Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Hickey, an objector. Mr Hickey advised that he lives as 9 Askham Row, which is one of the two properties directly impacted from the proposed application. He stated that he moved from London in September 2018, with the primary reason for the purchase of his property being space, country living, village life, privacy, security, future retirement and a forever home.

Mr Hickey expressed the view that discussions with the original owner prior to the purchase assured them that it was not his intention of building further properties on this land and would be kept as farmland. He stated that he asked if the land was for sale behind his property but the owner was unwilling to sell individual plots at that time and subsequently he was relieved when three of his neighbours purchased part of the land to prevent any possibility of future buildings.

Mr Hickey stated that in his objections Mr Bolton mentioned that he would never have sold the land to the applicant had he known his intention and he and his wife are also very disappointed with the applicant as the previous statement of his intentions was to purchase the land to prevent any building work going ahead. He referred to privacy and regulations, with the proposed dwellings creating an, in his view, unacceptable encroachment on his personal privacy which will have a direct line of site into his living room and as stated on his formal objection the application clearly goes against local planning policy and adds to the breach of the villages housing threshold which has 192 committed as of 8 March 2022 and is already at 150% of the threshold agreed.

Mr Hickey referred to the District Council recently refusing planning permission to one of the other neighbours that purchased the land from Mr Bolton at the same time as the applicant, with the application at that stage for a change of use to a garden and in the findings it was stated that the application breached Fenland’s local planning policy LP12, delivering and protecting high quality environments, and it does not make sense that approval should be given to building 3 domestic dwellings and associated gardens on the same site. He stated that there have recently been two new dwellings approved and built on Hospital Road and there are further planning applications submitted for 5 houses along the same road the field in which the 3 dwellings would reside, which has space for approximately 50 dwellings and approval of this application would, in his view, set a precedent and would support an enormous spike in applications for this field, especially as the person that has purchased the remaining field land has already submitted planning applications for 7 dwellings.

Mr Hickey referred to 2 of his neighbours who purchased land at the same time as the applicant and whilst he has faith in them, the approval of this application would enable them to also apply for planning permission under the same criteria. He expressed the opinion that Hospital Road is a narrow single-lane road with no formal passing places with a lack of pedestrian pavements, it is a key part of Doddington circular route used by many walkers in the area, it provides emergency exit for the hospital and the care home opposite the site and further development will have a severe impact on the character of the road necessitating destruction of many hedgerow and trees, therefore, urbanizing a countryside road and walking route.

Mr Hickey made the point that, as confirmed by the Highway Authority, Hospital Road is a narrow road devoid of opportunity for safe passing, generally ill-suited for further development due to increased risk of vehicle and pedestrian conflict but it does say, however, that the additional 3 houses would not in itself have material impact on Hospital Road but that it does provide a precedent which could result in a severe cumulative impact. He expressed the view that the summary findings of the recent survey conducted by Doddington Neighbourhood Plan Group concluded that 71% of respondents had concerns about traffic, too many houses, public transport and infrastructure and on these grounds he urged members to reject the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Hickey as follows:

·       Councillor Meekins referred to the officer’s report at 5.3 which shows 9 letters of support have been received but there is nothing to show any letters of objection. Mr Hickey responded that this was not true. Councillor Connor advised that the report does refer to objectors. Mr Hickey expressed the opinion that a lot of the supporters were canvassed.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Cutteridge, a supporter. Mr Cutteridge advised members that he is owner of Mega Plants in Hospital Road and the Council did grant them planning permission to extend the garden centre with a shop and café recently so highways did support them and say the road was suitable for further traffic and he has submitted an application asking to widen the road and pedestrianize it, which he will be paying for but this has not been approved as yet. He stated that he has lived down Hospital Road for over 45 years, since he was a small boy, he has attended the village school, been to the Scout group and been a Scout leader and maintained most of the village most of his life with grass cutting, hedge cutting and tree planting.

Mr Cutteridge agreed that there will be small piece of hedgerow removed for access to these dwellings but the hedgerow is badly diseased being full of Dutch Elm Disease and most of the trees do fall during the Winter time and he has to go along and remove them and the Council has recently granted permission for several hundreds of metres to be removed for 10 Askham Row to move their fence line out, which was granted with no problem, with new hedgerow to be planted at the rear to cover this. He stated that nobody canvassed himself to come to the meeting and speak in support of the application, he was in complete support of it when it was submitted and the people that have objected are mostly from Askham Row and have given reasons for their own properties not to exist as the properties they live in are on the very same piece of agricultural land that this application is for. 

Mr Cutteridge stated that he has seen this land farmed all his life and the access to the site is very good as there is clear vision to the end of the road to the public highway and the street lighting at the end of the road lights this road very well and, in his view, there will be more lighting at the entrance to the properties if the application is approved. He made the point that this is a Flood Zone 1 site and, in his view, the photos shown by the Council give a very poor indication of Hospital Road and opposite these proposed dwellings is the extension of Doddington Court, a very large building which the Council did approve and has a bigger impact than these dwellings can have and the opposite side of the field the rear the extension on Askham House is also quite large and substantial and goes a lot further into the countryside than these properties, so this proposal is not really impacting on views.

