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 Chris Walford, the agent, and Heval Sevhat, the applicant. Mr Walford stated that they are seeking outline planning permission for four building plots, with the site falling within the built form and the settlement of Guyhirn. He added that the site is located within the village sign and they consider it a logical development that continues the existing linear form seen the entire length of Gull Road right up to the junction with the A47.

Mr Walford expressed the view that Gull Road has had a transformation over the last 10-15 years and it is very linear so they see this application as continuing this form, although it is in outline. He stated that the site connects to an existing footway network which runs into the village giving access to all of the village amenities including the primary school and there is also a bus stop approximately 90 metres south of the site and, therefore, consider the site to be highly sustainable.

Mr Walford stated that the sites is within Flood Zone 1 and they have support from the local Parish Council, Highways and Environmental Health Officer. He expressed the view that the site is locally known as a pit, it is defined as made land, it was a larger pond that has been backfilled with concrete and rubble and as such they consider it to be brownfield and a prime location for redevelopment.

Mr Walford made the point that both national and local policy favour redevelopment of brownfield areas, especially those that are within the built form of the village which he considers this to be. He stated that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the reports they have submitted with the application regarding land contamination are satisfactory and confirm that the site is suitable for residential development with the appropriate remediation conditions.

Mr Walford expressed the opinion that the site is also defined as brownfield across various documents including Fenland’s own Emerging Local Plan and within the document the site is allocated as favourable for up to 15 dwellings, with the site reference LP61-01 indicating that it is in accordance with the Council’s Growth Strategy and will seek to deliver proportionate growth across the settlement of deliverable sites, although he appreciates it is a draft plan he feels the thought process is the same that this is a favourable site for development within the village. He expressed the view that officers are defining this site as an important green space but based on the site’s history, the classification within the Emerging Local Plan and the logical development that this scheme will deliver for the local housing need he strongly believes that members should consider supporting the application.

Mr Walford stated that they had a specialist ecology report undertaken but they could not get access to one of the water courses to undertake an E, D & A test hence that reason for refusal but everything on site was deemed satisfactory.

Mr Sevhat stated that he brought the site in 2021 and when he undertook his own research he was told it was the pit and that concrete and rubble from the Horsefair and cinema in March were put on this site. He expressed the opinion that the soil test shows that the land is safe for the residential.

Mr Sevhat expressed the view that the land is brownfield and not a green space and Kevin Wilkins from Fenland confirmed that the land is not a designated greenfield or open space. He stated that he recently received a letter from Highways asking him to trim his trees and if the space is left unmanaged then a safety aspect comes into it.

Mr Sevhat expressed the view that looking at the plan there is minimal visual amenity affect as there are detached houses. He feels the economical aspect should be considered as during and after the construction there would be benefit, he spoke to primary schools and was told that 3-4 bedroom houses were preferable and on the basis that the site is within the settlement and there is economic benefit he feels this outweighs the loss of the area.

Members asked questions of Mr Walford and Mr Sevhat as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the site being brought in 2021 and asked when it was infilled? Mr Sevhat responded that he has been told the 1980/1990s, it used to be an orchard, with a lake and the road was put in the middle, which is as much information that he knows about it. He stated that the area has dramatically changed with development in Gull Road.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the Emerging Local Plan but made the point that very little or no weight can be given to this. He questioned about the infilling of the site. Mr Sevhat responded that local people told him and there was some objection regarding the contamination, it was already filled in when he purchased the site in 2021 and he has not touched the site since.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that there is a static caravan on the site and asked what that was for? Mr Sevhat responded that it is used for storage and one of the proposed houses will be his own house because currently he is renting.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon requested clarification on the site being brownfield. David Rowen responded that officers have never considered the site to be brownfield and, in his view, there is no way, looking at the definition of brownfield in the NPPF, that this would be classified as brownfield land. He stated that officers have said it is green space and the view of officers has consistently been since 2017 that this green space formed an important visual feature within the character of the area and the loss of that would be to the detriment.

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