Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application is located in Flood Zone 1 and, in his opinion, the application is an infill proposal which is set between existing established residential two storey dwellings which have been in existence for over 50 years, referring to the officer’s report at 9.12 where it states that the Local Plan defines infilling as development between existing buildings which is what the application proposes. He explained that along the High Road, it is linear frontage development which is also what is being applied for to match in with the street scene and on the indicative layout he has highlighted three dwellings as well as maintaining all of the trees and all of the riparian ditches will also be kept.

Mr Hall added that had a single dwelling been shown, in his opinion, then it would have been an inefficient use of the land and that has been listed as another reason for refusal on another application which was in Doddington and that is why three dwellings have been shown. He referred to Policy LP12 and explained that the site is not agricultural land and has not been used as such for over 40 years, it is used as a wood chip yard and has been owned by the family for at least 30 years and it is clear from the map that there are residential dwellings on either side of the application site and the site, in his opinion, forms part of Tholomas Drove.

Mr Hall stated that to the north of the site there is the Chequers Pub as well as the village pond and, therefore, he considers the site to form part of Tholomas Drove between dwellings. He made the point that Policy LP16(d) states that the development should make a positive contribution to the character of the area and on the indicative layout submitted he has shown family executive style houses on large plots with open frontages and large gardens which will make a positive contribution to the area in his view.

Mr Hall stated that there has been a lot of support for the proposal with 16 letters of support coming from Tholomas Drove and he added that there have been no letters of objection received or from any of the consultees. He made the point that the local public house is a key village asset and explained that one of his colleagues attended the Parish Council meeting at Thorney Toll and in the officers report at 5.1 it states that the Parish Council have stated that a development in this location would enhance the area and the Parish Council fully support the proposal, noting the community support and the site being in flood zone 1.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the speed limit outside of the development site is 60mph and the speed marker sign where it becomes 60mph is right outside of the site changing from a 40mph to the higher speed limit. He made the point that he is concerned that there is no footpath and asked Mr Hall whether he would know if the applicant would be willing to implement a footpath? Mr Hall stated that if the application was approved then he does think that the applicant would be agreeable to this as there is plenty of frontage.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the applicant would also consider putting in a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to lower the speed limit to 40MPH? Mr Hall stated that within the Parish Council’s comments it was also noted that councillors have considered changing the speed limit of the road from 40mph to 30mph following representation from residents and, therefore, he does think that could be something he could consider.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that consideration also needs to be given with regards to moving the sign back because the other side says 60mph and he would like to see all of the properties within the 30mph sign. Mr Hall added that it would be a decision for the Highway Authority and the signs are all placed within the highway verge, however, if they agree that could be possible.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that an infill is a development between two established properties and he questioned where it states that it has to be a single development or three dwellings due to the fact that the committee have determined an application previously where officers classified it as infill development and that was made up of 6 dwellings built between existing properties. Gavin Taylor explained that Policy LP3 sets out the hierarchy of settlements, market towns, large villages, small villages, and other villages, with the hierarchy going down there is an expectation that there would be less development overall and in particular to Tholomas Drove, it is defined as an other village, where residential development will be considered on its merits and will normally be restricted to single dwelling infill sites situated within the built up frontage. He explained that LP3 sets out that there is the expectation that there is a restriction in terms of the amount of growth for Tholomas Drove and it states that it would normally be for a single dwelling so members need to consider whether or not the merits of the scheme for three dwellings is acceptable or not and in the officer’s opinion they do not consider that the policy applies as it is not inside the settlement.

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

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view that he believes that the proposal is infill development and as long as the agent takes steps to reduce the speed limit then he is a happy for the application to be approved.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the Parish Council do not have issue with the proposal and are happy for it to be approved and the view of the Parish Council needs to be given weight.

·         Councillor Benney stated that, in his opinion, it is a solid application and by adding three dwellings on the site it makes good use of the land and planning is all about land usage. He expressed the view that he can see nothing negative about the application and as long as the speed reduction issue can be resolved and the introduction of the footpath, both aspects are a community benefit and outweigh any negative points.

·         The Legal Officer advised the committee that the fact that the Parish Council are in favour of the proposal is not a material planning consideration.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that with regards to the proposal to secure the footpath, the application is a permission in principle and conditions cannot be secured as it is the first stage. He added that in terms of securing a footpath, after the development heading northwards there is no footpath and up until the public house there is still no footpath and in terms of the justification and reasonableness of securing a footpath, it is dependent on where it would extend to and what it would connect to. He added that whilst members may wish to secure a footpath, if it does not connect to a continuation of a footpath, it could be seen as irrelevant. Gavin Taylor referred to the implementation of a TRO and explained that when the detailed matters are submitted, the Highways Officer may consider that it is not necessary and, therefore, if the committee have the opinion today that the proposal is only acceptable subject to the implementation of a TRO and Highways state that it is not needed then it may also affect decision making and it may be an application that the committee would like to see back before them in the event that these kind of additions are being asked for at this stage are not achievable, possible or reasonable.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows that there is a lack of footpaths in the villages and many of the Parish Councils are submitting Highway Improvement applications for introduction of footpaths and speed reduction.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the application is an infill site.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)