Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Steve Tierney, District Councillor for the area. Councillor Tierney stated that he assumes members have been out and visited the site so will have seen the nature of the site and he would like to challenge that this planning development is in keeping with the street scene, in his view, it is not, it is totally different to the other buildings most of which are lower than this and a completely different structure. He expressed the view that it clearly overdevelopment as it can be seen what a tight squeeze this proposed development would be on this small piece of land.

Councillor Tierney stated that when the proposal was for just one dwelling he found this acceptable but to then change the land to cram two where previously it was planned for one is greedy and it has been undertaken because it was previously approved and they have decided to try and chance it. He feels it is important that a message is sent because the Council has got to try and let people develop where they can and make places for people to live but there is also showing fairness to people who already live there and not allowing development to be crammed into every available space with the maximum number of dwellings that can be achieved, which is what is going on here and why residents are upset.

Councillor Tierney stated that he is one of three District Councillors for the area but both the other councillors, Councillors Wallwork and Hoy, have echoed his concerns by e-mail to the committee and he has spoke to them today and they have asked him to speak on behalf of them also. He stated that all three councillors oppose this proposal, they think it is the wrong message to be using a small piece of land to cram too bigger a development in and he is also concerned about the potential overlooking that there might be, with the proposal being too much for this piece of land and he hopes committee say no to the proposal so the developer goes back to their one dwelling proposal which he feels was far better.

Members asked questions of Councillor Tierney as follows:

·         Councillor Marks stated that the road is a fairly busy road and there was a proposal for one property with a garage which would have turning to stop vehicles reversing in and out and asked how busy is the road as this proposal would mean vehicles reversing in or out onto a highway. Councillor Tierney responded that it is not as busy as the A47 for example but for a residential road it is plenty busy, there are lots of properties in the road together with businesses and there are lots of reasons why people want to access the road and there are already concerns about how vehicles negotiate the area.

·         Councillor Imafidon sought clarification that it is a dead-end road and adding more vehicles to that area is going to cause more problems. Councillor Tierney confirmed that it is a dead end road, it is sealed off so you cannot continue on towards Elm, with all the vehicles that use the road having to turn around which is an issue.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Carole Royal, an objector. Mrs Royal stated that there have been four previous planning applications for this plot, all were for one dwelling which were all approved, and the latest being just last year for one two-storey four-bedroom house. She made the point that the developer purchased the plot with full knowledge of this fact but then only months later wants to split it to squeeze an extra dwelling in and, therefore, in her view, overdevelop the plot, which would be in contradiction of the original planning officer and present day officer who both agreed with one dwelling on the plot.

Mrs Royal stated that the present planning officer felt it would be an incongruous development that would amount to overdevelopment resulting in poor quality amenity for the future occupants contrary to Policy LP16 of the Local Plan and the previous permission for a detached two-storey 4-bedroom dwelling would be more in keeping with surrounding development as opposed to the current application to increase the quantum of dwellings on the site. She continued that the officer further recommended that the applicant withdraws this application and proceeds with the development of the extant detached dwelling as to proceed with the current two dwelling proposal would likely be considered unfavourably by officers, however, the same officer has now made a complete u-turn recommending approval of this proposal and she has to question why.

Mrs Royal stated that the agent acknowledges that the plot already benefits from planning permission for one dwelling offering the following as a reason for changing this; the current property market requires more modest sized family dwellings, but as there is the new Skylark housing estate not half a mile away to the East of Elm Low Road containing 137 2-3 bedroom family houses not to mention the proposed Heron Road estate extension the same distance to the West of Elm Low Road with 200 plus new homes, in her view, this reasoning does not stand up for this small plot. She expressed her disappointment that Wisbech Town Council approved this application, she believes councillors were going to be advised of residents’ objections but this did not happen so they were unaware of this at their meeting, which is why an e-mail was sent to every Wisbech District Councillor of their objections to make sure they were informed.

Mrs Royal expressed the view that the existing telegraph pole and the front boundary hedgerow blocks access to the proposed parking spaces and this would have to be moved by BT but questioned to where. She stated that there has been no mention of a large storm drain and cover in the same verge and asked what happens to that.

Mrs Royal expressed the view that the road already floods here in heavy downpours, pictures have been sent to the County Council in the past who come out when informed and clean out the gullies outside 113, 115 and 117, although this has never solved the problem. She added that they are also aware of the storm drain in the grass verge and traced its direction, with dykes having been filled in on the opposite side of the road because of the Heron Road estate and there is nowhere for this excess rainwater to go anymore and as a result the road in this precise position floods entirely across its width.

