Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson reminded members that they will recall this application which has been before committee previously where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the application is before committee again as the agreement has not been finalised. She feels it is unfair that the previously proposed reasons for refusal have been carried forward as she understood that committee was happy with the application in general.

Mrs Jackson stated that having consulted their own highway engineer it has transpired that the situation in terms of requiring the appropriate visibility can be achieved if the speed limit for the area is reduced to 30mph and by reducing the speed limit they can achieve the required 2.4 x 43 metre visibility splays all within highways and the applicant’s land. She continued that as they had an opportunity to reduce the speed limit in the area they felt they should embrace it as the proposal would then provide a benefit to the wider community.

Mrs Jackson made the point that reducing the speed limit takes quite a while but as this is providing such a benefit she is also sure members would agree that it is worth the wait. She stated that she has spoken to their highway consultant this afternoon and he has confirmed that they are in the depths of the legal process but the signs and the feedback that have been received from the pre-consultation is that there is full support from everyone including Cambridgeshire Constabulary who are the main stakeholder for this type of proposal.

Mrs Jackson stated that the designs for the work are complete but they need to follow the due legal process so whilst it is regrettable that the situation has taken so long to be resolved she assured members that they are committed to resolving the situation. She requested that they be allowed to continue to secure the highway improvements and rather than refuse the application allow them a further extension of time.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what length of time is being requested? Mrs Jackson responded that she has been informed by the highway engineer that it will be 2-4 months as with a legal agreement it has to go through so many different processes.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that committee went against officer’s recommendation and approved the application subject to the splays and that was hopefully going to be achieved. He asked why the committee’s decision is not being followed and this application is back before committee? Mrs Jackson responded that when they asked the highway engineer to have a look at it to get the visibility splays drawn up because there were some ambiguity over the ownership of the land, they were advised that there was an option available to reduce the speed limit to, therefore, reduce the visibility splays and that would have a wider benefit for everybody and they have entered into the process of reducing the speed limit. Councillor Connor questioned whether the applicant has undertaken any more negotiations in relation to buying the third-party land? Mrs Jackson responded that the feedback she has received is that they own all the land anyway but the Local Authority did not have comfort that they did own the land hence the Section 106 as a belt and braces approach. Councillor Connor expressed his confusion and this is not what the committee agreed or envisaged.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that the application was submitted, committee went again officer’s recommendation because as the agent it was believed that the splay area could be achieved, with at the time the likelihood being that some of splay area was in third party ownership, however, now it is being said that it is owned by the applicant but it is not going to be used and the speed limit is going to be reduced to 30mph. He asked does the third party, whoever it is, not want to sell or has it transpired that there is somebody else within this? Mrs Jackson responded to her knowledge when they went out to do the surveys to ascertain whose land it was there seemed to be a simpler solution which was to reduce the speed limit and, therefore, reduce the splays and this was deemed to be a better situation.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that due to the wooliness of the answer’s members are receiving he feels that the land is owned by a third party who is not prepared to sell and this is now the best of a bad job to get it over the line to reduce the speed limit, which is not what this committee agreed 12 months ago and asked if he was correct? Mrs Jackson responded that she personally does not know that and the advice she has been given is to say to committee that they can provide a betterment, which is being offered now.

·         Councillor Connor agreed this is clearly the case as why would they change the speed limit when all they have to do is obtain the third party-land or use their own land to obtain and prove the splays can be achieved.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if he was doing Mrs Jackson’s job the first thing he would do would be to look at the Land Registry to see who owned the land so it is known what is being dealt with. He asked if Swann Edwards did this? Mrs Jackson responded that there is a process when there is a scheme that comes before them that they will check the Land Registry to make sure they know all the owners of the land, which is also needed for the Ownership Certificate. She stated that she does not know the specific details of this application but she would imagine that during the course of the application through various consultation responses it would transpire that the visibility splays were required so the work might not have necessarily be undertaken up front and it has come to fruition during the course of the application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated, in Mrs Jackson’s defence, that Land Registry is not always correct and some land is not even registered.

·         Councillor Marks asked that when the application was before committee last time were they not clear who owned the land because he believes it was stated that the splay could be dealt with by dealing with a third party but now members are hearing conflicting information. Mrs Jackson was unable to answer.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner questioned land ownership being a civil matter and not being a material consideration of planning? David Rowen responded that yes land ownership is  normally a civil matter, however, when third-party land is being relied upon to deliver visibility splays to ensure that an access is safe and adequate then it does become material to the determination. He added that as in this instance if you cannot secure that third-party land there is no mechanism to ensure those visibility splays are maintained and safeguarded going forward to ensure that the access is safe and adequate then this is key to the determination of the application. Councillor Gerstner made the point that there have been similar applications before.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that the information provided by the agent is very woolly and he thinks they are pushing their luck by coming back with a 30mph scheme and he would be happier to support the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. He added that he does not think a 30mph scheme could be turned around in 3-4 months and it would probably be the best part of a year.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation, this application is nonsense, it is wasting officer time, it is wasting Mrs Jackson’s time and it is an embarrassment for her to come to committee and present this application.

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