough disagreed with the comments of Councillor Benney stating that members do not have to accept what Cambridgeshire County Council Highways dictate to it or approve this application, which is what members are elected to do. She stated for the safety reasons she outlined she cannot support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French strongly recommended that the Highway comments should be taken into account because they are the experts and if they are satisfied with it the committee should be as well.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she lives locally and feels that local knowledge is just being sidelined, with someone from a desk top potentially imposing their view on what is appropriate safety wise or not and she feels that local knowledge has to count for something in these circumstances.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Sennitt Clough declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council but takes no part in planning)