Agenda item

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines 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 the site lies approximately half a mile from a primary school, convenience store and fish and chip shop. He made the point that the Environment Agency do not raise any objection to the proposal.

Mr Hall stated that various comments have been made about Bunkers House and the indicative proposal shows this property to be maintained, leaving it with a 25 metre long, 75 foot long garden and made the point that it is not Listed or in a Conservation Area and there has never been any proposal to demolish it, with one of the applicants living in the property. He added that the indicative proposal shows the intention to extend the existing footpath, which will help the properties that are at the front of this site and also the properties on the proposed site.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the officer’s report reads quite positively, with 9.34 and 9.35 reading positively on the amount of development proposed in relation to the surrounding area which is a low density per hectare. He made the point that further in the report it confirms at 9.31 that proposed residential development would be compatible with the prevailing character of nearby land use and would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on surrounding occupiers.

Mr Hall referred to the Google map on the presentation screen, which shows the site is surrounded by residential properties to the north east and to the south, with there being about 25-27 dwellings in this area and he agrees that beyond the site it is open countryside but, in his view, this proposal would round off the development in that area and it is not isolated. He referred to a slide on the presentation screen showing Wisbech St Mary Primary School figures from Cambridgeshire County Council that are forecast and in 2024/25 school year it is predicting 175 pupils but in 2029/30 it goes down to 152 and these figures can be affected by major changes in future house building, with the site being only half a mile from the primary school, with the indicative proposal that he has put forward showing that these dwellings are family homes and you would expect there to be children there.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the report confirms the site is compatible with the adjacent land use and prevailing character, low density matches in with the adjacent land use, there would be a footpath link extended, Highways have not objected on the principle, the proposal is for a far lesser dense development, it would round off this area of Bunkers Hill and Bunkers House is not proposed to be demolished.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to one of the reasons for refusal being on the sequential test and asked if he has looked around the area? Mr Hall responded that he submitted a sequential test for Bunkers Hill and Tholomas Drove which he believes passed but officers disagree.

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

·       Councillor Benney agreed with Mr Hall in that, in his view, it rounds this part of Bunkers Hill off nicely. He referred to another application which was an L-shaped plot and considered infill on a corner and when he first came on Planning Committee and became a councillor the houses behind here were approved. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion where else are you going to build but in the open countryside, with expansion only going outwards and some people do want to live in rural locations. He feels there is community benefit with a footpath and also looking at the school numbers, councillors should be supporting local communities as communities need schools, once it is closed it will never come back and with the school numbers falling this will help contribute to the school numbers hopefully and the longevity of the school.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that this area used to be in her County division when she was a county councillor and agree with the sentiments of Councillor Benney.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it looks a good application, and committee should be consistent having approved several houses in Bunkers Hill previously, with these small hamlets needing to be sustained. He feels the proposal rounds off the site and that he can support the application.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that this is a continuation of a very small village and as in Chatteris development is being continued along different roads because there is nowhere to build in Chatteris. He stated that he cannot see anything wrong with this application, if there had been 2-3 fields between the development he could understand but it abuts the built form and is a continuation.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he was open minded on this application and was concerned that the historic building was going to be demolished but it has been confirmed that is not the case and feels that building out into the countryside like this is the only way forward. He referred to the letters of objection and support, there were 25 letters of objection from locals and 22 letters of support but not from local people and he was a little confused over this but feels his concerns have been allayed and he can support the proposal.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the 2014 Local Plan is well out of date and looking at Policy LP3 it describes every village but Bunkers Hill is not listed so there is no policy for Bunkers Hill. David Rowen responded that there is a policy regarding Bunkers Hill which is that if it is not a named settlement it is an elsewhere location and residential development should be refused.

·       David Rowen referred to a number of points that had been raised by members, this is a PIP application so while there is a plan on the screen showing an indicative layout that does not form part of the application and is not even a requirement to be submitted. He added that the footpath shown along the frontage of the site does not form part of the application and, therefore, no weight can be given to that as a community benefit and there is already a footway running along the frontage of the site linking up to the remainder of Bunkers Hill so he is not sure what community benefit would be afforded anyway. David Rowen stated that the main issue with Bunkers Hill is that it is fundamentally considered to be an unsustainable location because there is nothing in it. He added that Mr Hall has referenced that there is a school, a shop and a chip shop half a mile away but there is no pedestrian connectivity, there is no footpath between Bunkers Hill and Wisbech St Mary so to get a pint of milk or a loaf of bread will involve a car journey and that is the way that the planning system is set up to locate development in sustainable settlements. David Rowen referred to mention about how Chatteris is expanding out into the countryside but Chatteris is a sustainable settlement with services and facilities, but Bunkers Hill other than having a once every two hour bus service has got no services and facilities that is why it is not mentioned as a named settlement within the settlement hierarchy of the Local Plan. He referred to Mr Hall mentioning diminishing school numbers at Wisbech St Mary Primary School and pointed out that those figures were not submitted as part of the planning application and have only been presented today so there is no real verification of that argument with either the school or the local education authority, but he is not sure how an additional 7 houses at Bunkers Hill with no connectivity to Wisbech St Mary is going to address that particular issue given the fact that in Wisbech St Mary itself since 2018 there has been approximately 96 houses granted permission. David Rowen expressed the view that some of the issues that have been flagged in the debate and by the agent when making their presentation he is not sure how much weight they should carry as part of the determination of the application.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that it is going to be unsustainable because if you want a pint of milk or a loaf of bread a car will be required to fetch it but last month committee considered an application with an officer’s recommendation for 152 houses isolated from Chatteris because there is no road link in it that joins a red route main A road and if you want a pint of milk or a loaf of bread a car is still required to purchase it. David Rowen responded that the Chatteris application being referenced had its sole vehicular access onto the A142, there was nonetheless pedestrian and cycle connectivity through the site to connect up with Chatteris so to say that there was no option other than people had to drive is factually incorrect. Councillor Benney acknowledged the comments but expressed the view to say that it is unsustainable a person would not live there if they did not have a car so if someone has a car it is sustainable.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point this is a PIP application, there are no details and it is about the use of land. She referred to the Local Plan where it states that in the other villages residential development will be considered on its own merit and she feels that the use of land for this PIP application would be acceptable.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the site is in close proximity to existing dwellings and square the area off, being in Flood Zone 3 can be mitigated against, there will be potential benefits to the community from the scheme and it does comply with policy LP3.

(Councillor Marks declared that the knows the applicant on a personal basis and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(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 Murphy declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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