Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter 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 Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand stated that members will recall that this application site came before committee 20 months ago and concerns were raised last time regarding the state of the pot holed public byway and the first plot not abutting Mill Hill Lane, which could have possibly led to a further application for building plots and this application still seeks approval for four executive self-build dwellings on a slightly larger site that now abuts Mill Hill Lane and includes within the application red line the repairing of the byway to address the committee’s previous concerns. He expressed the opinion that the site represents a very small fraction of the broad location for March’s future growth south of Knights End Road between Wimblington Road and the A141 and approval of the application will not affect a broad concept plan for the area as approved minor application F/YR15/0961/F mentioned in Section 10.2 did not.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that the existing countryside view of the applicant’s field from the private road will be lost as it will be by the future development of the broad location for growth. He expressed the view that the Grade II Listed barn which is shown on the presentation screen as the whole building shaded in red is inaccurate as it is only the front section as there is a post-war agricultural extension and it is also screened by the owners overgrown hedge with the applicant also having willow trees within their site screening the Listed Barn, with development of the application site having less impact on the Listed barn setting that the new houses on Mulberry Close and Birch Lodge which were judged not to affect the barn setting.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the countryside public footpath which is next to the plots provides safe access for pedestrians and cyclists to Knights End Road, with the manual for streets requiring a minimum width of 4.1 metres for two cars to pass each other and the application proposes to make the repaired byway 4.6 metres in width to allow cars to easily pass each other or a home delivery van to pass a car. He made the point that Highways in Section 5.5 of the report has no objection to 4 additional dwellings and the Definitive Map Team also raise no objections to the proposal, with all residents welcoming the repair of the byway.

Mr Brand stated that his client is happy for a pre-commencement condition as recommended by officers at the end of Section 10.23 to cover the byway repair works. He stated that Mr Pocklington the owner of the private road and the currently vacant plot is with him today and he can confirm a maintenance agreement already exists between the 3 current users of the private access road which will become 6 if the application is approved and the applicant is also happy for a construction management plan condition as recommended in Section 10.28 along with the conditions recommended by the Tree Officer and Wildlife Officer.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that approval of the application will complete an executive cul-de-sac of bespoke self-build houses and provide a stop line to future incremental development in Mill Hill Lane without affecting the broad location for growth.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton stated that given this site is in the broad concept plan (BCP) area then anything coming forward in this BCP area is going to have the same potential issues with the Listed Building as these 4 dwellings, so is it being said that the BCP area will only go so far as it affects the Listed barn. He made the point that Mr Brand is right that the Listed barn is not all listed as it has got an agricultural extension on it. Councillor Sutton stated that he is confused as to what will happen when the whole area comes forward for development as it surely has to apply to the BCP area as well as this proposal. David Rowen responded that Policy LP9 of the Local Plan where it talks about the South-West March broad location for growth makes specific reference to the setting and character of Barn Owl Lodge, which should be retained as well as views of St Wendreda’s Church so if part of the BCP was to come forward there would have to be some recognition within that of a buffer area or a separation area being included to protect the setting of the Listed Building. He stated that it is a common misconception that part of a building can be Listed but essentially the building is Listed in its entirety, whether it is only the front element that is of significance or not the entire building is Listed. Councillor Sutton made the point that on the back of the Listed Building is a lean-to Dutch barn so he is not sure why this would want to be Listed.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that when the building was converted into a dwelling it was Grade II Listed and it did include the part at the back, even though it seems that this part should not be.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he remembers when this came to committee previously and it was refused due to the road and he does not remember the Listed barn being a reason. He referred to the indication that the barn was a reason but the road was the main issue. David Rowen responded that the previous reasons for refusal are set out at 9.2 of the officer’s report, with the first refusal reason relating to the setting and character of Owl Barn Lodge, the second reason talks about local distinctiveness and character of the area and the third reason for refusal relates to Mill Hill Lane.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she was glad that David had reminded members of the previous reasons for refusal and when Mill Hill Lane previously had applications approved it was fine but now the dwellings seem to be going further and further down Mill Hill Lane, which will never be adopted and the road is shocking. She does not have a problem with the vicinity of the barn as she feels it is farther enough away but in 2017 when she became a county councillor she had the opportunity of helping people, with Mill Hill Lane being one of them and Linwood Lane, but none took up the opportunity to get the planings and she cannot see anything has changed since the last application was refused.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the change is that the applicant is prepared to repair the road and he does not see this application as being any different to the one in Chatteris as through the development you are getting improvement in the road and for the one in Chatteris you will get improvements to the flooding.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that if this is correct and there is a cast iron guarantee that the road will be improved as committee have had promises in the past and the houses in this road are lovely well-built houses, it is just the road that is a disgrace.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that the applicant has said he will improve the road and make good the byway so if it is approved that will have to be a cast iron condition. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a public right of way not public byway and it must not be blocked at any time.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that nobody had mentioned the word byway until the previous speakers had and that is what it is, it is not a road as such and there are differences. Councillor Sutton stated that it does say the County Council will maintain the byway. Councillor Mrs Mayor responded that they do not as there is one near where she lives.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with Councillor Mrs French that the road is shocking but having said that he has friends that live down several roads in March that are equally shocking but it is their choice and decision to live there. He expressed the opinion that if the applicant wants to build the houses and live in this area, with the shocking roads, it is up to him to do so.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a policy at County Council which is moving rapidly forward about upgrading public rights of way so this is already on the cards but if the applicant is really serious and it is a cast iron guarantee to improve the road she would not have a problem supporting the application.