Mrs Royal referred to removal of the hedgerow at the front boundary would be at the expense of nesting birds and assorted wildlife and would be, in her view, a detrimental step to take, with the other three plots having retained and cared for their inherited overgrown hedges both front and rear and made this part of the road more aesthetically pleasing, maintaining the grass verges too. She stated that further up and down the road hedgerows have been ripped out for very similar building reasons, this would be yet another one gone forever and made the point that the hedgerow would not have to be removed, the telegraph pole would not have to be moved and the storm drain could also remain if the plot only had one dwelling with a turn around driveway which it has always been envisaged and approved.

Mrs Royal made the point that highway concerns have also been voiced by neighbours, with increased traffic and no footpaths. She stated that not one of the neighbours have ever objected to the previous planning applications for a single dwelling on this remaining plot of 4 and were all happy with the previous application but, in her view, this one would not be in keeping with what has been agreed and approved many times before, with this proposal disregarding what the four plots were originally designed for and how well they would look in the road.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nick Seaton, the agent. Mr Seaton stated that the application is recommended for approval by officers, with the Town Council and Highway Authority also supporting the application and it is front of the committee due to a number of objections received from residents and councillors. He stated that the grounds for these objections include highway safety concerns, lack of supporting infrastructure along Elm Low Road, overdevelopment and it being out of character with the surrounding developments.

Mr Seaton expressed the view that the traffic generated from two 3-bedroom dwellings may be slightly more than from one 4-bedroom dwelling, but the increase would be small, with Highways having no objections. He feels that smaller more affordable family homes are required in this area and this modest increase in density does not undermine or detract from the character of the area, nor is it out of keeping with the local building characteristics.

Mr Seaton expressed the opinion that the need for housing of this size and type is backed up by the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which indicates a greater need for 2 and 3-bedroom properties rather than for 4-bedroom properties within Fenland. He feels there is no significantly defined character to the design of the properties in the area with a bungalow on one side of the site and a large two storey property on the other, whilst opposite is a 1½ storey dwelling, with there also being a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced housing in close proximity to the site.

Mr Seaton expressed the view that the mass and area of the proposal remains essentially the same as approved and cannot be considered as crammed or overdeveloped or a justifiable reason to refuse the application on this basis, with a good standard of occupier amenity being provided for both dwellings. He asked that the committee follow the officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Hicks asked how overdevelopment is assessed? David Rowen responded that it is a case-by-case judgement using professional expertise looking at the size of the development and the site, relationship with surrounding properties and officers have assessed this application as not being overdevelopment, that the two properties can be accommodated with adequate car parking and rear garden space and without having any adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. Councillor Hicks questioned that what is being said is that there is a certain element of subjectivity. David Rowen stated that he would concur to a degree albeit that when it is proposed to have 10 metre front gardens providing adequate car parking and 22 metre rear gardens it does not fall into the territory of being on the cusp of being acceptable or not as the proposal looks acceptable in terms of not being overdevelopment in his professional opinion.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has visited the site and he was 50/50 on whether he thought it was a good development or not and having heard from speakers, although he is disappointed that the agent has not attended, he is going in the direction of feeling that he could not support the proposal. He expressed concern regarding vehicles on the front, there was a very good application for one property with a double garage which would have given turning and there is now a situation where there is tarmacked front drives, it has been heard there is flooding issues so where is that water going to go and he feels it almost greed putting two properties on the site when there could be one very nice property.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed with the comments of Councillor Marks particularly in light of the fact that there is a site with 137 homes nearby and another further site with 200 homes and she does not understand why there needs to be 2 homes crammed onto this site.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the issue of access and vehicles on the road, making the point it is a dead-end road and it is not a very wide road in some sections, it is a mixture of old cottages towards the bottom and newer larger developments as well so he does not believe this proposal is in keeping. He expressed the view that the property to the right of the site is one single unit whilst on the other side it is a bungalow so he feels this site is suitable for a single dwelling rather than two. Councillor Imafidon stated that there are flooding issues as well and he cannot support this proposal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that Councillor Marks has summed up the situation, he cannot support the application, it has extant planning permission for one and that is where it should be as two is over intensification of the site as when he visited the site the frontage is not that wide, with the telegraph pole probably having to be moved.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site and her concern is shadowing on the bungalow, with the bungalow she believes having windows on that side. David Rowen responded that he understands that those windows are serving non-habitable rooms. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that it is still going to overshadow and she does not think there is going to be enough amenity space, with three-bedroom homes probably going to have children and there will not be much room to play. She feels that overdevelopment is a matter of interpretation and she does not like this application at all.

