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 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the report to Members and informed them that no updates had been received.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the applicant’s agent.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal is for a maximum of 28 dwellings and would be accessible for vehicles by a small extension to the public highway on Stow Lane, with this section of road already being used by existing dwellings on Stow Lane and four of these will remain beyond the proposed access point. He stated that the proposal includes pedestrian and possibly cycle routes through the site to connect Stow Lane to Quaker Lane and could review the provision of further cycle and pedestrian routes to other areas if a condition was requested.

Mr Edwards stated that an access point from Quaker Lane had been considered, however, this did not meet the required visibility splay requirements due to a tree obscuring the view and the provision of a footpath through the site to link with the public highway at Quaker Lane will allow access to the town centre facilities, school and college. He expressed the view that there have been no technical issues with the application, which is supported by Wisbech Town Council and is also within flood zone 1.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that this site fits with the existing build form of the area and will not impact on any future development in the area. He stated that all aspects raised by Highways will be dealt with as part of the reserved matters stage and the proposal will retain the majority of the existing hedges and trees and further planting will also be incorporated. In his view the proposal will be of interest to local small and medium sized developers due to size of the development as it will not have the cost implication of larger sites which would require greater infra-structure, and the benefit of local developers is that they have a tendency to use local professionals and trade and builders merchants, which will promote jobs and is also a benefit to the local economy.

Mr Edwards stated that if the application is supported, then the absence of the Section 106 contribution could be reassessed, this has not been included to date to save the associated costs to both the applicant and Fenland District Council. He stated that the proposed site has not been farmed for many years due to its shape, with the proposal maintaining all the existing natural boundaries, whilst allowing access through, and will provide 28 dwellings which will go towards the 5 year land supply and will not impact on any future development in the area.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented that she has read the Officer’s report and, in her opinion, this development will change the character of the area, due to the increase in traffic. She referred to the Broad Concept Plan (BCP) which has been approved and is only 12 to 18 months away from commencement, stating that under LP7 it seeks to safeguard and enhance Stow Lane both for pedestrians and cyclists, identifying Stow Lane as a quiet country lane and, therefore, in her opinion, she agrees with the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is pleased that the BCP is only 12 to 18 months away from the planning process and he feels that the area and landscape should be left as it is.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that it is a very quiet lane and the increase in traffic from the 28 proposed homes will impact on the existing residents.  She questioned why the proposal is not connected to the BCP and she cannot see any benefit to the proposal agreeing with the Officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, in his opinion, if approved, the site would be deliverable almost immediately and it would not impede on the BCP.  With regard to the BCP, he expressed concern that it is communities that are supposed to be being developed, not homes and we should be building homes and communities and ensuring the current dwellings are not isolated from the rest of the area. In his opinion the location of the proposal is acceptable, if it had been in the middle of the BCP area it would not have been appropriate but the proposal of 28 homes will go towards the 5 years land supply issue and he believes the application should be approved.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that it is a piece of land that will be developed, however, it should not be developed piecemeal.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that with regard to the 5 year land supply as of March 2018 the Authority had supplied 5.9 years and our target should be 760 per annum. The figure of completions as per April 2018 is 550 dwellings, so although we have to be mindful of the land supply issue it should not be considered in this case.

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