Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Wimblington Parish Council read out by Member Services. Wimblington Parish Council stated that it was in agreement with the Planning Officer’s recommendation of refusal as per the Parish Council’s previous comments, which are still relevant, the ‘high quality residential environmental design’ under LP16 and as raised in the Design Guidance and Codes adopted by the Parish, would be compromised in the busy location of the proposed site. They stated that although the Highway Authority now consider its concerns to have been adequately addressed the local community and parish’s concerns regarding the congestion around the location of the site have not been adequately addressed.

Wimblington Parish Council expressed the opinion that the change of use to ‘7 residential dwellings’ is not within the village settlement area as per LP3, LP4 and LP12 and shown in the development draft Neighbourhood Plan and it is also not meeting local housing needs as per LP5 and LP13 and shown in the Housing Needs Assessment adopted by the Parish, in the growth of Wimblington village. They expressed the view that the support representation raises points but fails to address the fact that the location will cause additional amounts of traffic at the junction area, the present site access is only used intermittently by customers and present residents.

Wimblington Parish Council stated that the village has superseded the built expectation for a growth village, larger developments have taken the residential growth over the predicted growth, access to the village from the proposed site involves crossing the busy Manea Road and then A141.

Member received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that this site is not in the open countryside and is part of the built-up, established form of Wimblington, with it not being agricultural field, paddock land or undeveloped land. He stated presently a large part of the site is occupied by a dog grooming and kennel business, which has been in existence for about 6-7 years, with the business hours being Monday to Saturday 6am to 7pm for the kennels and 8.30am to 5.30pm for the grooming, with the site having a licence for up to 45 dogs.

Mr Hall stated that the applicant has advised him that vehicles to this site vary depending on the time of year, however, in the Summer months this can be up to 50 cars a day between the grooming and kennel businesses and there are also work vans on the applicant’s site for his job which is groundworks and civil engineering. He expressed the view that the proposal for up to 7 properties, it can be less, is likely to see a decrease in the amount of vehicles entering and exiting this site and Highways have not objected.

Mr Hall stated that the site is all located in Flood Zone 1 and there have been no concerns raised within the report in this regard. He advised that there have been various discussions with Cambridgeshire County Council Highways who have assisted them tremendously, amendments have been made with a private 6 metre wide surface shown to enter and exit the site and the bin lorry can enter and exit this site, although the plan is indicative it gives members an idea that it can be addressed and he reiterated that Highways are not objecting.

Mr Hall referred to 9.6 of the officer’s report where it states that 7 dwellings could comfortably be accommodated on site that would not be considered overdevelopment and he hoped that members could see from the aerial photograph that this site is part of the built-up form of Wimblington, with the site being surrounded by buildings and directly opposite there is a residential dwelling, it is well screened by the trees to the west which are within the highway verge and would have to stay. He made the point that the applicant’s grandchildren walk across the road to go to Thomas Eaton school every day and this site is to the east of the A141, just like all of Eastwood End is, there are traffic lights here to cross and the facilities of the village are within easy reach.

Mr Hall made the point that there are no technical objections from any of the consultees in the report and, in his opinion, it is not in open Fen land, it does not create a loss of agricultural land, it is not paddock land, it is already partly developed with the buildings over the site, there will be less vehicle movements than what there is at present and in 9.6 of the report it states it would not be overdevelopment for up to 7 dwellings.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Marks questioned the comment that it is not paddock land as he is confused as his daughter used to keep her horse here where there is a menage and a field. Mr Hall responded that there are various buildings in the site and towards the back there is a menage but the green area the applicant does not own and there is no paddock land there. Councillor Marks stated that the field beyond the site runs onto Lord De Ramsey’s or Lavenham Farms land and to the side of it there are industrial buildings and across the road, apart from the one house on the corner, there is the Knowles grain store, which has had access problems previously so there are no other houses within that area but it still being said this is the built-up form of Wimblington. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that he does consider it the built-up form of Wimblington including the industrial buildings and the very small residential buildings.

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the officer’s report stating that they have not demonstrated how refuse is going to be taken away. Mr Hall responded that this was highlighted as an informative comment by Cambridgeshire County Council Highways, they amended the plans to show how a bin lorry can enter and exit the site.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that a standard 26 tonne dustcart is going to manage to access the site? Nigel Egger responded that he had not seen this application before but has been looking at the application in front of him and the plan does show a standard refuse freight as far as he can see coming into the site and turning around in the turning head at the bottom but it does not show it turning off the main road or the tracking for that, however, there is a 6-7 metre wide carriageway into a 6 metre wide access so it should be possible geometrically. He added that it does mean the vehicle will dominate the access so no other vehicles will be able to pass while that vehicle is coming in but it should only be once a week and that is not abnormal for any residential estate.