·         David Rowen acknowledged that the tone of the debate has been negative and he is fully expecting that there will be a proposal to refuse the application, however, this would lead to a possible appeal stage and how the Planning Inspector would view this case. He feels that the starting point for the Inspector would be that there is an extant planning permission on the site for a single dwelling and then they would be assessing what additional harm there is over and above that single dwelling, such as impacts on neighbouring properties, but the built mass is not significantly different to that which has been approved and, therefore, there would not be any significant additional impacts over and above the extant scheme. David Rowen continued that with regard to amenity space, the Council has a policy that a third of the plot should be private amenity space and for the two dwellings this is more than exceeded as it is about a 22 metre rear gardens, which are more than adequate to serve these two dwellings. He added that regarding the impact on the highway with vehicles accessing onto Elm Low Road, an Inspector would be looking at whether there is a significant additional impact over and above the plot that has an extant permission, that development had an on-site turning area but looking at the street view between Weasenham Lane and this site there must be at least a dozen properties that are also in a situation where they are having to reverse onto or off Elm Low Road and he thinks it would be difficult to sustain a refusal reason on highway safety especially when there is also not an objection from the Highway Authority. David Rowen stated that his advice to committee would be that if the committee wants to refuse the application it is within their gift to do so but any subsequent appeal is going to be somewhat difficult to defend.

·         Councillor Marks acknowledged what David Rowen has said but believes that two wrongs do not make a right and just because previously there are people turning in and out and reversing onto Elm Low Road as a committee members need to look at the health and safety and if those have been historic would this proposal not be impacting the problem. He stated that he would happily sit in front of an Inspector and say this is his biggest concern with this proposal where previously there was a turning circle and turning circles are far better than people reversing in and out of the road.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it would be interesting to know how old those 12 properties are that have been mentioned and when they obtained planning permission as if it was before 1948 they did not need planning permission and there would not have been the amount of traffic, with Councillor Tierney stating it is a busy no through road. David Rowen responded that he does not have an exact date but looking at the nature of the properties he would be surprised if these are pre-1948, they could be pre-1998 and post 1978 possibly and probably 1970/1980s properties. He referred to Councillor Marks point and what a Council has to be able to demonstrate to an Inspector is that there would be significant additional harm and, in his view, given the number of properties already in a situation where they are reversing onto or off the highway it would be difficult to convince an Inspector that there is a significant additional harm.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he understands but as soon as this proposal is agreed the next person who wants to build along here has been set a precedent so that more people are doing the same and at some point a stand needs to be taken. He referred to some of the properties being around since the 1990s and wonders if some of these properties have actually been allowed or whether they have just undertaken it by default as he knows of a few housing estates where people just suddenly tarmac the front drives without any permission so his fear is if this is allowed this time then the floodgates are being opened up for more people along that road. 

·         Councillor Mrs French reiterated that she does not like this application and, in her opinion, it is overdevelopment but having listened to David Rowen’s comments and referring to an application at Upwell Road, March, which could not be defended and committee was told by officers that it could not be defended when it was refused and it was lost at appeal costing the Council money, she does not think there is an option but to approve the application.

·         The Legal Officer stated that having listened to what David Rowen has said that whilst it is not a material planning consideration there is a risk in these sorts of cases if the evidence is not produced to back up a refusal there may be an award of costs so the Council has to pay not just its own costs but also the appellants costs. He gave an example that if members were to refuse on highway grounds without any highways evidence that will inevitably lead to an award of costs.

·         Councillor Marks stated that evidence is one thing but common sense is something he believes is in very short supply these days and it is known that reversing off a highway or onto a highway can cause problems and by allowing this proposal it is exacerbating those problems. He reiterated that there is an approved application for this site which showed a turning circle and whilst he understands the comments of David Rowen he feels there are times where you need to stand up and say this is wrong, it is a bad application and he cannot support it.

·         Councillor Benney asked what the estimated costs would be if it went to appeal and the Council lost? David Rowen stated it is a very difficult question to answer given that it is very dependent upon the actual route the appeal goes down, what the decision level is and to some extent how much the appellant asks for in costs. He would reiterate what the Legal Officer said that cost is not a material planning consideration in relation to the determination of an application.

