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 presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ms Steer, the applicant, and Mr Green, the agent. Ms Steer stated that she currently occupies the piece of land being discussed and has done for 4 years. She stated that as a family of 5, with 1 more on the way, they just want to be able to settle on this piece of land they already call home.

Ms Steer stated that her children go to school within walking distance and they have lots of connections so the very thought of this being taken away from them is extremely distressful and they have altered their plans to include a small hand gate in front of the access point and they have removed all parking on site, which, in her view, solves the highway objection. She expressed the opinion that they have ample options for nearby or town centre parking plus they have already found storage for their touring caravan so they can still make use of it from a different location.

Ms Steer hoped members would see they have overcome every issue presented to them and asked that consideration be taken in the decision the committee makes as it will have a huge impact on her and her family’s future.

Mr Green referred to 1.3 of the officer’s report where Highways stated that should the site function as a car free development there would be no objections, however, the site plan would need to be updated to show how this would function in practice and this has been done and a plan has been shown for a 1.8 metre high fence with a pedestrian exit that is 52 metres from the public footpath. He referred to the report by Jeremy Hurlstone which points out that at Appendix A of parking standards of the Fenland Local Plan adopted 2014 it says that where a site has good public transport links such as in the central area of a market town a reduction in car parking provision may be negotiated and in special circumstances nil parking provision may be appropriate and made the point that there is a bus stop to the south of the access on the opposite side of High Street providing access to bus services, there is also off-site parking at Furrowfields Road car parks within 200 metres of the site access by walking south along High Street and then east into Furrowfields Road, with the car park providing free parking for a period of up to 24 hours monitored by CCTV for added security.

Mr Green stated that at the last meeting it was said that it was only highways that was stopping this application from being passed and the Highways Authority have asked for further information which has been supplied. He acknowledged that officers are against the proposal still and he is not sure why but he feels they have gone that distance to meet those requirements of the Highway Authority and, therefore, he would want committee to approve the application.

Members asked questions of Ms Steer and Mr Green as follows:

·         Councillor Marks made the point that they considered this application two months ago trying to find a solution to a problem and he thinks it is getting to a solution, however, his concern is that there is still enough room there to get vehicles to either drive up and then have to reverse out or alternatively reverse in off the main road, asking whether there is any way the applicant can move the fence/gate further down so there are no vehicles going in and out of the site, bearing in mind there is also a bus stop across the road. He asked what the reasoning was for putting the fence/gate where it is? Mr Green responded that there are two other properties which have access along that track both sides and they cannot block their access but what they could do is ensure there is a sign saying there is no vehicular access to the site to make it clear that any deliveries for example would have to park outside and walk into the site. Councillor Marks expressed the view that this still does not alleviate a vehicle parking there and asked if it is a walkway the other properties have or a right of way with a vehicle? Ms Steer responded that they do have a right of way to go up there with a vehicle. Councillor Connor clarified that there were 3 vehicles with those 2 houses when he visited the site.

·         Councillor Hicks made the point that by undertaking a site visit you can see the situation and there were 3 vehicles parked along here with access to their properties and Highways were concerned about this proposal coming out but there are already vehicles accessing their properties via this access road. He asked how many vehicles are on site normally during the day? Ms Steer responded that there are 6.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked of the 6 vehicles how many were the applicant’s vehicles and how many belong to the other 2 properties? Ms Steer responded that, in the car park on the right-hand side before their property, 6 of the vehicles are not theirs they belong to the other houses. Councillor Imafidon made the point that those 6 vehicles use the access already and have done so historically so, in his opinion, it would be unfair for committee to say this proposal cannot use it when others do. He understands there is an increase in volume but it is not a thoroughfare, it is a driveway into a property.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how many vehicles does Ms Steer have that use the access? Ms Steer responded that they have 2 vehicles and did have a touring caravan, which has now been moved to storage.

David Rowen stated that the use of the access track is established by historical properties that pre-date planning and Councillor Hicks’ comments is the crux of the comment made by Highways previously and referred to their comments in the Annex A appendix where its view is that the intensification would have an adverse impact and a decision that members need to make is whether given the established nature of the use of the access is that additional number so problematic to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Marks requested clarification that it is on highway issues that this proposal is being refused on? David Rowen responded that the only reason for refusal is on intensification of the use of the access as recommended by Highways.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what if the existing 2 properties decide to have another 2 vehicles, how will Highways enforce this? David Rowen responded that there is no control over that but established properties having additional vehicles is not a development but creating a new property is and there is some control over this.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he is in the same conundrum as he was two months ago with highway safety and there is a part solution to the problem. He acknowledged that other vehicles use the access but he still feels that it is not the safest of entrances/exits and it is people with pushchairs etc who do not realise how vulnerable they are as they go by and there is no widening the pavement.

