Agenda item

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and advised that a further two letters had been received from objectors to the scheme after the publication of update reports, with the letters reiterating comments relating to the existing road surface, noise pollution, street lights, bin collection and the scale of development and it is considered that these concerns have been addressed within the committee report and through the recommended conditions.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ashley Savage, an objector. Mr Savage advised committee that he lives at 5 May Meadows immediately adjoining the application site and he is also an experienced property developer, mentioning this to make it clear that his objection is not anti-development as he fully understands the need for housing and how schemes are delivered. He stated that his concern is whether the proposal represents appropriate development in this location when judged against policy, evidence and the site’s physical constraints.

Mr Savage acknowledged that the application has been amended following the dismissal of the appeal, with it being reduced to one dwelling and repositioned within the site, however, he disagrees that the fundamental issues identified by the Planning Inspector have been fully resolved and he asked members to apply their own planning judgement rather than relying solely on the recommendation. He referred to residential amenity which remains a key concern, the Planning Inspector concluded that the previous proposal would result in an overbearing impact on 4 May Meadows and stated that even a single-storey dwelling in close proximity could give rise to unacceptable harm, with this finding based on the relationship between buildings, including citing depth and mass, not simply on separation distances.

Mr Savage made the point that the current proposal is now for a three-storey dwelling with a ridge height of approximately 10.2 metres, which is taller than the surrounding dwellings along May Meadows and while the building has been moved further south, in his view, it remains a large and visibly dominant form of development behind existing homes. He feels that members may reasonably question whether increased separation alone genuinely overcomes the Inspector’s concerns or whether the scale and height of this building would still feel intrusive when experienced from neighbouring gardens and rear elevations.

Mr Savage referred to the access, with the officer reporting that the access into May Meadows is approximately 6 metres wide, but he has personally measured Turf Fen Lane, which is the sole vehicular access to May Meadows, and the surface width is approximately 3.57 metres and even allowing for minor variation this is a significant difference and in practice this road functions as a single-track access, not a two-way carriageway, which is relevant when considering everyday use, construction traffic, service vehicles, refuse collection and emergency access. He stated his intention is not to challenge the Highway Authority but simply to ensure members are making their decision based on an accurate understanding of the physical constraints residents experience daily.

Mr Savage asked members to consider the cumulative intensity of development served by this access, with all of the existing dwellings along May Meadows and those on The Oaks immediately beyond being large family homes, typically 5-7 bedroom properties, therefore, they are not low occupancy dwellings and they generate a high level of daily vehicular movements, visitors and servicing and when combined with a constrained access of approximately 3.57 metres the addition of a large dwelling cannot, in his view, reasonably be described as negligible. He referred to refuse collection, with the application stating that bin lorries travel down May Meadows but this is incorrect as in practice refuse vehicles do not enter May Meadows and they can only collect bins at the junction with Turf Fen Lane because the gravel surface of May Meadows is not suitable for large waste collection vehicles.

Mr Savage referred to the planning weight attached to the self-build justification, with the officer’s report stating that Fenland currently has no unmet need for self-build plots and, therefore, in his opinion, the self-build aspect of this proposal carries very limited weight and there are already existing self-build plots on May Meadows that have been marketed for several months without being taken up and he does not raise this as a marketing argument, but as a further local context reinforcing the conclusion that there is no pressing demand for additional self-build housing in this location. He asked members to consider precedent as approval for a substantial dwelling on this site, in his view, will make it increasingly difficult to resist future applications on adjacent land, particularly where that land lies beyond the established pattern of development and closer to open countryside.

Mr Savage expressed the opinion that planning decisions are very rarely viewed in isolation and members are entitled to consider whether approval here would weaken the Council’s ability to control the incremental expansion of development along this sensitive edge of the village. He expressed the view that whilst the application has been amended, the previous concerns have not been fully or convincingly resolved, with the benefits being limited, the impacts being permanent and approval would be reversable and he asked committee to apply planning judgement and refuse the application if they are not satisfied it represents the right development in the right place.

