Agenda item

To Determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its site inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Gaenor Parry the Agent.

Gaenor Parry stated that there have 2 previous applications on this site and both of those were significantly larger than the proposal before members today and in her opinion the refusals were clearly justified. The proposal today is for a small infill, windfall development for 3 dwellings and is a reduction in numbers, size and location from previous applications.

The houses are now sited at the western end of the site immediately opposite the existing dwellings in Gull Road. If considered together they form a cohesive development and as such do not appear as isolated dwellings in the countryside. The location has enabled a large part of the current open frontage along the B1187 to be retained free of development.

The proposal is for dedicated tree planting and landscaping along the frontage and the private gardens of the three houses behind a further hedgerow will add to the amount of open space and maintain a deep rural edge to the site effectively screening it. The paddock grazing area including trees and grassland are significant visual amenities and she cannot find any designation of this land in any Fenland District Council policy. The current application has addressed the Officer’s concerns and the Agent stated that the application in her opinion complies with LP12 (n) and LP16 (a) of the Local Plan.

She stated that she also has concerns over the Officers first reason for refusal and that Guyhirn has been identified as a village capable of some development, there are no comments within the Councils policy documents which state that new housing should be excluded from any particular part of the existing settlement. The Fenland Development Policy is set out in three parts, firstly to look at applications on their own merits, secondly it will normally be of a very limited nature and thirdly it will be normally be limited in scale, the use of normally is used twice in the policy is quite deliberate and it clearly underlines the fact that there is some flexibility in the policy to enable appropriate development. The Officers report states that the development is limited in scale and does not represent an infill opportunity. The Agent stated that she does not dispute the fact that the proposal is not infill but she does dispute that the policy itself requires more development in these identified settlements to be infill only.  The small development is not an isolated development and the officers concerns with regard to the previous development have been overcome by this proposal.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she has previously spoken with regard to previous applications on this site, but she has made no comment on this current application. She stated that she knows the area well, there is access to shops, Tall Trees Leisure, there is also a footpath along the length of the whole road and it is a more built up area compared to the other end of the village. She stated that she can see the merits of this application and the Parish Council have no objection to the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay asked whether if Councillor Mrs Bligh has already spoken in favour of this, does it make her decision pre-determined. The Legal Officer, clarified that Councillor Mrs Bligh has made representations on previous applications but she has given assurances that she has not made representation on this application and so there was no predetermination at play.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he does not support this application as it does not fit with policy and Officers have made the correct recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that the people who use the green space for grazing have no objection to the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that the site description of the proposal states that it is a 0.85 hectare site off Gull Road which was formerly ponds and the site is in flood zone 1, with only a small area in flood zone 2 and 3. The area was also used as a tipped land site. She is very mindful of local opinion and also the views of the Parish Council, however when reading the Officers recommendations and the consultee’s responses these have to be taken into consideration.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that the pond was filled in with rubble from the Horsefair Shopping Centre in Wisbech.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regard to contaminated land, that should not be used as a reason for refusal and if the development was approved, the issue of contaminated land could be dealt with by a condition which was recommended by the Environmental Health Team.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she was more concerned regarding the flooding aspect.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and decided that the application be REFUSED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Bligh, registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she has been lobbied on this application as she is the Ward Councillor.)