·       Nick Harding made the point that the previous reason for refusal was not just about the condition of the roadway but about its width and lack of footway etc. and applications have been refused previously down equally narrow public highway.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that three dwellings were approved more or less opposite this site with an equally narrow access to it. He feels the main reason for refusing this previously and all the debate around it was due to the highway and if the agent is prepared to give a cast iron guarantee that could be conditioned, whether they lay the base and then put the topping on when they finished, he could support the application.

·       Councillor Purser agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney, the agent has said they are going to better the road which takes away that reason for refusal.

·       Councillor Meekins asked as it is a public byway who actually owns it and are they not responsible for maintaining it so how can an individual say they are going to repair a road if it is owned by the County?

·       Councillor Purser in response to Councillor Meekins queried whether it was said that it was an unadopted road at the moment?

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor made the point that the byway is only single-track, which needs to be given consideration as houses keep being built down here you need a proper highway and is there room to make it a proper highway. She has knowledge of this in her locality and she would not want to build 3 or 4 executive houses down this road or byway.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that there are another 2 dwellings further down that have been there for many years on the left hand side.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the report states that this is a byway and it will only be maintained to a standard that is used for walkers, equestrian and cyclists and the authority will only maintain it to that level.

·       Councillor Benney referred to Mr Brand stating that the road will be made up and questioned whether this is something that can be undertaken by the applicant, can the road be made up in conjunction with Cambridgeshire County Council as the County Council are bad at sorting roads out as can be seen driving through the Fens and if they have an offer from someone who is going to fix it for free they should grab it with both hands and say thank you very much. He expressed the view that if Mr Brand on behalf of the applicant is prepared to make it up this is betterment to Mill Hill Lane.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that there is the maintenance of the road as well.

·       David Rowen stated that in terms of the highway there are some issues that need to be clarified, the first being that the application is not proposing the upgrade of the entirety of Mill Hill Lane it is only proposing to upgrade approximately 65 metres from the boundary of number 5 to the access serving the plot. The second issue relates to works to the public byway and any works would have to be approved by the County Council and as Councillor Mrs French has rightly pointed out the County Council has advised that going forwards it will only maintain that stretch of roadway to the standard that is required for a byway. He made the point that the essence of the issue is firstly there is no guarantee that those minimal improvements to Mill Hill Lane would be delivered because the County Council’s agreement is required and then there is no guarantee that any improvements are to be maintained going forward.