Members asked questions of Mr Savage as follows:

·       Councillor Murphy referred to the width of the entry and asked why he think there is such a big difference to what officers say and what he is saying? Mr Savage responded that the officer’s report stated that it is a 6-metre wide access road that vehicles can pass in parallel whereas actually in real life circumstances this is a 3.57 metre wide access road, it is single access and cars are unable to pass either side of each other. He added that Turf Fen Lane is quite a long road so if there are cars approaching each other on either side they cannot pass each other and whilst in theory there is a pedestrian walkway on Turf Fen Lane it is not a raised pathway and it is only a discrepancy in the colouring between the road and the pathway. Mr Savage stated that there is also no street lighting and it suddenly becomes a very difficult road to access up and down.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ricky Glowacki, the applicant. Mr Glowacki expressed the opinion that the application should not be determined against the officer’s recommendation based on any future development and the objector said that proposal is not appropriate, but this is an opinion and does not form any basis under national planning policy. He feels, looking at amenity and overbearing, it has already been discussed and resolved, with there being 40 metres from 26 Turf Fen Lane to the new proposed dwelling and from 4 May Meadows it is approximately 20 metres.

Mr Glowacki referred to the traffic issue, believing the inaccuracy here is the fact that May Meadows is 6 metres wide and the objector is talking about Turf Fen Lane, which does vary in width and goes into footpath No.19 which sits at 9 metres wide as a footpath, which ends at May Meadows and continues towards Tibbetts HGV site. He expressed the view that when it is talked about 3.7 metres, he believes this is only the original road that is being referred to, there was a highways footpath put in, which is not a raised footpath, it has 10-25mm lip and it was purposed to be built as an extension to the road to be crossed by vehicles too.

Mr Glowacki stated that he lives at 26 Turf Fen Lane and he is quite happy to submit a statement of truth that he passes vehicles very regularly along that path. He referred to the refuse vehicles, which he cannot comment on apart from somewhere within 30 metres where the lorries can come down there is currently a 550mm subbase below the gravel pathway and it was passed as part of F/YR17/0048/F and on the drawing originally submitted by Brand Associates it clearly says a gravel driveway and this gravel driveway was originally put in for May Meadows for one reason in that it is permeable.

Mr Glowacki stated that obviously he agrees with the officer’s recommendation and referred to Doddington Parish Council’s objection, the current application is still back land infill development and as such will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and farmland contrary to LP12, and he referenced 9.3 of the officer’s report which clearly says around the Inspector’s original appeal that the site is not outside the settlement’s development limits, does not relate more to the surrounding countryside and did not consider the site was back land development. He continued that at 10.7 and 10.10 it states that the development is, therefore, considered compliant with policies LP12 and LP16.

Mr Glowacki stated that the flood risk and overshadowing has been assessed, windows face purely to the east and the west there is no overlooking to the north or south and the property is further away than any of the other properties in the local area with it being perfectly acceptable for those properties to be there and this is significantly further away than all those properties. He expressed the opinion that he has overcome the previous concerns raised regarding overbearing, with a subsequent appeal concluding that development on the site would not appear out of character.

Mr Glowacki expressed the view that the flood risk has been addressed, policies LP12, LP16 and LP19 have been met and there is no other issue to address on Policy LP15. He continued that biodiversity net gain is not applicable and he is in full agreement to enter into an unilateral undertaking legally for the self-build, with it being a property that he is going to build and move into himself with his wife.

Mr Glowacki asked committee to agree with the great report that had been complied by the officer.