·         Councillor Marks referred to Highways raising no issues with the access but he travels this road every day and he has also been an HGV driver so he knows when you come around the corner and someone is turning into those two gateways or into Knowles or the potato store yard it causes traffic to back up and is a bottleneck. He asked if this was just a desktop survey undertaken by Highways? Nigel Egger responded that he does not know as he was not involved with this planning application but he does know the site, he made the point that they are closing off the access that is closest to the signals, it does have an existing use that generates x number of vehicle movements but again this is a development that may generate around 40 odd vehicle movements a day for the residential, one vehicle every 10 minutes going in and out of the site. He stated that the qualification in the NNPF, Paragraph 115, is whether or not the harm is unacceptable in safety terms and that is a really high bar when there is a reasonable access width, an existing use on the site being removed and replaced by residential development and whether or not an objection could be justified in front of an Inspector at an appeal and it is apparent to him that his colleagues determine that they could not do that. Councillor Marks made the point that having come round that corner off the Wimblington Road with a trailer and 9 times out of 10 it is people trying to turn either left or right are parked across the access, with a trailer you have to mount the kerb when you stop which then blocks up the A141 and surely this should be a safety issue that should have been considered. Nigel Egger responded that he suspects it was but he cannot answer it as he was not involved with the application but he reiterated that they are closing the access closest to the A141. Councillor Marks made the point that the current occupier run the accesses as in and out, with the furthest access being in and the closest to the traffic lights being out. Nigel Egger reiterated that the proposal is to close the closest one and have the access relocated to the north. Councillor Marks stated that this is the one that causes the problem as they use this as the in at present. Nigel Egger responded that Keep Clear markings can be considered which will help anybody accessing the site. Councillor Marks made the point that there are Keep Clear markings further along the road for the potato store already, they are unreadable and causes more problems.

·         Councillor Benney asked if there is any accident data for this junction because a near miss is not an accident and there could be near misses on every junction in Fenland. Nigel Egger responded that in the last 5 years there have been no incidents on the A141 traffic signal junction or anywhere near, the next nearest incident is a slight injury accident on the bend to the east of the potato packing store. He is surprised as it is a priority signalised junction on an A classified road so you would expect a degree of incidents. Councillor Marks stated that there have been accidents, with the road being closed on numerous occasions and on the junction itself but not so much, it is cars going up the back and in the side of each other so he thinks the data may be questionable. Nigel Egger clarified that stats 19 data from the Police is personal injury accidents only so it is only serious and fatal accidents are recorded, anything that ends up in A&E but that does not mean there are not overshoots and rear end shunts, etc., which are not recorded.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated it is not in his ward but he travels the road every day, he knows the property and the vicinity and he feels that Wimblington Parish Council and officers have the recommendation 110% right. He expressed the view that this is the wrong place, it is not part of Wimblington, it is an industrial area, the problems in the area will be compounded on that junction and it is overdevelopment.

·         Councillor Benney made the point as heard from the Highways Officer there have been no accidents, with there being potential accidents at every single junction and there is no objection from Highways on the access. He feels the only reason for refusing this application is LP3 and LP12, with LP3 being building in an elsewhere location but, in his view, the site is a stone throw from the Church which is the heart of a community, it has a road running through one side to the other and there are developments on both sides of the road and an Inspector stated that Eastwood End is part of Wimblington, with that application being much further out than this one. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he does not consider this to be an elsewhere location, it is part of Wimblington and it is a brownfield site, where development should take place, residential units are replacing two businesses so the amount of traffic will reduce not increase it and improve the safety. He expressed the view that it is a good application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he hears what Councillor Benney says but disagrees and referred to discussions on a previous application where air quality and noise was mentioned, which will be an issue here because of vehicles slowing down and starting up which needs to be taken into consideration. He feels this is a very poor application and the officer recommendation is correct.

·         Matthew Leigh made the point that this is an application for a PIP, which is different to a planning application and a lot of the points that Councillor Benney raised are in consideration of determination of a planning application they are not the same things as in the consideration of a PIP. Councillor Connor made the point that committee should be considering if the application site is fit for putting anything on it.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that if this had been an application for 1-2 properties he would be comfortable with it but he is not comfortable with is 7 properties, with it being increased previously from 5 to 7 and feels it is too much for the site.

·         Councillor Benney stated that Councillor Marks has already admitted that it is suitable for residential development and this is a PIP, he would accept 3, 4, 5 but not 7 and it does say in the officer’s report that it will accommodate 7 dwellings so the report backs up the fact that 7 fits on the site .

·         Councillor Marks made the point that there is already a mobile home on site, possibly two, and he does not believe this should sustain what they are looking to put on the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she does not believe that the site is big enough for 7 dwellings.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he is being led by local councillor as they know the area, however, there is a complete conflict, but he would personally support the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

·         Matthew Leigh reiterated that this is a PIP and a lot of what has been debated is for material consideration of a planning application and not applicable for this application.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(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)

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant was a customer to the business that he is director of but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)