Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that this proposal was debated by Whittlesey Town Council, but he was not present at that meeting when it was discussed. He stated that he visited the site and, in his opinion, the officer’s recommendation is correct, however, Turves is a very small community and has little or no infrastructure in place with a small struggling Public House, no shop and no bus service. He added that when you approach the site from March there is a right-angled corner and there is limited space between the entrance to the proposed properties that could cause concern. Councillor Gerstner added that there could be additional development to the proposed three dwellings and the site is in Flood Zone 3 and he reiterated that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Marks stated that most Fenland villages on the outskirts of towns are a road in and a road out with houses built either side. He added that across the road from the proposed site there are modern houses and he added that he is sure that the same objections would have been given previously when those dwellings were developed. Councillor Marks made the point that Turves is a very small village and whilst it has no bus route, most people will have cars and whilst it is on a blind corner it is a Fenland village, and he knows that you have to take the bend at a slow speed.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Marks and added that the houses opposite are at the same distance from the junction as the proposal and they were approved. He added that he recalls how there have been more dwellings built in Turves over recent years and whilst it is in Flood Zone 3, so is the whole of Turves and if no development takes place, then there will be no services introduced into the village to benefit the community. Councillor Benney stated that the railway line runs behind it and provides a natural boundary and, in his opinion, it is not open countryside.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that he does not know what else the plot of land could be used for as it is too small to farm. He added that he can see how the proposal would benefit that particular area and added that the committee had also approved another dwelling which is similar as it is also at the end.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the recommendation of Whittlesey Town Council with regards to the application and also the officers’ reasons for their recommendation of refusal. He expressed the view that it is an open field and whilst it may not be farmed at present it is classed as open land. He added that whilst a precedent has been set, development should be avoided on agricultural land if at all possible and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the proposal is all in Flood Zone 3 and if the proposal is refused where can development take place and will Turves become isolated. He added that if there are no further residents in Turves, they will never get a shop and the Public House will struggle even more, if the population does not grow. Councillor Connor expressed the view that he could support the application and whilst he appreciates that it is close to the corner it can be resolved later and if the proposal does not meet the highway regulations, then the application will not get built out. He added that, in his opinion, the application could be approved with a caveat of receiving highway approval and he does not want to see the village die as not everybody wishes to live in a town and people should have a choice where they live.

·       Councillor Marks referred to LP12 of the Local Plan where it states that ‘would not have any adverse impact of the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and farmland’ and he expressed the opinion that he does not think that it would. He added that there is a house that it is adjoining onto and there are houses across the road. Councillor Marks expressed the view that he thinks that the proposal is within the scale and in keeping with the settlement and whilst he agrees that it is likely that there will be additional dwellings moving forward he does see anything wrong with that.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the railway line does form a natural barrier and had the plot of land been on the other side of the railway line then his view maybe somewhat different as there is sporadic development on the other side. He added that he does not see what harm the three proposed dwellings will cause.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he understands that if there is not additional development taking place in small villages then they are likely to decline and added that he would like to know why the Town Council were against the development. Councillor Connor stated that the Town Council have recommended that they felt that they could not support the proposal. Nick Harding referred to 5.1 of the officer’s report where it states that the Town Council recommend refusal as under the District Council’s Local Plan this is not an integral part of the village and the Highway Authority have also requested amendments and there is no report from Middle Level.

·       Councillor Connor stated that Middle Level are not statutory consultees and that the proposal is in the middle of the village as there are houses and bungalows which are surrounding the site. He made the point that the committee approved another three dwellings against the officer’s recommendation which are further out of the village than the proposal before the committee today.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there are properties built on the right-hand side near to the Public House and off towards the riverbank and, therefore, the site cannot be deemed as out of the village.

