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 presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the application has the support of all the standard consultees including Highways and the Parish Council, with the Parish Council having an approved Neighbourhood Plan which this proposal is consistent with which has led to the support of the Parish Council. He advised that the drawings have been revised to show the required visibility splays that have been set out by the Highway Authority and the access road proposed is to be controlled by a management company which will enter into an agreement with the Council’s refuse collection service to allow access to all properties so it is consistent with the requirements of Recap.

Mr Edwards stated that they have provided a full turning head for both refuse vehicles and fire appliance vehicles which will allow all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. He expressed the view that the form and character is consistent with this part of the village and there are a number of in depth developments on this side of Main Road, such as Springfield Gardens, Ingham Hall Gardens, Brewery Close, John Bends Way, Lakeside and Newlands Road, all being off Main Road and on the proposals side of the road, with there being further comprehensive developments after Silvers Lane on this side of the road heading out of the village, such as Patricks Way and John Pecks Close.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that this shows the development will not undermine the prevailing form of development in the village but is consistent with it and this can also be seen with the adjacent property known as The Silverings, 114 Main Road, which as his site plan shows sits further back than the new properties that have been built on Main Road either side of it. He made the point that Parson Drove is a limited growth village under LP3 where a small amount of development and new service provision will be encouraged and permitted in order to support their continued sustainability but less than what would normally be in a growth village, with such development being appropriate as a small village extension and he would argue that this is exactly what this site will be and in an email from the former planning officer in March 2023 it was stated that they were overall happy with the scheme subject to the additional requirements that were set out by Highways so this was forwarded to the applicant so when it was not going to be a delegated approval but coming to committee with a recommendation of refusal they were somewhat shocked.

Mr Edwards stated that this is an outline application with only access reserved, with the indicative layout showing a single point of access which will allow two vehicles to pass along its entire length so it should not add to vehicles having to wait at the junction on Main Road. He feels the plots are likely to be purchased by self-builders which has happened largely to the plots at the front of the site and as the sequential test they have produced states there are no other sites in the village which can accommodate this number of dwellings and a quick check on Right Move this morning showed there were only two individual plots available in the village, one of which is set behind the village Church in a tandem form of development.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the proposal will look to use all existing main services including the foul sewer and surface water will be contained on the site with soakaways designed to BRE365 following a soakage test and will be approved as part of the Building Regulations application. He feels the reasons for refusal have been addressed in that the form of development is consistent with the prevailing form of development in this part of the village and on this side of the road where there are a number of comprehensive developments, the visibility splays have been shown on the drawings these are either within the footpath that has been constructed as part of the application at the front of the site or the highway verge, the roadway proposed will provide for access to all properties to overcome Recap concerns and an agreement will be made between the management company and the Council’s refuse collection, it also comes with the support of the Parish Council and is consistent with the approved village plan. He requested approval of the proposal with the conditions deemed appropriate.

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards as follows:

·       Councillor Benney referred to Mr Edwards mentioning that the proposal was going to be approved and then it was not and asked if this is correct? Mr Edwards responded that there was an email from the officer who stated that she was happy with the proposal subject to the changes to the visibility splays at the request of Highways. Councillor Benney asked if those amendments were submitted and accepted? Mr Edwards stated the amendments were submitted providing the visibility splay that Highways required and he had not received anything to say that it was not acceptable.  

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

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he very adverse to using Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land as this country should be feeding itself and not relying on other countries, with there already being some erosion on this field already and it looks like the proposed plan would further erode away very good arable land.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the Neighbourhood Plan which was agreed in 2019 and seems to conform with their policies and is something the Parish Council want to support so expressed concern on what has been heard from the applicant’s agent that the Neighbourhood Plan is not being looked at as well.

·       Councillor Purser expressed concern over the entrance as Main Road in Parson Drove is a very fast road, although it is not meant to be, and a bit of a rat run and there used to be lots of high hedges in that area so coming out of roadways could be quite dangerous.

·       David Rowen referred to the Neighbourhood Plan and made the point that the site is not allocated in the plan, with the Neighbourhood Plan effectively conforming with the Local Plan in that village extensions in Parson Drove will be acceptable where there is not a detrimental impact on the character of the area, which has been identified here with the officer view that because of the tandem nature there would be detrimental impact on the character of the area. He stated that the recommendation is entirely consistent with the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed concern over the agent stating that he was under the impression that this application was going to be approved subject to further information on the access and the opposite has happened. David Rowen responded that most agents are aware that if they get advice from an officer that is the officer opinion and can be subject to change when more senior officers view the proposals, it is regrettable but it does happen but officers try to be as consistent as possible with the advice given. He stated that there has been a transient nature in terms of staffing in the last 6-12 months and interpretation of Fenland policies some officers are not as familiar with but there is a recommendation in front of members on the basis of the assessment contained within the report.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the report conclusions which states that insufficient information is provided to demonstrate suitable visibility splays can be provided for the required access to the Main Road. David Rowen responded that the update report that has been circulated does pick up on highway safety and the agent has submitted a further plan with demonstrated visibility splays to address the concerns raised by the Highway Authority, however, the Highway Authority commented on 18 August, at the end of last week, saying that the 2.4 metre by 120 metre visibility splay has been shown but does not appear to be fully contained within the application boundary so there is still question marks over whether the appropriate visibility can be achieved.

·       Councillor Benney questioned that what is being said is the visibility cannot be achieved because of land ownership issues? David Rowen responded that Highways are saying that it involves third-party land so it is not within the applicant’s control and not within the highway boundary. Councillor Benney stated that this has come before the committee previously where land ownership is not a planning consideration so, therefore, if this is approved and the visibility splay could not be achieved through negotiations with third parties it could not be developed. David Rowen responded that land ownership is not a planning consideration but there is no indication that the third party would be willing to enter into any agreement, the land is presumably not contained within the red line boundary and if members were minded to grant the application today then something is being granted that members do not know can be delivered which is not really the way to be dealing with applications notwithstanding that the officer report says there are in principle fundamental character issues arising from the application and as such the visibility issue has not been pursued any further. Councillor Benney expressed the view that character is a subjective opinion and applications have been passed previously where the applicant has not been in control of the land because land ownership is not a planning consideration and if the agreement does not come forward the development just does not get built. David Rowen responded that an application could be made to build on someone else’s land but a red line would have to be placed around the application site and the appropriate notice would need to be served, which has not happened in this instance.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that more information is required. David Rowen responded that as indicated earlier given the fundamental concerns that there is from a character point of view the visibility issue has not been pursued and if members wish to look more favourably on the application from a character perspective that is a matter that can potentially be deferred to resolve this situation bringing the application back to committee. 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to resolve only the access issue. Members do not feel that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

(Councillor Booth registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Parson Drove Parish Council and was present when this application was discussed, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)