·       Nick Harding added that committee needs to look at the reasons for refusal given last time which have been rolled over into this scheme and if members are going to approve this application an explanation is required of what has changed that enabled members to come to a different decision.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that David pre-empted what she was going to say in that it was only a short piece of the byway that was being talked about being upgraded and it will depend upon the quality of the road given the fact that it is not likely to be maintained by anyone after this so to say that a road is being gained is wrong and she does not feel the application stands up.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of the County Council who say that should committee be minded to grant planning permission they want various things included on the permission and going on at length about materials not being allowed to be stored on the byway and it being a criminal offence. She made the point that the County Council should have maintained the byway when the building first started and discussions should have been held before it got to this stage and if there is a possibility that things could be resolved she would not object to this application being deferred until the applicant or agent speaks to the County Council.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that this is another example of previous discussions, he knows that he did not previously have a problem with the relationship between this development and the Listed Building, with him feeling that the lean-to on the back of the Listed Building going in the developers favour, and he might have proposed that committee went against officer’s recommendation. He expressed the view that this is a typical example of where committee went along with officer’s recommendation although many members did not agree with all the reasons that were recommended for refusal, which can be covered easily now if members decide to grant planning permission but thinks this is where the problem comes if the committee is not clear on what refusal reasons it does not support. Councillor Sutton made the point that in terms of the road if committee decide to go against officer’s recommendation that can easily be conditioned that no development takes place until that road is finished and if the applicant is not happy with this the development does not take place.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that debate has been focused on turning down the proposal on three grounds when committee really only wanted to refuse it on one and officers have come back and said how does it meet criteria of LP3 building in the open countryside but the development has not been moved so you are stuck on this, however, it is a different committee and different committees look at applications in different ways, which is why the decision changes. He referred to building the road before development takes place, but made the point that roads are built in different layers and to get somebody to put finished tarmac on the top would not be fair when building materials are going to be brought in and out so the base and foundation could be put down and the topping laid at the end which would be a compromise. He expressed the view that it sits happily with him the fact that it is near to a Listed Building and he feels the sticking point was the road and the committee gave the agent a bit of guidance as to where that committee would steer things and it is not fair that the agent does what is asked of him and the committee still says no and this is how he remembers this application when it was determined previously.

·       Councillor Connor referred to the road and it is possible to lay the base and leave the top surfacing until the development is finished citing Juniper Close in Doddington as an example.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that members are skirting around the issue and what members should be saying is that you could probably have your development there but the road has to be in place first as he does not trust the road will be put in after the development has taken place.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor questioned, to go with what Councillor Murphy has just said, that members go with officer’s recommendation to refuse the application but the applicant has then got to go to County Council to get the road sorted. Councillor Mrs French stated that if the application is refused it is refused which is why she suggested a deferment unless there is a cast iron agreement from the applicant and the agent that they will undertake the road first. Councillor Sutton made the point that all is needed is a condition that the applicant would need to adhere to.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that if this application is approved it should be the last one down Mill Hill Lane as the development is going to end up to the bypass. Councillor Mrs Davis queried if is this not all the more reason to refuse this application because if this one is approved another one will come along and another and development will be up to the bypass.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that the land around this area is going to be built upon eventually. Councillor Connor acknowledged this but made the point that members need to make a decision on what is in front of them now.

·       David Rowen referred to Councillor Sutton’s assertion that all this will be built on is a very sweeping statement to make as ultimately if the BCP did come forward there is no guarantee that this area would be set aside for development. He feels that if you look at the BCP scale of development you are accepting that the entire character of this end of March changes as opposed to allowing a piecemeal encroachment into what is currently countryside which at the moment, as there is no BCP in place, may well remain countryside for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, which ties into one of the proposed reasons for refusal which relates to the fact that there is a fairly defined edge to the settlement and encroachment beyond that has a detrimental character impact but that in itself relates to the point that Councillor Mrs Davis made and Councillor Mrs French to a degree in as much as almost where does the committee/Council want to draw the line in terms of where development stops on Mill Hill Lane. David Rowen stated that comments made from the County Council from a highway point of view of the suitability of Mill Hill Lane to serve further incremental development, notwithstanding the 65 metres that is getting upgraded, the remainder of the road is not being touched so those issues remain. He made the point that whether the committee intended to refuse the application on all 3 grounds or whether it was just on 1 ground the decision of the Council is it was refused on those 3 grounds only 18 months ago so members are going to have to articulate what has changed in the meantime to justify a different decision.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation, which did not receive support from the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation, with delegation given to officers to formulate conditions to include that the road has to be undertaken first before any development takes place and for the conditions to be agreed with the Chairman and Councillor Sutton.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the road was the main issue for refusing the application previously, it would not harm the setting of the Listed Building and the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the area.

(Councillor Skoulding declared that his mother lives in close vicinity to this site and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French and Purser registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they were members of March Town Council but took no part in planning)