Agenda item

To determine the application.

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

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Jodie Chittock, a supporter read out by Member Services. Ms Chittock stated that she is a direct neighbour and only neighbour to 84b, residing at 84 and wrote a statement last time the application was considered back in August, so members can look back and see how this is impacting on her mental health, the not knowing if they have stability and could have to move if not given permission as she is worried who will buy this land after. She expressed the view that the only people who will buy it for sure will be undesirable to Chatteris and the area and will potentially turn it into a business or scrap yard.

Ms Chittock acknowledged that access is the committee’s main concern, but made the point that they owners have lived here for 4 years this Summer so she does not see that the access could have a negative impact from one more family, with the access already being used which is rightfully their right of way as they are at the top. She feels if the neighbours have already been on the site for four years as this has been going on for some time now waiting to go to committee, she does not see why they would get refused when it has been left this long and, therefore, they are using the access already and it causes no issues.

Ms Chittock stated that the applicants are just a family with three children with one to be born in June wanting to start a life and secure a family property and asked members to consider allowing them to stay as the last 4 years they have been totally respectful and not at all negatively impacted the environment or access. She asked that consideration be made to worst outcome and that would be who buys it after and what they will do with it, with the impact on her family and her children whom play safely outside the gate as she worries about strangers and their safety with this. She stated that she completely supports the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nathaniel Green, the agent. Mr Green explained that the plan on the previous presentation screen is a previous plan, however, it does not matter given that the only change that took place was that the turning area was moved from the tree protection area. David Rowen stated that the plan depicts the quantum of development which is proposed onsite subject to some minor tweaks and, therefore, he is satisfied with the plan shown.

Mr Green stated that two of the reasons for refusal have now been disregarded thankfully but the issue of highways still remains, making the point that he understands that Highways Officers have a job to be cautious, but he has formally submitted a highways report and that the problem, in his opinion, is the difference between percentages and real numbers, with Highways stating that there is going to be a 25% increase in vehicle movements and in practice that it is 2 to 3 vehicles a day which is a modest amount. He stated that when looking at the crash mat database for the High Street, when considering the records for 2015 to 2019 inclusive, there have been no accidents at all recorded in that area and in the four years that his client has lived on the site they have said that there have been no accidents whatsoever around the entrance way.

Mr Green made the point that although his clients have been living there unlawfully, in practice  there has in effect been a test to see if there has been any accidents and members of the committee need to consider that there are only three vehicle movements a day. He stated that when considering the forward visibility it is apparent that the forward visibility splays within the near traffic lane exceeds the required safe stopping distances by at least 230% from the south and, therefore, any approaching driver from the south will have more than sufficient time to see a vehicle edging forward and either manoeuvre around it or stop safely if required in order to allow it to join or leave the High Street.

Mr Green explained that it should be noted that the forward visibility towards an emerging vehicle from the southbound traffic approaching from the north extends 87 metres which is more than double the 43 metres required under the Manual for Streets (MFS) parameters for a 30mph speed limit, explaining that MFS is the publication for all Traffic Officers and Traffic Consultants. He stated that while it may not be possible to provide the desirable unobstructed visibility provision when considering the guidance in MFS, together with its flexibility and guidance regarding local context and an evidence based approach, it can be concluded that the proposed access to the site would provide acceptable and safe visibility splays which are superior to many of the neighbouring existing accesses and junctions which have demonstrably operated safely for at least 5 years.

Mr Green stated that having taken that into consideration, unless the Highway Authority does not consider the guidance in MFS, he would find it surprising as it appears that MFS is applicable in this case, it can only be concluded that the proposed visibility splays provided are acceptable to maintain safe access in the context of the local highway network. He made the point that his client has been living on the site, and that after four years and whilst it has been unlawful, the information provided can assist members to make a balanced judgement on what is a gypsy site.

Mr Green added that he still strongly disagrees with the suggestion that his client does not have gypsy status as, in his opinion, they do, and he would be quite happy to see that pursued further. He stated that on the basis of the information that they have seen and heard and the fact that the argument has been put forward that the highways access is acceptable in practice he asked the committee to support the proposal.

