Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation from Debbie Fryett, an objector, which was read out by Member Services. Ms Fryett referred to her comments placed on the public access platform on 12 December 2023 stating that she has been a resident of Mill Road for nearly 30 years and the road is still in a bad state of repair, the flooding issues reported to highways over the last 15 months have still not been addressed, the footpaths cease at the end of the houses that were completed around 25 years ago, so there has really not been much progress with the existing issues that the residents of Mill Road already have. She agrees that everybody is entitled to an opinion but would ask that the Planning Committee consider the opinions of the local residents that it directly effects.

Ms Fryett expressed the view that after these 3 plots there is a substantial area of land that would be in line for planning if this application was successful and she would ask that the committee would consider the recommendation that paths and possibly passing paces were installed before any building commences.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent and Luke Patrick, the applicant. Mrs Patrick explained that the application is before the committee with support from local residents and whilst she acknowledged that there is some opposition to the development the reasons for their objections are mainly due to road safety. She added that there is a path in motion of being extended in an easterly direction and the Head of Planning is aware of this, which will aid the road safety concerns that the residents of Murrow have, with the path being currently in its final stages of being approved for the extension.

Mrs Patrick made the point that the Highways Authority and the Environment Agency have no objection to the proposal, however, if members would like to see a further extension to the path then a condition would be accepted. She explained that a sequential test has been undertaken in Murrow and it is felt that the proposal is not classed as an elsewhere development as it abuts the development boundary and is opposite residential development and, therefore, it is a natural extension and is a house type that is suitable for all and is not a large house type which has become typical in Murrow in recent times.

Mrs Patrick explained that at the current time the land is scrub land, it is not a commercially farmed field and, in her view, over the years members have seen developments such as the proposal before them come forward, such as Gull Road in Guyhirn, which is not seen as the main settlement and the committee made the correct decision as it is a flourishing location to live in. She expressed the view that Murrow is now a popular location to live due to members who know the area and understand how the villagers try to stay in their local area rather than move to a larger town and the proposal is not for large executive homes and follows those dwellings which have formed part of the recent development in Guyhirn and Gorefield where the smaller dwellings have been proposed in order to provide homes for those wishing to start out and downsize accordingly.

Mrs Patrick made the point that the application is similar to a development on the outskirts of Gorefield which has the same parameters as the current proposal, and she asked the committee to approve the application.

Mr Patrick stated that his family has lived in the village for four generations and have the villages best interest at heart including that of the future generations. He explained that he is the Chairman of the Murrow Village Hall and playing field committee and he is striving to keep them open and up to date.

Mr Patrick explained that he is not a massive developer, and it is his wish for the village to benefit from his success, adding that in past projects his family have donated funds to Murrow Pre School and Primary School, and he would like to donate again should the application be approved. He explained that local trades people are used to undertake the required works and the application is not for six bedroomed three storey dwellings but is for three chalet bungalows which will be ideal for younger buyers or for older people who are looking to downsize and remain in the village.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there were any flooding issues along that road? Mrs Patrick stated that to the best of her knowledge there has been no instances of flooding along that road and she explained that she has checked with the Environment Agency with regards to surface water and in that location there have been no warnings raised.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for further details with regards to the footpath improvements which had been referred to. Mrs Patrick explained that from 37 Mill Road back towards the village approval was given to the introduction of a path and that application process for the path is now underway with the provision of quotes for the work to be undertaken now currently taking place. She added that should the application be approved then the pathway could be extended further.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether there is any street lighting along that stretch? Mrs Patrick responded that to the best of her knowledge there is no street lighting in place but that is typical of Murrow as they are few and far between.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the footpath is being implemented under a Local Highway Improvement Scheme or is it something that is being undertaken independently? Mr Patrick explained that it is the Highway Authority who are going to take it on afterwards but clarified that he is paying for the footpath works himself.

David Rowen stated that the application is for planning in principle and, therefore, there are no details submitted with regards to the nature of the housing and there is no opportunity to impose conditions or to secure footpath links as part of the proposal and members are determining whether the principle of residential development on this site is acceptable or not.

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

·         Councillor Marks asked officers to confirm whether the adjacent properties are in Flood Zone 3?  David Rowen confirmed that they are in Flood Zone 3 and a large part of Murrow is also in that flood zone.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the application is not infill and the newer properties along there are in Flood Zone 3 and, in his opinion, it comes down to interpretation about whether this will open up further, however, it is a field that is not regularly used and it may be better to make use of this piece of land than elsewhere.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has no problem with the principle of development, but he is concerned with the flood zone. He added that it could be considered as infill, and he questioned how the modern houses at 33, 35 and 37 got built. Councillor Benney expressed the view that this is why the point of a sequential test causes issues as it blocks development and, in his view, the principle of development is sound, but the issue of the sequential test does need to be considered.

·         Councillor Marks stated that in Wisbech where the majority of it is in Flood Zone 3 you can build virtually anywhere. He added that the properties beside the proposal site do appear to be modern and at some point, either members of a Planning Committee or officers, have decided that it was ok to build in that flood zone.

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether the properties adjacent to the proposal site came to the Planning Committee? David Rowen stated that the original planning permission for the four properties that sit at the side of the site to east date back to 2011 and would have been considered under a different Local Plan but he was not aware whether it was a committee or delegated decision.

·         Councillor Benney asked how many other sites in Murrow are causing a block to the development? He added that that the flood zone map appears to show that the majority of Murrow is in Flood Zone 3 and is very similar to that of Benwick and Turves. Councillor Benney expressed the view that you cannot kill a village by not building there and all villages need development to keep them sustainable. He questioned where the other sites in Murrow that were available are located. David Rowen referred the committee to the Inhams Close application which had been determined last month and he made the point that was for two dwellings which the committee granted and in relation to the sequential test which the committee considered in relation to that application there were another seven properties that were sequentially preferable.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that Wisbech St Mary Parish Council comments state that if officers are minded to approve the planning in principle application then the Parish Council recommends that a footpath is installed prior to commencement of development. He added that they also raise concerns regarding drainage and flooding. Councillor Imafidon made the point that the applicant has stated that they are implementing a footpath at their own expense and he does not see any reason to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that members need to consider whether the piece of land is acceptable for the development or not.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that if the planning in principle application is approved all other matters can be considered at the next stage in the planning process.

·         Councillor Benney questioned how can the fact that the application site is in Flood Zone 3 be overcome. He added that the land can be suitable to be built on as it is a progression of how the village will grow. Councillor Benney added that until those other houses are built out it will not pass the sequential test.

·         Councillor Marks stated that could mitigation be put in place such as living upstairs as South Holland are all in Flood Zone 3 and they seem to make it work.

·         David Rowen explained that the Government is clear in its approach to flood risk in that any new development should be steered away from areas of flood risk or to areas of the lowest flood risk and mitigation on site does not overcome that locational factor. He added that the application site is in Flood Zone 3 and the sequential test is deemed to be failed given that there are other sites in Murrow that are sequentially preferable. David Rowen added that the development is not envisaged for Murrow given that the settlement hierarchy and that it is expansion out into the countryside rather than infill. He expressed the opinion that there is no possibility that this proposal could be considered as an infill site given that the nearest building to the west of the development is several hundred yards away and therefore it fails on a number of grounds.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.