Agenda item

To determine the Application

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

Officers presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr David Green in support of the application.

Mr Green explained he is a resident of the area and knows the proposed location well. His main concern is that if the area isn’t developed on, it could be used for further industrial use but he totally understands the Officer’s recommendation.

There is a good opportunity to develop and use the land as per the proposal, and if the application was granted it would safeguard the area. The hedgerows could benefit from some husbandry and the Council could impose some conditions on the developer to enforce the maintenance of the hedgerow. He feels that there is a missed opportunity here and there is a great opportunity to safeguard the area especially with industrial areas encroaching and there are residential houses to the left and right hand side of the application site. 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Peter Humphrey the applicants Agent.

Mr Humphrey stated that he agrees with the previous speaker, that there is an opportunity to carry on building large detached dwellings to enhance the area.

The Parish Council have no objections to this application and if there were concerns there would be objections. The site is in flood zone 1. Highways have no objections and there is a proposal for a footpath to link this site with the village and there is already a pedestrian crossing to cross the A141.The Planning Officers have appeared to focus on LP3 which is growth of the village and have separated Eastwood End from the village of Wimblington.

On the previous local plan, Eastwood End was always shown as part of the village and he had asked Planning Officers when the new local plan came out whether he could be provided with a copy of what they define as villages, but there is no such plan. This site, when taken in context the whole of Eastwood End, just forms a natural infill gap and is ideal for development.

Referring to 11.1 of the Officers report, it states that it fails to protect and enhance the natural environment and Mr Humphrey disagrees with this. There are numerous new houses at Eastwood End and the proposal is not a new example and it is not setting a precedent, it is helping the village. Villages have a dense concentration of houses in the middle and sporadic large houses on the fringe, and the proposal is for three large houses on the fringe to retain the form and character of the village.

Officers are concerned with regard to LP12 which is rural areas development policy; however the application is not affected by an agricultural application so that cannot be considered as a reason for refusal. LP3 is a village classification and Officers have classed the application as to being elsewhere he is unsure as to whether it should be classed as elsewhere or as the village as Wimblington is a growth village and should fall within the growth village category and not classed as elsewhere.

It is the intention to retain the hedge and in his opinion there are a few anomalies within the report and therefore if members are minded to approve the application, the village can be enhanced 3 houses can be delivered in a suitable location and they are closer to amenities rather than some other applications which have been approved.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions;

·         Councillor Mrs Hay stated that she recognises that this is an outline planning application and she is concerned as one of the benefits of the application will be the footpath; however the Highways Authority has some concern over the deliverability of the proposed footpath. She asked whether the applicant has carried out any costings for this. Mr Humphrey responded and stated that the applicant has worked out that one of the plots will fund the offsite works.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay asked whether the applicant has checked the figures and pricing with the Highways Authority. Mr Humphrey confirmed that the applicant has not checked with Highways Authority but they are his budget costs and he is well aware of the cost implication of a footpath.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell asked for clarification with regard to access and asked whether it would be along the bridleway. Mr Humphrey confirmed that it would not be along the bridleway.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she cannot support the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. Immediately opposite the proposed site is a brand new house which has recently been occupied. She stated that she also understands there are planning applications which have been submitted for houses either side of it.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees with the speakers, it makes what is known as unsustainable more sustainable, it will link the area to the village and with the addition of the footpath it will make things easier. It may be a footpath on one side of the road in one part and another part of the footpath on the opposite side of the road, but that is not uncommon. The application also has local support and there are no objections.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh agreed with Councillor Mrs Davis. Following the site visit, the proposal is an infill development this would improve the area and she is struggling to see why it has been recommended for refusal.

·         Councillor Benney commented that he has revisited the site and the proposal is on the bypass side of the village, going away from the bypass there are 10 houses on one side and 11 on the other, in his opinion it looks like a piece on infill where 3 dwellings would fit well.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he cannot believe that the highway authority have not objected to the application as he feels that the road is unsafe, but whatever people say about the proposal being in Wimblington; it is not in Wimblington and never has been. He stated that before the road, there was a railway line which ran through, which cut off Eastwood End from Wimblington. It has been like it for many years and it has been confirmed by Planning appeals that it doesn’t fit with the plan. He stated that in his opinion this application is not policy compliant and finds it hard to believe that the Highways Authority have not objected to this on safety grounds alone.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that if Councillor Sutton thinks the road is dangerous there is all the more reason to have the footpath constructed. She understands that there needs to be a balance between industrial and residential premises and the proposal before members today of 3 dwellings is going to have an impact.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that members need to be mindful that a planning inspector’s decision is a material decision and he is not prepared to go against a Planning Inspectors decision.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh commented that she does not understand why members would not approve this application when the other dwellings are in close proximity.

