Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written presentation, read out by Member Services, from Christina Ross, an objector. Ms Ross stated that Broad Drove East is a narrow country road with no pavements, street lighting or main drains, with the properties being mainly farm, equestrian and small holdings. She feels the size, type and layout of this development is completely out of character with the area, with the highway being very narrow and cars can only pass with care and lorries not at all.

Ms Ross expressed the opinion that the client it not buying the access road, which appears to belong to the landowner so the development shown will not own the access to the highway and questioned whether this road will be of suitable standard for safe access by the public and large lorries and what would happen if consent is withdrawn. She expressed the view that the plans are short on details and measurements, with there being none shown for the car park or turning area and there are not enough parking places shown for 3 shops, their staff and the flat above, with no areas shown for mobility scooters, shopping trolleys, etc and there are no areas shown for the safe storage of food, oils and other flammables.

Ms Ross stated that there are dykes to two sides of the site and these must be considered a real health hazard to nearby properties from vermin attracted by the smells from the takeaway and inevitable litter that arises. She expressed the view that the site will have to be lit from dusk to dawn to accommodate the ATM and this, along with car starting up, doors slamming and lorries reversing, will create a great deal of noise and pollution from early morning until late at night disturbing people and wildlife in a quiet and peaceful area.

Ms Ross expressed the opinion that the site will be sure to attract anti-social behaviour, with the community centre having to spend thousands of pounds to gate, fence and install CCTV to prevent anti-social behaviour that blighted and spread through the village and this is a real concern for all residents, with the takeaway attracting late night traffic. She feels there is very little landscaping and the trees planted to screen Sapphire Close will be hidden and fenced off, with it being unclear who will be responsible for maintaining the dyke.

Ms Ross expressed the view that the whole development has been poorly thought out, is in the wrong place and it is doubtful that such a small village could support one shop never mind three. She made the point that she is not against development but feels strongly that this is in the wrong place.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Simon Lemmon, the agent. Mr Lemmon referred to the reasons for refusal and whilst the opinion of the Planning Officer is acknowledged they would comment as follows, their proposal, in his opinion, is not classed as limited in nature or scale although a development of two-storey dwellings adjacent to this was and looking at the overall plan of the area the adjacent development is far larger than this proposal both in footprint and overall height, a point demonstrated on the proposed street scene location drawing. He stated that there is a golf club to consider located within the village with numerous lodges but this is clearly not infill and cannot be classed as being limited in nature and scale, however, approval has been granted.

Mr Lemmon referred to the second reason for refusal in that development of a substantial building as proposed would result in an alien form of development in a countryside location, which would be fundamentally at odds with the visual characteristics and role of the countryside but stated that they are actually proposing a brick clad structure with a pitch roof over clad in matching tiles to match surrounding structures and when you compare this to the community centre on the opposite side of the road which is a large light blue metal cladded building and does not match any surrounding structures so he fails to see how this reason applies. He expressed the view that their proposal is located adjacent to an existing development, appears smaller in scale when viewed from the road, with the community centre standing alone on the other side of the road and yet this is not at odds with the visual character of the countryside even though events are held in this building and it will clearly brings people and cars to the village along this so called narrow lane.

Mr Lemmon expressed the opinion that the proposal for 3 shops is to serve the village and its people and will improve the village as mentioned in the numerous letters of support which this application has received. He feels the proposal, although it is outside the built environment, is proportionate to the local need and has received over 50 letters of support highlighting the benefits it will bring to the village, together with the fact that he has been informed the village is to lose its regular bus service, which then raises the question how will residents who are reliant on public transport get access to local shops.

Mr Lemmon expressed the view that this proposal will create employment, will reduce the need to travel to other villages to access shops and will, therefore, reduce traffic and unnecessary damage to the environment as well as providing a Post Office and an ATM in a village setting. He made the point that the proposal has received the support of the Parish Council, over 50 letters of support from local residents, it has also had a recent poll carried out with over 90% of responders supporting the scheme, statutory consultees have no objections and overall this proposal will provide the village with a local convenience shop, a Post Office, a takeaway and an ATM as well as employment for local people and a valuable local amenity. He asked committee to consider the benefits to the village and approve the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Lemmon as follows:

·       Councillor Gerstner asked if the applicants have or have applied for the licences for a Post Office? Mr Lemmon responded that as far as he is aware the applicant is going through the process but there is not one in place currently.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to the concerns raised by Cambridgeshire Constabulary and asked what plans are in place for the security of the ATM in this rural setting? Mr Lemmon responded that originally the ATM was on the front of the building and it is now proposed to be on the side with bollards, which has seemed to satisfy concerns. Councillor Imafidon asked if the ATM was going to be a free one or a chargeable one? Mr Lemmon stated that he was unable to comment on this as it depends what company is chosen.