·       Nick Harding stated that when the Fenland Local Plan was prepared, it has to establish a settlement hierarchy which is used to inform the planning policies for different parts of the district and in general terms the settlement hierarchy is based on an analysis of a variety of factors which include the availability of facilities in particular settlements and flood risk. He explained that the conclusion when looking at the village of Turves is that it has been identified as being a small village and growth in that area is normally to be of very limited nature and normally be limited in scale to residential infilling. Nick Harding added that outlines the policy for considering development in that area and when the Council looked at the settlement hierarchy it chose to identify a limited growth policy for the area, which would have considered the existing facilities in the settlement but because of the other issues it was felt that the restricted growth policy as the appropriate one. He explained that the proposal does not conform with policy as it is not infill and from the officer’s presentation, the photographs show the view northwards from March Road and in the summer months it would be difficult to see the railway line as there is an expansive view to the north which is clearly rural in nature. Nick Harding expressed the opinion that the location cannot be concluded as falling within the built-up settlement area. He added that when considering flood risk, there has been no attempt by the agents to undertake the sequential test in relation to the proposal and, therefore, if the application was to be approved it could never be said that consideration has been given as to whether or not the development has passed the sequential test because one was never carried out. He explained that with regards to highways, officers conclude that the highways issue does have the potential to be resolved however the application is for all matters reserved including access, there are a series of individual dwellings with little access onto the road. Nick Harding added that the Highways Officer has stated that they are unsure whether all of the required access points can be accommodated due to the fact that no visibility splay information was submitted with the application. 

·       Danielle Brooke stated that when considering the sequential test, members may feel that the whole area is within Flood Zone 3, however, there is the potential for flood depth information to be submitted and even if another site within Turves was not necessarily in Flood Zone 3 but had lesser flood depths that would be sequentially preferable.

·       Councillor Connor stated that if you were to travel from the application site to the public house in the village of Turves, there are no infill plots and then you travel to Burnthouse Road there are still no infill plots left until you travel 600 yards and then there is open countryside.

·       Councillor Marks stated three dwellings were approved in recent years near the Public House and he added that with regards to Flood Zone 3 there can be mitigation measures put in place by raising properties and, in his view, it should be for the developer to decide whether they can take steps to mitigate against flooding rather than the committee. He added that whilst he appreciates that it is policy but there are times when the policy is not adhered to when considering development in Wisbech. Councillor Marks made the point that planning permission was allowed by the committee for the properties over the road from the proposal site which will have been in Flood Zone 3.

·       Councillor Connor stated that if permission is not granted for the dwellings on the north side of the road, Turves will not expand anymore and remain stagnant.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that it is an outline application and there are conditions which can be added at a later stage and mitigation measures put in place, however, he still wishes to support the views of Whittlesey Town Council.

·       Nick Harding stated that the site is not an integral part of the built-up area of the village and is not an infill site. He made the point that there has been no attempt to undertake a sequential test and those are three key policy areas which the application does not adhere to.

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

Nick Harding advised members that if they are going against officer’s recommendation they need to address the issue of infill, biodiversity and with regards to flood risk members need to demonstrate why a sequential test does not need to be supplied in this instance. Councillor Marks stated that the whole of Turves is in Flood Zone 3 and there would be no more properties built in Turves. Nick Harding stated that the requirement is still for sequential test to be undertaken. Councillor Marks stated that even if a sequential test was undertaken it would still prove that properties are still needed in Turves and, in his opinion, it is not infill as it backs onto another property and is within Turves itself. He added that there are properties built on the left-hand side of the road and the proposal borders onto another property. Nick Harding stated that policy states that only infill will be allowed and, therefore, it needs to be demonstrated that it is infill or there is a reason why there is a diversion away from the Council’s policy. He added that the proposal only has built development on one side and the definition of infilling in the Local Plan is that a gap between two buildings exists and, in this case, the next building is a long way away and, therefore, it needs to be identified why it is appropriate.

Councillor Connor expressed the opinion there are no more infill sites in Turves without building out into the open countryside and the fact that there are no more infill sites demonstrates that the application site needs to be built on. He stated that, with regards to biodiversity, the application could be approved with a suitable condition of a biodiversity report to include a 10% biodiversity plus incorporating nesting, bat boxes and three or four more trees.

Councillor Marks stated that, with regards to biodiversity, the whole area is surrounded with fresh air and fields.

Nick Harding expressed the opinion that there are a number of weaknesses with the reasons cited to go against the officer’s recommendation and he added that not undertaking a sequential test is a fundamental flaw in approving the development should there be a challenge to the decision.

Councillor Connor noted the comments made by Nick Harding but made the point that Turves will suffer and there are mitigating arguments that could be made.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with delegated authority to officers to apply suitable conditions.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal does not adversely impact the character and appearance of the area, they do not feel that it is outside the settlement of Turves or an infill property, that flood mitigation measures can be taken to address the lack of a sequential test, and a condition can be added by Highways to deal with the visibility splay concerns.