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 Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens referred to item 1.2 and that his client has two previous applications approved along Wype Road for 4 bungalows in total going as far back as 2019 and whilst policy LP3 means that only infill development is accepted the scheme looks to continue ribbon development form on this side of Wype Road and will be the last two bungalows applied for by his client. He expressed the view that members have previously agreed that the previous bungalows approved followed the general pattern of development along Wype Road, which is ribbon or frontage development and he disagrees with officers that this proposal would fail to respect the core shape and form of the settlement by virtue of following this linear pattern along Wype Road.

Mr Bevens understands that some locals have raised the issue of a footpath but the extent of the adoptable footpath is on the opposite side of the road outside of No.127 Wype Road and should any development be approved on that side of the road then the adoptable footpath would be extended further along Wype Road providing additional pedestrian safety. He referred to item 1.3 and they do not believe the site is contrary to policy LP12, the site is adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village being the two large detached bungalows to the north-east and the two bungalows currently under construction and they do not feel it would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside as the dwellings proposed would be single-storey in height and reflect nearby dwellings.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposal is of a scale and location that is in keeping with the established form of Wype Road and will extend the linear features but in a manner which is proportionate to the small village of Eastrea and will provide two bungalows offering a wider choice of housing. He stated that officers refer to policy LP16 in their recommendation and the site does retain the hedgerow to the front of the site, which would be reinforced in a future reserved matters application and this could be conditioned.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the scheme will improve the character of the local area and does not adversely impact on the street scene. He referred to the slide on the presentation screen, which is an uploaded image from the forthcoming Whittlesey Bypass Consultation, with the site marked in red, which shows the northern and southern bypass options and should the favoured southern bypass come forward this area of Eastrea will be well placed to access that infrastructure and the associated benefits.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposed scheme will offer well designed bungalows which will meet local demand, with Environmental Health and Highways raising no objection and the site falling within Flood Zone 1 and is the last section of that run before it enters into Flood Zones 2 and 3. He stated that the scheme next door has just sold one of the completed bungalows and there is strong interest in the second bungalow which is just coming out of the ground, which shows the strong demand for this type of product in this area.

Mr Bevens asked members to reconsider the recommendation for refusal and approve the proposal based on the local support for the scheme and the points he has outlined.

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for confirmation that the site is within Flood Zone 1? Mr Bevens confirmed this was correct and that at the bottom of the site, the next piece of land down starts to go into Flood Zones 2 and 3 so as it approaches the railway line and the Sustrans route that runs alongside the bottom of the land it is in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and this would be the last development proposed by his client.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that the image on the screen is very much out of date on the strategic outline business case for the relief road, those two routes have not been agreed and this should not have any impact on committee’s decision today. David Rowen responded that it is not an image provided by officers but one that has been provided by the agent. He stated that the relevance of that to the decision members are making today is that it is a very long-term project that will be a number of years before it comes to fruition and is immaterial to the determination of an application for these two dwellings.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated from memory committee approved the previous bungalows and said no further development but this application has now come along and he feels it will mirror what is already present and it does give the road the end point, especially as it goes into Flood Zones 2 and 3. He stated whilst visiting the site he saw on the lamppost or telegraph pole a yellow notice advertising that there is an application for 3 across the road so it is coming to the end of the village and as long as there are no further developments along there, these are the last two, he would support this application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for clarification that Councillor Marks said he would be supporting? Councillor Marks confirmed that he would happily support this proposal as long as this is the last development along this side of the road.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed and feels there is a need for bungalows in the area and if this proposal is in the same style as the ones that are already in existence they provide a nice outlook on entry to the village. She stated her only concern was the risk of flooding, she knows the road quite well and if this was the last development along here then she would also support it.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is acceptable in terms of amenity impact and highway safety, it does not harm or is detrimental to the character of the countryside and the site lies in Flood Zone 1.

(Councillors Clark, Marks, Murphy and Sennitt-Clough declared that they know Councillor Mrs Laws who has links to the applicant but will approach the application with an open-mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application but would keep an open-mind)