Agenda item

To Determine the Application

Councillor Benney, Councillor Sam Clark and Councillor Murphy returned to the Chamber.

Councillor Skoulding left the Chamber.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew member’s attention to the additional drawings submitted by the Agent. He explained that the decision to install a turning head accessing the site had been imposed following an appeal to the Planning Inspector and today’s application seeks to remove the condition associated with this.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Richard Brown (Agent).

Richard Brown introduced himself to members as a planning consultant appointed by Elmside Limited. He informed members that the application being considered is for an amendment to the access arrangements previously approved. This is due to land ownership issues with CCC who own part of the land that would be required for the turning head.

Richard Brown explained that a planning application had been submitted in 2011 for 8 dwellings with similar access arrangements. When access plans were submitted CCC Highways had responded that if the application was to be approved, they would require a condition to be added to the planning permission creating a turning area at the end of Queen Street Close which would serve as access to the site and a turning facility. At that time, CCC had agreed to adopt this turning head as part of a Section 38 agreement and stated that the turning head would benefit both road users and themselves as it would improve access to their land which sits adjacent to the site. The application was initially refused but subsequently granted planning permission following an appeal with the Planning Inspector.

Richard Brown informed members that following this, CCC have both refused to sign over their piece of land required to create the turning head or enter into a Section 38 agreement as per the original proposal due to the differing aspirations of the CCC Property Team and Highways department. He stated that CCC have not considered the public interest of this proposed development and have put both himself, the Applicant and Fenland District Council in a difficult position.

Richard Brown drew member’s attention to the swept-plan analysis drawings included in David Rowen’s presentation. He highlighted that the drawings show that vehicles will be able to both enter and exit the site in forward gear without the need of a turning head. He urged members to consider the valuable contribution this site will bring to the area and asked that members go against officer’s recommendations and approve the application.

Members asked Richard Brown the following questions;

1.    Councillor Meekins asked for confirmation that CCC will not release their piece of land to enable the construction of the turning head. Richard Brown confirmed this and explained that as part of the initial application, Highways had raised concerns in relation to access and had suggested a turning head subject to the Applicant constructing this at their own cost. This was agreed however the Property Team at CCC have since refused as they have different aspirations for this piece of land. He stated that the turning head was initially suggested by CCC and they had agreed to enter into a Section 38 agreement.

2.    Councillor Meekins raised concerns with refuse vehicles entering and exiting the site in the absence of a turning head. Richard Brown stated that there are no provisions for this currently in Queen Street Close and the development would not add to an already existing problem.

3.    Councillor Hay asked if the Applicant or Agent had approached the Assets Team at CCC in relation to potentially purchasing the piece of land required. Richard Brown confirmed they had not specifically discussed purchasing this land as it was intended that a Section 38 agreement be signed and the turning head adopted as part of the public highway. He suggested that as CCC own land adjacent to the proposed turning head; they have differing aspirations for this land.

4.    Councillor Hay said as Vice-Chairman of the Commercial and Investment Committee at CCC, she would suggest that the Applicant contacts the Assets Team at CCC to discuss the potential purchase of this land.

5.    Councillor Benney asked if the Applicant would consider reducing the number of dwelling on the site to allow for a turning head to be installed without the need for CCC land. Richard Brown agreed that consideration would have to be given to this, if the application is refused today.

6.    Councillor Hay asked if Richard Brown could indicate on a plan where CCC’s land is located. Richard Brown indicated that approximately half of the proposed turning head is land owned by CCC.

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

1.    Councillor Sutton questioned Councillor Hay’s position on CCC’s Commercial and Investment Committee. Councillor Hay clarified that the Committee had not discussed this particular application or site. Bob Power confirmed that this is not a planning issue but rather a land transaction issue therefore there are no concerns.

2.    Councillor Lynn raised concern with the proposed turning heads proximity to the primary school adjacent.

3.    Councillor Benney raised concern that without the turning head, access would be very difficult and residents will have issues. He said members must consider the future users of the site as whilst the swept-plan drawings show access is possible, this is dependent on a number of parking bays being unoccupied.

4.    Councillor Sutton stated that he is disappointed that CCC have put both the developer and the Council in this position and as a result, the scheme will not be delivered. He added that there are too many issues to grant planning permission but he is very disappointed that he cannot support this application.

5.    Councillor Benney agreed that as no turning head can be secured, members have no option but to refuse the application. He endorsed Councillor Sutton’s comments.

6.    Councillor Murphy said he was disappointed that the applicant has been put in this position by CCC. He said it was a disgrace that the delivery homes have been prevented due to this issue.

7.    Councillor Hay reiterated that the applicant needs to re-approach CCC and make them aware of what they had initially promised. Unfortunately the only other alternative is to reduce the amount of dwellings to incorporate a turning provision on-site.

8.    Councillor Murphy disagreed and said the applicant should not have to reduce the number of dwellings proposed as the turning head had been agreed with CCC.

9.    Councillor Sutton asked if Councillor Hay and Councillor Connor could attend the forthcoming Commercial and Investment Committee meeting at CCC and make a representation on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. Councillor Hay disagreed with this approach and reiterated her previous comments.

10.Councillor Sutton said reluctantly, he cannot support the application due to the ongoing land ownership issues.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Sam Clark and decided that the application be REFUSED; as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Skoulding declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he owns land opposite the site at Queen Street Close and left the Chamber for the duration of this agenda item)