Members asked questions of Mr Glowacki as follows:

·       Councillor Murphy referred to the refuse vehicles and asked if they reverse down to collect the rubbish because there does not look much room where they can turn round or do they stop on the main road at the top and residents have to take the wheelie bins down? Mr Glowacki responded that he believes they reverse down but he not aware as he leaves his home at 5am and does not return until 8pm so he does not see the refuse vehicles. He stated that there is 6 metres of road to reverse down and there is a bell mouth right at the top that sits approximately 9 metres at its widest point going down May Meadows. Mr Glowacki stated that he does not know how No.5 and 6 get their refuse out because he does not see their refuse in the current bin storage area so he assumes the refuse vehicle must reverse down there to get to this bin storage. Councillor Murphy referred to the mention of 5 and 6 and they must put the bins out somewhere and whilst he appreciates he leaves home early in the morning people do leave their bins out until 10.00pm so it would have been nice to know where it is collected as it is a fair way down May Meadows to reverse it down. Mr Glowacki responded that it is currently about 60 metres to reach the point between No.4 and 5 and he regularly sees the bins for 5, 6, 4 and 3 in their driveways awaiting collection and he sees bins in the refuse area for 1 and 2 and there is turning between 4 and 5, which is about 6 metres wide.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he knows the road, having numerous times driven down there in an arctic because he used to go into Tibbetts yard through the back, which has now been shut off, but they still get a lot of deliveries down there as the Sat Nav diverts people that way and every time a lorry has come down there they have struggled with the road surface and how narrow it is. He questioned Mr Glowacki saying it is wider on Turf Fen Lane where two cars can pass? Mr Glowacki responded that you can pass with two vehicles on Turf Fen Lane. Councillor Marks expressed surprise as when he has travelled along here there are places where two vehicles cannot pass. Mr Glowacki stated that the only area where it would be a struggle would be right to the north of Turf Fen Lane as it goes into Church View and the remainder of it, but since 2023 when the footpath was created it has allowed it to be wide enough to pass two normal vehicles.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that he was surprised that the Inspector does not believe that this is back land development and asked if he visited the site or was it just a desktop exercise? David Rowen responded that all Inspectors undertake a site visit as part of determining appeals.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated he is really surprised as has concerns about the access having heard about the refuse vehicle and he feels that it still looks like back land development. He does not understand how anyone can say that is not back land development, there is 26 Turf Fen Lane but then it is just opening that whole section up for further development.

·       Councillor Connor stated he knows the site well as ward councillor and has been along this road numerous times, being surprised that two cars can get down there and he had a sign put up saying no access to lorries. He expressed the view that the road has been upgraded but there is still no street lighting and it is back land development. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it is a long way for a refuse vehicle to reverse down and another house in this location would not help and he is far from convinced that this is an application he can support.

·       David Rowen stated that officers considered that the site was back land and that was one of the reasons for refusal of the previous application, however, it has been to an Inspector who came to a different conclusion. He feels that if the Council was minded to refuse the application on the basis of the site being back land, any subsequent appeal against that decision the starting point for a new Inspector would be what the previous Inspector said and build upon the conclusions of the previous Inspector. David Rowen expressed the opinion that any reason for refusal on the basis of the site being back land would be very difficult to defend at appeal and it may well result in the award of costs for ignoring an Inspector’s decision. He referred to issues of road safety and how wide Turf Fen Lane is, making the point that the Highway Authority has raised no objections and the previous application for two dwellings was not refused on that basis so he would caution against this being used as a reason for refusal. David Rowen stated that as the report sets out officers are guided by what the previous Inspector said and some of the other reasons for refusal have been overcome by the reduction of the scheme from two to one and the repositioning of that building within the plot. He stated that if members are minded to refuse the application he would caution against it.

