Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Derek Widdowson, an objector to the proposal. Mr Widdowson stated that he is speaking on behalf of all the local neighbours affected by the proposal, adding that he lives at Copper Beeches which would be one of the main houses impacted by the dwellings. He stated that it is the fourth time that a planning application has been submitted and all applications to date have been refused by the Planning Committee citing the reason that the proposal is backland development, with the first application going to appeal to the Secretary of State which was also rejected.

Mr Widdowson explained that the current application has been changed to three four-bedroomed detached single storey dwellings and the proposed build is still on back land and has been sited closer to his property, with the site being landlocked, is behind existing buildings and would have no street frontage. He added that the access is very limited and would not be in the best interest of Gull Road, with Gull Road being busy with heavy haulage and farm traffic, and this will not be assisted by new residents and service vehicles which would have to turn into a narrow access road by making a left turn from Gull Road causing some vehicles to use the offside lane of Gull Road against oncoming traffic.

Mr Widdowson added that the 40mph speed limit is not adhered to and the access road itself is only single access in width and is unlit, with it also narrowing to the width of a gate between the corner of his property and his neighbour and there is not option for a passing place which will mean vehicles need to back up. He stated that his two main bedrooms adjoin the access road which, in his view, will be affected by noise and light pollution from persons entering or leaving and he currently has a view of an extensive field which is shielded by a row of conifers on its western edge but that is not shown on the plan.

Mr Widdowson added that the dwellings would be intrusive and would block out his natural light in his property, with the land in question being higher than his ground floor and with current regulations it would force any builders to raise the ground floor to negate the issue of flooding which in turn will mean that his property will be overlooked and dwarfed by all three developments.

He explained that his hedge is 7ft high, however, his privacy will still be compromised within his house and garden with the possibility of at least 10 additional vehicles from dusk to dawn with their headlights shining into his living room and main rear bedroom.

Mr Widdowson expressed the view that a further problem to consider maybe the water table as the land in question is higher and, therefore, may have an impact on his drainage and biodigester. He stated that he has no problems with the expansion of housing and has not objected to other applications which front onto Gull Road in keeping with a linear appearance and it is his understanding that previous applications to build on backland elsewhere on Gull Road have been rejected, with no new amenities having appeared in Guyhirn since the current building projects have been agreed and he expressed the opinion that he wonders at what point more housing in Guyhirn will become unsustainable.

Mr Widdowson stated that his neighbours also share the same concerns that there maybe more planning applications submitted for The Chase and, in his opinion, if the application is approved then there will be trees felled causing more light pollution and the proposed backland development would only affect his neighbours and those that back onto the development. He stated that collection of refuse is also something that will need to be considered and he questioned whether the refuse collection will take place via an unadopted road and like The Chase where the bins appear to be on constant display on Gull Road.

Mr Widdowson added that at the same time as this application it would appear that another application has been submitted to the Camping and Caravan Club to use the land as a camping site and the Council’s Enforcement Officer has advised that the organisation has complete autonomy over such applications although their rules have to be observed.

Members asked Mr Widdowson the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that according to the officer’s report in 2006 there was an application for bungalows which was approved for the site, and he asked Mr Widdowson when he moved to his home? Mr Widdowson stated that he moved into his home in 2010 and he made the point that the bungalows that Councillor Imafidon is referring to maybe his property and that of his neighbours.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for three bungalows in Flood Zone 1 and within the built-up area of Guyhirn, with the scheme being recommended for refusal on the grounds of the principle of development and that the proposal will be out of keeping with the character of the area. She added that with regards to the principle, LP3 identifies Guyhirn as a small village where infill development is supported, and she made reference to the aerial photo which shows that the site is within a built-up area with buildings on either side and, in her opinion, the proposal meets the definition of infill and can, therefore, be supported by LP3.

Mrs Jackson made the point that this position is supported by Appeal Inspectors across the country where it has been confirmed that development can be considered as infill if it is limited by the other development around it. She stated that since the principle can be considered as acceptable, the concerns with regards to the form and character are less pertinent and there are clear examples of buildings to the rear of the frontage development along Gull Road and, therefore, the proposal would not appear out of keeping with the surroundings.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the scheme is for bungalows which is not only a rare and beneficial opportunity which results in the development being barely visible from a public viewpoint. She added that on the basis that the proposal would not be seen from a public vantage it cannot be asserted that the proposal would be visually harmful or incongruous and, in her view, no harm is caused to the character and appearance of the area.

Mrs Jackson stated that consideration has been given to the scheme in light of the historic refusals on the site and it has been redesigned in a way which is now felt to address those concerns which were previously raised and given the fact that the proposal is for a single storey development, no harm will be caused as a result of overlooking or overshadowing towards neighbouring dwellings. She stated that there are significant benefits as a result of the proposal which will provide new housing in Guyhirn and help to support local existing amenities, including the pub and primary school. and the scheme will also provide a benefit by providing bungalows which is becoming a rare occurrence in Fenland given the flood risk implications for the district.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the scheme overcomes the previous reasons for refusal and it complies with the policies of the development plan and she asked committee to support the proposal.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked how many similar developments there are in the area? Mrs Jackson stated that on the aerial photo it shows a number of dotted backland pockets of development.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked how far from the development is the main road? Mrs Jackson stated that if the question posed is in relation to highways implications she can advise that the access is going to be upgraded at the entry point and, therefore, it will be 5 metres wide by 10 metres which will allow vehicles to pass and there is also a turning head within the site which will allow vehicles to enter and exit. Councillor Gerstner asked whether a dustcart would be able to access the site? Mrs Jackson stated that she cannot be 100% certain that a dustcart could access the site, however, the residents could wheel their bins to the front, or a private bin collection service could be arranged. Councillor Gerstner asked whether the road would be fully adoptable? Mrs Jackson stated that it would be a private driveway, but the first section would be made up to the standards of the County Council as that is the point where it meets the highway. Councillor Gerstner stated that if the bin collection was not achievable by the Council, then a private contractor would undertake the service. Mrs Jackson explained that it is her understanding that there is an appeal decision which states that it is unreasonable to enforce the RECAP guidance which is the 30 metre distance for residents to wheel their bins and as a result of that she is aware that the Council has been approving schemes where the distance is beyond the 30 metres and, therefore, taking that into consideration it would be acceptable in policy terms for future residents to wheel their bins to the public highway to be collected. She added that if that was a problem and members were of the opinion that storage of bins on the public highway would be an issue then she would be willing to accept a condition to secure a private bin collection contract to stop the bins being left on the highway and each plot has ample storage space for the three bins.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there is already a property there? Mrs Jackson stated that it is the host dwelling, The Chase, where the applicants live and the site in question is the extended garden area of the applicants.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site well as it forms part of her County Council Division and having reviewed the previous reasons for refusal it is clearly backland development. She added that it is evident that a lot of development in the area is all frontage development which all look very nice, however, in her view, it would appear that the owner of the site missed an opportunity in 2006 where they had reserved matters planning permission which was approved but they did not act on it and the officer’s recommendation with the current proposal is correct.

·         Councillor Connor stated that since 2014 when the Local Plan was introduced, on that site there have been a number of refusals and appeals dismissed and apart from one dwelling he can see no difference as the current proposal is still backland development and he wholeheartedly agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he agrees that the proposal is backland development and when considering the other development which has taken place in Guyhirn along the road which have all been refused he cannot support the application before the committee today.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he endorses the points that other members have made and he added that he has also taken into consideration the views of Wisbech St Mary Parish Council and he will fully support the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be REFUSED  as per the officer’s recommendation.