·         Officers stated that the dwelling across the road from the proposed development was the result of a planning permission granted in 2002 under the old Local Plan which had different planning considerations.  Now the NPPF has been introduced and the Local Plan was introduced in 2014. Therefore in terms of other recent planning decisions in relation to residential development on Eastwood End, and since the local plan was introduced in 2014, there have been approximately 16 applications for residential development of which 11 have been refused. The only ones which have been granted are ones which have had follow up to previous permissions which have been granted before the adoption of the Local Plan.

·         Officers also advised members of the number of appeal decisions that have been recorded. In 2013, 2016 and more recently in 2017, where the Inspector has recognised that Eastwood End does not form part of Wimblington and it is not part of the growth village but is part of an elsewhere location, consequently residential development would not fit in with the spatial hierarchy set out in the Local Plan.

·         Officers suggested that members may also wish to consider that the Highways Authority have commented in terms of the footpath, on Page 116 of the report, point 5.2 states that the Highway Authority express concerns as to whether the footpath can be delivered and in terms of the footpath and the benefits it may provide to the wider settlement of Eastwood End, it is only actually proposed to take the footpath to the application site and not any further.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the houses opposite was approved in 2002, however it has only just been built. Officers clarified that it was an outline planning permission granted in 2002 and final approval was in 2011.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that her main concern is this application is an outline planning permission and if approval is granted they will come back regarding viability and say that they cannot afford to install the footpath. The fact that the Highways Authority has raised the concern indicates that it is not deliverable and therefore there is nothing given back to the community and that is why she will support the Officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, and seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay to go with the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

This vote failed and therefore the Chairman requested a Proposal for the application to be approved.

·         Officers clarified with Councillor Mrs Davis that any proposal approved might include delegated authority for Officers to add appropriate conditions.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that one of the conditions must be that if the application is approved then the footpath must be in place prior to any development and Councillor Mrs Bligh Agreed.

·         Nick Harding stated that one of the options that members could consider is to defer the application, so that the County Council and applicant can liaise with a view to establishing the issue of deliverability of the footpath. Alternatively members could give authority to the Head of Planning to approve if the path was deliverable and refuse if it were not.

·         Nick Harding stated that members can either choose to defer the application and bring it back to Committee or the application can be approved by Officers, but only if it can demonstrate that the footpath can be delivered and if it cannot be delivered then Officers can refuse the application. The Highways authority did not recommend refusal of the application and neither did it insist that there should be a condition in respect of footway provision. Nick Harding stated that he would suggest to members the application be deferred.

·         The Chairman stated that the concerns of the Head of Planning have been heard. He has suggested a deferment so that all of the concerns members have raised are investigated. The decision to either approve or refuse the application is then delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, or he asked if members want the Application to be brought back to Committee.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell asked for clarification with regard to the Highways Authority not raising any objection. The Chairman referred Councillor Mrs Newell to Page 116, Section 5.2.

·         Nick Harding stated that if the application had been submitted with no footpath proposal, Officers do not know whether the County Council would have stated that they object because a footpath is needed.The Council needs the requirement for a footpath to be set by the County Councils Highway Authority. If members are concerned about the footpath deliverability then the best option is to defer the application, and the queries can be addressed and the application can be brought back to committee.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay stated that if she could be assured that the footpath would be delivered she may have voted differently and therefore she will support a deferment and ask Highways to clarify the issue of deliverability. The Agent has already stated that one of the plots will pay for the footpath, however Highways may provide figures which will mean that one plot will not pay for the footpath.

·         Officers stated that the concerns expressed by Highways Authority in terms of deliverability are not necessarily just in terms of funding it is whether it can be physically constructed.

·         The Chairman agreed and said that the Highways Authority needs to clarify this.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the Parish Council were prepared to support the application if there was a footpath and with the retention of the hedge. In addition they would like to see only one access point and if the applicant and the Agent agreed to all of those aspects, the Parish Council would support it.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that not only should the hedgerow be retained but also maintained. Officers stated that there would be a reluctance to place a condition on the application to require the maintenance of a piece of private land.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and decided that the application be; DEFERRED and brought back to Planning Committee.

(Councillor Mrs Davis registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a Member of Wimblington Parish Council but takes no part in Planning matters. Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application.)