·         Matthew Leigh clarified that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to this application in relation to highways so it is not a case of struggling to evidence it, evidence would have to be found that goes against the Highway Authority’s position if this application was refused. He understands Councillor Marks comments in relation to common sense but this is planning and not how it works and it needs to be demonstrated and evidenced the reasons for refusal and it is a dangerous stance to take if you go against statutory consultees as the Council could be trying to find a highway expert that was willing to say that there was substantial harm from this development. Matthew Leigh added that whilst the other scheme had a turning circle, the Council is not here to say which they prefer but to assess the application and take the previous permission as a material consideration.

·         Councillor Connor stated the reasons for refusal would determine the cost factor of it if it was lost on appeal, committee can obviously refuse the application but there needs to be good reasons. He expressed the view that Councillor Marks is correct that common sense does not prevail but he feels that as Chairman on the evidence of what officers have said he would try and steer the committee to approving this application as he thinks an appeal would be lost and there would be costs involved.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that costs are not a material planning reason and not the overriding part of a decision-making process. He feels listening to what has been said, members are saying that the proposal is not right and if all that is going to be done is rubber stamp and not use committee’s discretion which is its purpose there may be costs but the costs are only the cost of the appeal and sometimes you have to do what you think is right. Councillor Benney appreciates what David Rowen is saying but equally members may probably want to vote against this application but cost should not be the only reason for going against it there are reasons for refusing it and if those reasons were worded strongly enough and a good reason put forward those costs could be minimal.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that Councillor Benney is correct that committee members are not here to rubber stamp officer’s recommendations but what members are here to do, as in all decision-making in the planning process, is determine applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. He added that the starting point should always be what does the Council’s policy say, which does not say that you cannot reverse from a site onto the road and that you cannot put in an application and then come back and change it. Matthew Leigh stated that committee is looking at the application in front of it and is able to give different weight to the different material considerations and he feels that the consideration that carries a lot of weight is the response of the Highway Authority, which is professional advice compared to his planning layman’s opinion on highways or members opinion, and if this is not reflected it is a dangerous route to take. He agreed that costs should not be a material consideration but the reason for this is applications should only be refused where there is a reasonable success of failure as the starting point is the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated it is up to the committee what they decide but she will not be supporting refusal as if it went to appeal she would be very surprised if two reasons could be found to defend it on. She feels it is disappointing that Highways have not really commented on the application but they obviously see it is not an issue, it is an old established road and is a dead end at the bottom. Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not like the application but will be supporting the officer’s recommendation as it cannot be refused for highway reasons and she does not know what other reason for refusal there is.

·         Councillor Marks stated the other issue that does seem to have been slightly forgotten is flooding and he has looked quickly for a drainage plan and members have heard from the speaker that there has been flooding so this should be materially taken into consideration as well as does the interpretation of what members think of the design. He feels that there are three issues that were raised and whilst focusing on traffic the other two seems to have been lost so with a combination of the three he feels there is a good solid case to refuse this application. David Rowen responded that the site lies in Flood Zone 1 and looking at the Environment Agency’s Flood Map there is nothing on there that indicates that the site is at risk of surface water flooding and without knowing more about what the flooding issue was, if it is the case that the existing drainage infrastructure in the vicinity is substandard then there is a requirement there for the statutory undertaker to be doing that now to serve the existing properties and not necessarily an issue for the proposed development to address. He made the point that there is an extant planning permission in place for a building on the site of a similar footprint and mass to what is proposed now and to some extent whether that is one house or two houses from a drainage perspective is not really going to make a great deal of difference.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she sits on the Flood Flow at Cambridgeshire County Council and many areas are discussed but this is one that has never been brought up so she cannot say there is a flooding issue, there probably is but it might be the drains and dykes need clearing out but she does not think this could be defended as a reason for refusal as it has not been proven through the County Council.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Hicks to GRANT the application as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on the vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as they feel the proposal is contrary to Policy LP16(d) of the Local Plan as it does not make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area, does not improve the character of the local built environment as it is out of keeping with the rest of the street, adversely impacts the street scene in terms of its design and scale as it is crammed in and does not reflect the character and street scene with there being no other development similar to this proposal in the area and it will create overshadowing to the neighbouring property.

(Councillor Imafidon declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Wisbech Town Council and this site used to be in his old ward, but he takes no part in planning and remains impartial)