Members asked Mr Green the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view it is irrelevant as to whether the site is a gypsy site as he has no issue with that whatsoever but he does have serious concern over the access point as he knows the junction where the cars come out of, and he questioned that fact that there is no recorded accident data and, therefore, takes exception to that point. He stated that there was a Freelander parked which had accident damage to it along with a Volvo which had a missing wing mirror and, therefore, he does not have confidence that the data is 100% correct. Councillor Marks added that his biggest concern is when driving out of town the access point is very hazardous especially where the wall is for pedestrians. Mr Green made the point that the driveway is active, with the entranceway is already in use and the only addition would be two or three additional vehicle movements a day onto that and pedestrians will already be aware that it is an access way in use because of existing usage by owners and also by Council vehicles. Councillor Marks made the point that he is concerned for users of the pavement such as adults, children on bicycles and mobility scooters and made the point that it only takes one vehicle movement to have an accident.

Members asked officers the following comments:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Member Services had read out the written representation in support of the proposal which stated that the application has been ongoing for 4 years and she added that she finds that interesting as the planning application was only applied for two years ago at the end of 2022, asking officers to clarify when the application was submitted. David Rowen confirmed that the application was submitted in 2022.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that he feels sorry for a very young family who want to live somewhere, and he has no issues regarding the application apart from the access as he has concerns that should the application be approved and then somebody gets hurt or injured going forward. He stated that the family need to live somewhere, and they have already started their home on the site, however, regardless of what is on the site, the same cause for concern would still exist. Councillor Marks questioned if there was anyway of the access being point being rectified than he would happily support the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has the same views as Councillor Marks. He added that Chatteris Town Council also recommend the application for refusal due to concerns over access, unsuitable and poor visibility for vehicles leaving the site as the opening is too narrow and at 5.3 of the officer’s report the County Council have made reference to two recently refused planning applications where they were both refused on highway safety grounds. Councillor Connor expressed the view that if there could be another access point into the site without worrying about highway safety then he would support the proposal, however, he does need to consider the recommendation of the Highway Authority and that of Chatteris Town Council.

·         Councillor Marks questioned whether there is anyway that officers can think of in order for the proposal to be supported whether that be to liaise with the Highway Authority or to consider deferring the application in order to try to overcome the one stumbling block to try and assist the applicant.

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether a domed mirror could be considered, and Councillor Connor stated that the Highway Authority do not allow them.

·         David Rowen referred to the two sets of comments made by the Highway Authority, one set on 14 November and then a further set which have been provided on the basis of additional information, with the Highway Authority not altering their view and, therefore, unfortunately the committee has either got to consider the officer’s recommendation, course of action from the Highway Authority or go against their view.

·         Councillor Marks stated that when looking at the officer’s presentation it shows that the pavement narrows at the wrong point and if it was just one metre wider then anybody with a pushchair would be in a far better position. He expressed the view that there must be something that can be considered in order to help the family.

·         Councillor Connor agreed that the agent, Mr Green, be given permission in order to readdress the committee. Mr Green stated that he suggests that a Section 278 Agreement be applied for in order to widen the pavement by the entrance to the site.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Green to clarify that he had stated that the Council also use the roadway to service the properties and he questioned whether that was correct. Mr Green stated that the refuse lorry travels up and down the lane to collect waste.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there is no way a Fenland refuse freighter can fit down there.

·         Nick Harding stated that what has been suggested by the agent is that a 278 agreement to make some highway alterations to improve the visibility splay and, therefore, if committee wish to follow that course of action then they would need to agree to defer a decision and then obtain an indicative 278 drawing which would need to be consulted on and then consideration could be given as to whether it would work or not. He added that he will also ascertain whether a refuse freighter uses the lane to service the properties as well.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the 278 application process does have a cost implication. Mr Green stated that he is aware of the associated costs and the applicant has agreed to consider that course of action in order to see whether it is a viable option.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the opinion that he thinks a 278 Agreement should be applied for.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how wide the lane is and it was confirmed that it was 11ft.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is incidental as to whether the refuse freighter uses the lane at all as the concern is for any vehicle using the lane. He stated that the best option is to defer the application and work with officers.

·         Nick Harding explained that the agent will work with a Transport Engineer to design something which will then be passed to the Highway Engineers at the County Council for their consideration and views on the scheme.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Hicks and decided that the application be DEFERRED to enable the applicant to submit a Section 278 Agreement to the Highway Authority for them to consider a different highway scheme which will work for the application.

(Councillor Connor declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had received messages from a Third Party regarding the application, however, he advised those individuals to contact the Planning Officers and he stated that he will keep an open mind with regards to the application)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on the proposal, however, he would keep an open mind when considering the application)