Mr Cutteridge expressed the opinion that the site is only 0.3 miles from the centre of the village going from the Clock Tower and he does not consider it to be on the outskirts of the village as Doddington spreads out 1.4/1.5 miles. He feels there has been more development on the north-east and south sides to the west, which are further from the centre of the village and a lot of the access roads on the new estates are narrower than Hospital Road.

Mr Cutteridge stated that he is very proud to live in the Fens and where he lives, he realizes that there is the need for affordable homes and the Council have said this proposal is not good use of land and there should be more dwellings but when you go to the Cotswold or the Chilterns there are beautiful homes and people look at these homes in envy and he cannot see why this cannot be the Fens. He referred to the suggestion that there are no passing places down Hospital Road but there is which he had to put in as part of his planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Cutteridge as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked how far down the road is the entrance to this new development and are there any passing places before the entrance? Mr Cutteridge responded that it is quite close and there are no passing places between the top of the road and the new development.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that Doddington is a growth village and there have been planning approvals in the last 2 years beyond this site down Hospital Road for residential development approved by the committee against officer recommendation. He stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1 and there are no highway objections.

Mr Hall acknowledged that there have been various concerns about the hedge to the front of the site but a single access is being proposed approximately 5 metres width through the hedge and various biodiversity features that the officer talks about in the report can be incorporated into the dwellings if approved. He stated that at the top of Hospital Road, similar to what Mr Cutteridge has just said, there is a section of hedge being removed which is nothing to do with this application as it is a different piece of land and another access granted in 2022 under delegated powers and no concerns were raised here.

Mr Hall stated that members have just heard from the adjacent business owner, Mr Cutteridge, owner of Mega Plants, who supports the application. He expressed the opinion that the reason at this stage why 3 indicative plots have been shown are for large executive style properties with large gardens which is similar to Askham Row which is adjacent to this site and as members will be aware Askham Row was originally agricultural field and that was all built out, with the officer recommendation being to refuse which was overturned by committee.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen showing the site and an area further north where development was approved by committee for 2 dwellings in 2020 against officer recommendation because it was felt by officers to be in the open countryside and then 2 further approvals were granted in 2022 by committee against officer recommendation which was also felt by officer to be in the open countryside. He referred to the previous speaker talking about three sections of land at the back of Askham Row that were sold off, with one of these being the application site but this is the only parcel of those three that has road frontage onto Hospital Road, the other two, which are not in the ownership of the applicant, only have access from Benwick Road itself and there have been other approvals in Hospital Road for both frontage and backland development.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of Mr Hickey and his concerns about his property being overlooked. Mr Hall responded that the gardens at Askham Row will be 30-35 metres long and these dwellings will be side on to those gardens, with the windows being 50 metres away.

·       Councillor Marks asked again how far down the road is the proposed dwelling and how far are the road passing places? Mr Hall responded that the proposed dwelling is 70-90 metres away from the nearest passing place.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated the proposed access is only 30 metres from the rear entrance of the hospital which is a gated fire access so surely there is a passing place here? Mr Hall responded that from a highway perspective this is not a passing place.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton queried that as the application is a PIP that the access is only indicative and is not committed? Nick Harding confirmed this was correct.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that due to past decisions of the Council where developments have been approved further along Hospital Road he does not think the committee can say no to this proposal.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that “two wrongs do not make a right”, he agrees with officers, he does not feel it is the right place and Doddington Parish Council do not either.

·       Councillor Marks referred to 1.4 of the report and asked if more development should be proposed on the land? Nick Harding responded that 1.4 says that there are too few houses on the site and it is not the efficient use of the land even if members say the principle of development is acceptable. He referred to the objector mentioning that the immediate neighbour to this site on the left had an application refused by the committee due to the loss of countryside and this site sits next door to this site.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that this is the wrong location to be building 3 houses, when members went on the site visit the bus just got into the road and had to move and the road will never be widened as it should be. Nick Harding made the point that highways is not one of the reasons for refusal.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that this dwelling has merit and it will be a nice home for somebody, others have been approved down this road and only 5 metres of hedgerow is being removed to provide 3 very nice homes that he does not see any problem with. He feels that Hospital Road has lots of traffic going down it and he has never experienced any problems.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the highway report where it clearly says that the addition of 3 more properties will only have a minor impact on the traffic on the road but further development will have a cumulative impact so if anything further is proposed than these 3 properties they will need to look at the situation again.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that highways have no objections and he sees nothing wrong with the proposal.

·       Nick Harding made the point that there are two recommended reasons for refusal, the first reason is the key one and members really need to focus on why this proposal is acceptable when the proposal for next door was not and members need to be as robust as possible in their justification so that the decision can withstand inspection further down the line.

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

(Councillor Connor and Mrs Davis registered that they are District Councillors for Doddington and Wimblington and do attend Parish Council meetings but take no part in planning)

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent for this application but he is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)