Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

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.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler referred to the three reasons for refusal, with the initial response that they received for the referral to committee only listing the open countryside as the original reason for refusal and he was not made aware of the highway and noise reasons until he read the report last week. He made the point that the application is in outline with all matters reserved including the access and the first slide on the presentation screen shows that by moving the access slightly along the road they are able to achieve the visibility splay requested by Highways in their comments, the details of the access would be in the Reserved Matters application.

Mr Gowler stated that the second reason for refusal is based on noise generated from the motocross track and shooting ground and he showed on another slide two developments that have been approved in the last few years where no concerns were raised by Environmental Health, with the owners of the motocross track and shooting ground having provided a large acoustic barrier to their great expense to the edge of the site to reduce the noise to acceptable levels for all residents in this area, otherwise the use would not be allowed to continue anyway. He stated that the applicant would be happy as part of a condition or reserved matters or both to provide an acoustic report, acoustic fencing and details of acoustic glazing to the dwellings if it is required like you would find on a busy highway or railway line development where the noise is more consistent than this sporadic noise generated at the track.

Mr Gowler referred to his last slide relating to the site being in a remote location and in the open countryside, with his slide showing other developments that have been allowed recently on Primrose Hill, with these developments being a similar distance from the centre of the village to this proposed development. He stated that the proposed site already has a footpath to the frontage, with street lights along Benwick Road, both similar to the developments approved along Primrose Hill.

Mr Gowler referred to Policy LP12(a) which states development will be supported where the site is adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village and he feels this site is part of the original developed footprint of Doddington. He expressed the view that with the exception of a small livery along Askham there is no break in development along this side of road, therefore, this site is adjacent to the existing developed footprint and is not an extension like other recently approved sites which are extension upon extensions.

Mr Gowler stated that he hoped members would support the approval of this application with relevant conditions to include access and noise if required.

Members asked questions to officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the Planning Officer read out a very lengthy update from Environmental Health and asked if there is still a lot of complaints being received about Washbrook Farm and its activities? Danielle Brooke responded that the Environmental Health Team have said since the 2018 application they have not received any specific complaints, however, they have had lots of queries about the conditions through which Washbrook Farm operates and whether they are operating within those conditions. Councillor Mrs French made the point that this is Washbrook Farm and not this application. Danielle Brooke responded that this is correct and Environmental Health did not specify where those residents are located in relation to the farm and it is assumed and insinuated that it is the residents nearest to Washbrook Farm, with this application being to the west of it.

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

·       Councillor Meekins questioned whether he would want to be disturbed on a Sunday morning by people either shooting clay pigeons or riding motorbikes around a track and would he buy a house that was relatively close to one of those activities. He feels to say there has not been any proper complaints about Washbrook Farm for several years but it was uppermost in the minds of the residents it cannot, in his view, have been particularly bad if they are not actually complaining about it. Councillor Meekins expressed the view that it is like moving next to a church and complaining about the bells on a Sunday, he cannot see this as any reason to refuse the application as someone might complain about the noise.

·       Councillor Sutton stated it is a fair point but it is a real concern and is only one part of the reasons for refusal. He feels that officers have got the recommendation right, it is getting too far out of the village and a couple of meetings ago four where refused a little further down the road so for consistency he will support officer’s recommendation. Councillor Sutton made the point that the Parish Council are very much against this proposal.

·       Nick Harding stated that this is not quite a situation of buyer beware, it is buyer beware if planning permission is granted but officers have been advised that there is a significant noise source nearby which may well have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of these proposed dwellings.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis registered, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are Fenland District Councillors for Doddington and attend Doddington Parish Council meetings but take no part)