Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Mrs Maureen Davis, speaking on behalf of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Mrs Davis thanked the committee for giving her the opportunity to represent Wimblington and Stonea Parish Council by speaking against the application. She explained that her understanding of  a Planning in Principle (PIP) application is to assess whether a site is suitable for development and, therefore, she explained that her presentation would be limited to the three considerations of stage one, location, use and amount of development proposed. 

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the location of the proposed site lies off the southeast corner of Eastwood End and is on a narrow country lane without any pedestrian footpaths or verges to allow pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders to use as a place of safety, with passing vehicles having very little room to manoeuvre and large vehicles finding it necessary to ride the verges. She stated that the site is not within the curtilage of the village settlement area as defined in the emerging Council’s Local Plan as well as the emerging Wimblington and Stonea Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that dwellings to not run in the linear design that is present along Eastwood End and most dwellings have open frontages to the road whereas the application proposes that dwellings will be set into the countryside off Eastwood End into two separate dead-end roads. She explained that the access points are located with one being on a tight left-hand bend and the other opposite the proposed access for a PIP application for nine dwellings, with the location causing a road hazard and congestion whilst excluding access to views out over the open countryside and it will change the historic heritage character of the area.

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that with regards to the use of the land it has been used as a small residential home and a small agricultural business in keeping with the character and heritage of the village. She added that there is one perfectly good bungalow and a number of outbuildings and, in her opinion, it is also one of the only open countryside views left of Eastwood End and the proposed dwellings would mean changing the use and character of the site, demolition of existing buildings and closure of any open views.

Councillor Mrs Davis made reference to the amount of development proposed and stated that Wimblington has a number of developments under construction and many of these are not yet finished or even sold including 88 dwellings off March Road, 21 dwellings off Willow Gardens and 2 lots of 3 dwellings in Eastwood End which are all under construction. She added that there are also 2 lots of 9 dwellings which are also in Eastwood End as well as 48 off Eaton Estate which have planning permission, but development has yet to commence.

Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that there is no justification for further development at present in the village and she referred to the point made by the Planning Officer who stated that the amount of development is considered to be fundamentally unacceptable on the basis that it would result in the encroachment into the countryside. She added that the supporters’ comments to the proposal have stated that the development will provide a mix of houses and compliment other developments in the area, but, in her view, the amount of development already in progress does not need complimenting, it covers a vast mix of housing and there is no justification for more housing in Wimblington and the granting of previous applications in Eastwood End should not set a precedent, with the Parish Council and local residents standing by the Planning Officer’s decision that there really is no fundamental or justified reason to grant the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the land has been in the applicant’s ownership since the 1950’s and was used for a dairy herd, adding that in 1965 the bungalow was built and the applicants parents moved into it in the 1980s until it became vacant in 2023 due to the occupants being unable to cope with the large grounds and bungalow. He made the point that sheds on the site were used for keeping pigs and farm machinery and the site was used for a plant nursery and shop from 1995 to 2005.

Mr Hall referred to the map of Wimblington and Eastwood End and made the point that the officer’s report confirms that in an appeal decision it states that Eastwood End is part of Wimblington which is a growth village. He expressed the opinion that there are many estates which come off main roads such as Rhonda Park, Willow Gardens and Clayfields Drive, with some of them being fairly new and some of them having been established for 25 years.

Mr Hall stated that the officer’s report confirms that the proposed use and the location for the development at the site is acceptable and referred to the presentation screen, stating that the map demonstrates an accurate reflection of the area with the application site being located in the southeastern corner and, in his view, it completes and rounds off the development in the corner. He stated that the location abuts existing residential development and in the last four and a half years there have been quite a few approvals in this part of Eastwood End.

Mr Hall referred to the points made by Councillor Mrs Davis in her presentation and stated that on the opposite side of the road there has already been a footpath link approved, set out on site as well as a Section 104 Agreement in place. He stated that the site is 1 hectare in size and the area is low density with large gardens which is characteristic with many of the properties in Eastwood End.

Mr Hall explained that 20% of the application site cannot be built on due to the fact that along the western side of the site there is an Anglian Water main which is also across the other site and following discussions with Anglian Water it must not be located in any rear garden area, which is why the indicative plan shows that access is still available for Anglian Water. He added that the shaded area on the northeast of the site shows a PIP application which was submitted two years ago which was for 4 dwellings and it came before the Planning Committee with an officer recommendation for approval and was supported by members.

Mr Hall stated that on the indicative drawing the proposal was for 4 dwellings but when the approval was given it was for up to 9 and he explained that the application has been submitted to planning which is now a full application for 8 dwellings, and it is not linear development. He made the point that if the application before the committee is approved then it could match in with the other site.