·         Councillor Hicks made the point that the residents have 6-7 cars already there and the mere fact that you cannot access this property with this amendment means they cannot physically park any cars on their property. He feels nothing will change as other properties cars will still access the site and made the point that every time the applicant has come up against barriers they have come up with a solution which has been unacceptable and he feels this is acceptable.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it is only a highway issue, odd vehicles will have to back in but if the applicant puts up a brick wall, which is his preference, with a hand gate that is a solution to the problem. He would not want to see a family lose their home and the agent spoke and said that a sign could be put up saying no vehicular access but he is not sure if delivery drivers would take any notice of this but it is another warning and a plus. Councillor Connor stated he would want the brick wall built with a hand gate within 2 months, which he feels is adequate time, if he is to support this proposal.

·         Councillor Marks questioned whether the location of the barrier is at the furthest point that it can be built towards the road without it affecting the other properties? He made the point that the issue has been vehicular access into the site previously so surely if this is on the boundary of their site and not leaving them the potential to park a vehicle as committee have to be careful as if there is an accidence there having passed the application going against Highways rings alarm bells. Councillor Marks stated he is not convinced that a brick wall is required but some form of moveable barrier as a vehicle may need to go in their to do something at some stage, such as building work or an emergency vehicle, so it needs to be a moveable structure with the agreement that they are not going to take it down but it needs to be on the edge of their property and he would be happier that committee has undertaken everything it can stopping a vehicle of the applicants being parked on that piece of land.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Ms Steer did say the mobile has been there for 4 years and assuming that vehicles have been up and down this access road for many years asked has there been an accident? David Rowen responded that he does not think that Highways are claiming there have been any accidents there. Councillor Mrs French questioned that if 6-7 cars are using that now, there has not been any accidents and the applicants have been living there for 4 years, with the application being submitted for 2 years, if this is not approved where are this family of 5 going to go.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the cars that use the front part of the property will have the ability to reverse to go out forward and if the wall was moved forward they would have to back out onto the road and restrict their movement.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he knows there was an accident across the road so to his knowledge there has been one accident there in recent times, however, that does not change the fact that there are a family of 5 that need a solution to problem and by moving the barrier he would hope that this is the solution. He stated he would be happier that another vehicle is not being added by giving it a parking slot with the moving of the barrier to the edge of the applicant’s property.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that when he visited the site, vehicles coming out of the access to the left the view is quite good because the fence is low but the challenge is to the right where there is he believes a Listed Building with a Juliette window on a wall that comes right out to the path so, in his view, the access and visibility as vehicles come out is not any different to the access of any other older historic building before planning came into effect. He acknowledged that Highways have concerns but there is no record of any accidents that may have happened were as a result of this access so he feels that committee needs to do what it can to approve this proposal for the family and he will be supporting it so they can carry on living where they have for the past 4 years.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the comments of Councillor Marks asking whether the barrier can be moved forward and asked officers if this can be undertaken? David Rowen responded that as the agent indicated there are difficulties in terms of relocating the barrier to anywhere else within the access road potentially given established rights of access which exist. He added that they have not got the details of the barrier but would suggest as Councillor Mrs French indicated that to actually require the construction of a brick wall would be unreasonable given by the very nature of the application that you would be permitting is for a mobile home and the impermanence of this. David Rowen continued that members really need to make a decision as to whether this becomes an uncontrolled access to the premises or it is refused as the barrier does not address the issue of vehicles coming in or out and whether the extra vehicles that would be using the access point at the junction are so great in number that it would warrant a refusal of planning permission.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that it has not been established whether the barrier is at the end of the applicant’s property and is that the furthest point that this gate can be placed at in the access before it interferes with other people. David Rowen responded that this is not a question he can answer but could see a potential issue in terms of restricting access to other properties if moving further down. Mr Green stated that the barrier could be moved slightly showing on the plan where it could be moved to.

·         Troy Healy stated that there are some specifics absent in relation to the rights of access over the land and he would be concerned that the property to the north of the access road may have an entitlement to access it at any point along their boundary rather than a specific location so positioning of the barrier, tweaking it by a few metres one way or another, may result in potentially barring the neighbouring properties access from a point that they might legally be allowed to have it.

·         Councillor Connor asked if the applicant could liaise with officers and two adjoining properties to see where barrier could be positioned. David Rowen stated that this is getting into realms of another deferment. Councillor Connor stated that he would not allow this to happen.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority being delegated to officers to apply conditions and that negotiations is undertaken with the agent/applicant so that moveable barrier is placed at the furthest point available to stop vehicular access and that a no vehicular access sign is also erected at the location.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they noted that the applicant has moved their touring caravan from the site, there is no means to control the number of vehicles using the access associated with other adjoining properties and they feel that subject to the provision of a moveable barrier a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved.

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the applicant as she was a member of Chatteris Town Council and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a District Councillor for Chatteris and Manea and does attend Chatteris Town Council meetings but takes no part in planning)