·       Councillor Marks stated that an Inspector is only human like members are and asked what the legal view is on this? Matthew Leigh read out for clarity the key paragraphs from the appeal “the appeal site is located on the edge of the settlement of Doddington to the immediate north, on May Meadows there are several large two-storey dwellings of varying designs featuring different forms of fenestration and elevational treatment. There is no prevailing architectural character among these dwellings or within the surrounding area. The proposal is for two large dwellings which would be in keeping with the general scale and character of the development in the area. While matters other than access and layout are reserved, the view is that the proposed layout would not be contrary to the character and appearance of the area. A full assessment of the impact would require consideration of detailed design elements which would be addressed in a future application if the appeal were allowed”. It then goes on to say “I am not of the view that the development on the site would be inconsistent with the established pattern of development in the area nor would it represent a clear extension beyond the existing built form. I do not consider it to be a back land site given the nature of the proposed access and the openness on the site including its relationship to surrounding properties”. The Legal Officer added that he is sympathetic to the officers view, it is a matter of planning judgement but considering the position the previous Inspector took and looking at it in the round he would agree that a decision to refuse runs the risk of being overturned at appeal and that there would be a risk of costs.

·       Councillor Marks questioned what the Inspector was looking at following the Head of Planning reading from the appeal report as, in his view, a lot of this does not ring true to what is there as, in his view, it can blatantly be seen that it is back land development and what is more concerning is that once one dwelling is there it will open up the remaining land to be developed. He asked what officers thought it would cost if it went to appeal? Councillor Connor stated that this is a not a material consideration.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the starting point for a new appeal being the old appeal decision but he stated that there were two gypsy sites in two parts of Fenland that both went to appeal at the same time for more or less the same application, one came back with a dismissal of the appeal and the other one was allowed, so it does depend upon who you get as the Inspector because there is not consistency in planning. He agrees with Councillor Marks that it is back land development but also understands it is policy compliant. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that Inspectors come up with different answers on the same question. Councillor Connor stated that he has had several dealings with Inspectors and it is only subjective, like it is to the committee.

·       Councillor Marks made an observation that if the drawing was scaled out it would be seen that the rest of the land is a field and questioned how can it not be said that is back land development?

·       Councillor Murphy referred to the drawing where it shows a very large field and asked if it has been taken into consideration that another roadway could be put in and that whole field opened up. Councillor Connor stated that may or may not be the case, but members need to consider the application in front of them.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that planning development management is clear that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. He added that this application site has had an application for two dwellings previously refused for a number of reasons and then an appeal subsequently dismissed and he would suggest that the appeal is a material consideration of significant weight. Matthew Leigh suggested that any future Inspector would give it significant weight and it would be the starting point on the assessment of any new appeal, just as the Local Planning Authority has considered it. He made the point that on any scheme when there is a previous decision, whether it is an approval or refusal, is to consider what new material considerations there are, are there any new policies, has anything changed, which he feels has not, and then in other instances the differences are taken into account for the development. Matthew Leigh stated the location of the site has not changed but members may wish to look at things such as the fact that the quantum has been reduced, the site has got smaller and as the Inspector said at the previous decision it was only layout and access that was considered and there is now a greater detailed design.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that he thinks the committee does not like the application and agrees with the previous appeal decision, to him it looks like back land development, but committee is working within a legal framework, and it is policy compliant. He feels if it is refused it will go to appeal and the Council will lose and questioned what reasons committee can rely on if it is refused.

·       The Legal Officer referred to subjectivity and Inspectors taking different views and stated that a point of case law is the importance of consistency in decision making and Inspectors decisions are material considerations and so when the previous decision has already given a view on something there is weight behind that consistent view being carried forward in future decision making by the Inspector. He does appreciate there is an element of planning judgement on that Inspectors do take different views, but he feels it is a precedent point that gives particular cause for concern.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view, having heard what the Legal Officer has just said, the Council needs to be consistent as well, with the decision previously being to refuse and it seems to him that the Inspector has got more consistency on his side than the Council has. He made the point that the committee live in the area, the Inspector could live elsewhere and this needs a fresh look at because he is not sure what the Inspector saw previously.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments that Councillor Marks made.

Proposed by Councillors Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney that the application be Granted as per the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a majority vote with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Connor and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation, with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as they feel the proposal is back land development, it offers no amenities or community benefit, the roadway in and out of the site is poor and the scale and design of the dwelling are not in keeping with the area.

(Councillor Marks declared that he is the director of a business that is located further down Turf Fen Lane, but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)