Mr Hall stated that the officer’s report confirms residential use and is acceptable at the location site and, in his opinion, the site abuts residential development and two accesses where the 2.4 metre by 43 metre visibility can be achieved. He added that a typographical survey of the site along with the adjacent sites has been undertaken so that the splays can be achieved as there is an existing access there now and an existing field accessed by a gate which Anglian Water may use to access the water main if required.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there does not appear to have been any comments received from the Highway Authority and she questioned whether that is because the application is a PIP? David Rowen stated that no comments have been received and the fact that it is a PIP application whatever technical issues that they have raised would not be able to be factored into the decision anyway.

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that when he visited the site his first impression was that the proposal would look very nice, but now he has seen the overhead view, in his opinion, the development would be an encroachment into the countryside. He added that whilst he would love to see the application approved due to, in his view, the area being so nice and it being an asset, members need to adhere to planning policies.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has visited Eastwood End numerous times to look at various application sites and feels that the houses that have been built out already are an absolute credit in the way that they have been built. He added that they were recommended for refusal due to being in the open countryside, but now development has commenced, in his view, the proposal before the committee will finish the area off. Councillor Benney referred to another application at the other end of Eastwood End which had been refused, went to appeal which was dismissed due to the fact that they considered that the application site stood on its own merit and, in his opinion, the current application stands on its own merit and there is building on both sides of the road there. He made the point that houses need to be delivered to meet Government targets and questioned whether houses should all be crammed in on top of each other or whether it would be preferable to see development spread out more and see very nice houses with nice gardens and keep that open space feel. Councillor Benney added that consideration needs to be given to the low density when determining the application and, in his view, he sees nothing wrong with the application. He referred to the other dwellings which were approved, and expressed the view that the builder deserves credit for his work as they are very nice to look at. Councillor Benney made the point that development out into the open countryside is not new, and it has always taken place and, in his view, the others were passed against the officer’s recommendation and have evolved into fantastic homes, which are worthy of design awards. He added that he sees nothing wrong with the application and he will support it.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he recalls the other application referred to by Councillor Benney and stated that it was a mile further out of Wimblington. He added that with regards to the application before members today, in his view, it is not in the open countryside however, he does have concerns with regards to where the foul water is going to go when taking into account the amount of development taking place and the amount due to take place in that area, with him having spoken to Anglian Water recently and he is aware that the sewers and the pumping stations are reaching their capacity. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he agrees with Councillor Benney, and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that his concern is with the two properties beside it which are already being built, which appear to stand out and are quite visible from the Wimblington Road, making the point that the application does appear to be a smaller development and will be hidden more than the other two properties. He added that the road is very narrow and can be a very wet road in times of inclement weather episodes and the runoff from the road does need to be considered. Councillor Marks referred to the other application which went to appeal and added that the Inspector approved that application, and expressed the view that as much as he would like to say that the development is not satisfactory on this occasion, he will have to go against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she disagrees with the comments made by other members, and she is minded to support the officer’s recommendation. She expressed the view that the application is not in keeping and the design is not following the linear pattern along the lane at all and is contrary to policies LP16 which is delivering and protecting high quality environments across the district.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he will support the proposal and when he saw the other adjacent developments he feels that the proposed dwellings will fit in. He expressed the view that initially it was not clear what the outcome was going to be for the single bungalow on site but now he is aware that it is going to be demolished, in his view, the new dwellings will fit in with the area and the dwellings will be quality homes of a good standard. Councillor Imafidon added that his initial thought when he reviewed the site plan was to have 7 dwellings on the site may have been too many but when he looked at the bungalow opposite it appears to be the same size footprint as one of the proposed units. He stated that his only concern is that he appreciates that it is not a requirement for Highways to comment on a PIP application, however, he does have concerns with regards to the road and he added that when he went to the site there was another vehicle who was struggling to manoeuvre past another parked vehicle. Councillor Imafidon expressed the opinion that he is inclined to support the proposal.

·         David Rowen stated that the reason for refusal is not on the basis of whether Eastwood End forms part of Wimblington or whether it is a separate settlement. He added that with regards to the appeal decision that members referred to a number of other permissions which have been granted in the vicinity over the last three or four years, which should not be considered and the reason for refusal for the application before members is with regards to the amount of development and the character impact which would arise from that when a more detailed application is brought forwards.

It was proposed by Councillor Sennitt Clough, seconded by Councillor Hicks to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation but this proposal failed as it was not supported by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that as applications have already been approved in the vicinity of the application site and the proposal will finish off that area, it is a PIP application and more detail will be forthcoming in the next stage of the application process, and they do not feel that the damage incurred by building out into the open countryside will be detrimental, with the houses being much needed in this area.

(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)