·       Councillor Gerstner asked if the building opposite is the community centre? Mr Lemmon advised that it is a house opposite and the community centre is further down the road. Councillor Gerstner asked for clarification that there is no pathway between the settlement and the proposed site? Mr Lemmon advised that there is a new pathway that has been installed to the residential development and there is a proposal to join up to this pathway.

Members asked questions of the officers as follows:

·       Councillor Hicks referred to the written presentation which said the road was very narrow and asked how wide is the road? David Rowen responded that he did not have an exact measurement but the photos on the screen illustrate that two cars can pass one another. Councillor Hicks stated that it reminds him of another application at Hospital Road in Doddington where development was approved here on a narrow road and he was wondering how it compared with this road.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated that he has visited the site, you can get two vehicles side by side, with there being a very faint white line in the middle of the road, but as you go past the site heading out of the village it does get a lot narrower and the road is awful but to the site and in the area of the site the road is fine, with there being 30mph signs just about half way along the site as well.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he wishes anybody that is going to undertake this proposal the best of luck but committee is not looking at commercial viability and if somebody is prepared to put their money into this proposal they are going to make it work. He made the point that it is land usage that is a planning consideration and, in his view, if this argument is turned around so if there were 3 shops in the village and they were all going to shut there would be an outcry but with this proposal there is somebody who is prepared to put some money into the village and members are told time and again when shops close that the life blood of the village is going to be lost and the village is going to die but here is an opportunity to put Tydd on the map and why should Tydd St Giles be exempt from having a takeaway, with it either working or not. Councillor Benney feels this proposal is an opportunity for Tydd and as much as there are people who do not want it, people will either use it or not, it will either be viable or not and it will provide a community benefit. He made the point that whilst it will have footpath, anyone who lives in Tydd has a car anyway and he does not see connectivity being an issue as there will be a car park associated with it. Councillor Benney referred to the associated residential development and expressed the view that these shops will not stand on their own, they need residential above as it brings rent in and makes the shop more viable, which adds to the longevity of the benefit of having shops here. He feels the proposal brings 3 shops to a small community and as much as some people will say they do not want it once it is there it will be used by people and this does add community benefit, making it a more attractive place to live as it has more services and allowing the village to thrive and grow.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that looking at the third reason for refusal in that it does not meet LP6 but employment, tourism, community facilities, retail, etc that is exactly why the committee is here and if someone has the finances to do this good luck to them and if it is approved she would definitely want a footpath covering the site.

·       Councillor Gerstner agreed and that any village in Fenland would jump at the opportunity of having a village shop, the area has lost so many village shops in the northern part of the District and Coates village shop is hanging on by a thread, so if somebody is prepared to take on the financial risk that is down to them. He feels it is quite close to the community centre, it is next door to Sapphire Close so it is not removed from the village and the applicant has said he will build a pathway which he feels is extremely important for people to get to and from that site safely, he thinks the takeaway and car parking all fits in and it is a very good opportunity for the village.

·       Councillor Hicks expressed the view that this could be a positive for the environment as how far is the nearest Post Office from this location and people probably have to travel miles using petrol and expelling carbon dioxide and this will provide more convenience for the people living locally so he will be supporting this application.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he will be supporting the proposal as well as like Councillor Hicks said it is going to reduce people’s carbon footprints and it is likely to increase their property values as well with local shops and the only thing he would be concerned about was the absence of a footpath to the site.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions in conjunction with Councillor Benney.

Members do not support refusal of planning permission as they do not feel the site is outside the built settlement of Tydd St Giles, with an edge of village location being ideal for a takeaway and it will not have a detrimental affect on other businesses around the area so a retail impact assessment is not required, with the community benefits outweighing any negative impact.

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)