Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application site is very similar to three sites across the road which have received planning approval in the last 4 years, including one application receiving approval in October. He added that the site abuts existing development in Eastrea and in accordance with Policy LP12 along this section of Wype Road, the form of development is linear which is what has been proposed with the application before the committee.

Mr Hall stated that scale of development proposed is bungalows which is in keeping with the adjacent property and also bungalows all approved in the last four years directly opposite the site. He explained that under Policy LP16, which was mentioned in the officer’s report, that retaining natural features by the side of the bungalow which was shown in the officer’s presentation are all being kept along with the majority of the hedge at the front if the site is to be maintained.

Mr Hall stated that an ecology report has been undertaken and if the application is approved, then there will be biodiversity net gain, with site all being located in Flood Zone 1 as are the bungalows on the opposite side of the road and the application also includes the proposal to increase and link the adoptable footpath all the way across the front of the site to link with the adjacent adoptable footpath and Cambridgeshire County Council have not raised any concerns concerning this. He referred to the presentation screen and indicated to members of the committee the location of the application site and pointed out the three applications directly opposite the application site highlighting the fist one approved by the committee in 2019 against the officer’s recommendation for two large bungalows which have been built out.

Mr Hall explained that the next application was for 2 bungalows which were approved in 2023 and one of which is currently being built out, with the blue area on the slide approved against the officer’s recommendation for a further 2 bungalows in October. He referred to the photos on the presentation screen and pointed out the view that can be seen from the application site which are of the bungalows which have been approved previously.

Mr Hall stated that Whittlesey Town Council support the application and there have been no local objections to the proposal. He expressed the view that it is an ideal site for single storey dwellings and abuts existing development as well as being opposite recently approved built out development and is all located in Flood Zone 1 with no technical objections submitted either.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to section 3 of the officer’s report and asked for clarity with regards to the footpath as it is not clear where the path is extending to. She made the point that there is a right of way in the dip, and she asked whether the public footpath would extend to that? Mr Hall referred to the location plan in the officer’s report where it shows that the red line has been extended all the way across the front of the neighbouring bungalow where the actual footpath starts. He added that it is his understanding from the Highway Authority that it is where the adoptable footpath is now and, therefore, he is planning to extend a new adoptable footpath to link up with that shown in the report. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked whether the extension would go to the public right of way that goes towards Coates. Mr Hall explained that his path is going back towards the village of Eastrea to the northwest and not extending further down into the countryside.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that in the report it mentions that the dwellings are likely to be bungalows, and she made the point that she is concerned that the type of dwelling is not confirmed. Mr Hall explained that he has spoken to the applicant and if the proposal is approved the applicant is happy to accept a condition that the dwellings are all single storey.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that a footpath is very important to the local residents down there for walking and also for dog walkers. He added that there is no footpath on the other side of the road, and he questioned whether the footpath would be delivered at the same time or at the end of the development? Mr Hall stated that it is his understanding that if the application were to be approved, then officers would word a condition to reflect that the footpath has to be delivered prior to the occupation of the dwellings. 

·         Councillor Gerstner made the point that the speed limit changes imminently near the application site, and it could cause an issue, or a problem and he asked Mr Hall whether he would consider taking steps to get the speed limit lowered to 30mph prior to development? Mr Hall explained that at a recent planning Committee in October, two dwellings were approved which are located further down from the current proposal before members and the Highway Authority raised no objection to that application and it is where the speed limit changes, and that applicant was not asked to consider taking steps to change the speed limit. He explained that Highways are happy that the visibility splays can be achieved, and he stated that with regards to looking to take steps to reduce the speed limit then he would say no.  

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked whether it would be possible to add a condition that only single storey dwellings were allowed? Matthew Leigh stated that the application is in outline form, and it is his understanding that there is nothing in the documentation that says that it will be two storey. He added that if members decided that the only reason that the proposal would be acceptable is if they were two storey dwellings then a condition can be imposed. Matthew Leigh added that there are quite strong draconian conditions that can be applied on outline applications if officers deem it necessary to influence the reserved matters.

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

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the approval of application F/YR22/1410 for bungalows almost opposite the current application site and he added that there are two bungalows further down the road and he questioned at what point the committee are going to decide that the developments are outside of the Eastrea village limit as there needs to be a stop point. He stated that the issue is consistency and as properties have been approved opposite the application site he cannot see why the current application is different.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that several years ago when the committee approved two bungalows against the officer’s recommendation at that time, the committee said enough is enough. She expressed the view that when the application was approved in October, she would not have supported that proposal, and she added that consideration does need to be given as to where the development in this area stops once and for all.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Mrs French, and he recalled that when the F/YR22/1410 application was approved he stated that there should be no further development in the vicinity. He referred to the site plan and stated that the two bungalows were approved against the officer’s recommendation are very nice homes and are very well designed, making the entrance into the village good because of the quality of the build. Councillor Benney added that the proposal before the committee is on the opposite side of the road and will square the development up and he does not have an issue with the application but expressed the view that if the committee feels that there should be no further development in that particular location then maybe they should all agree that, however, he is happy with the current application but then in his view that should be the end.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that there is the need for bungalows locally and she agrees that the bungalows which are already there do provide a nice entrance point to the village. She added that the proposed dwellings on the other side of the road are very tastefully designed, and the application would create a balance now to those that were approved at committee last month on the opposite side of the road. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she concurs with Councillor Benney with the points he made and this would be the last site before it drops into Flood Zones 2 and 3. She expressed the view that the application is located in Flood Zone 1 and, in her opinion, is perfectly acceptable and will create a balance.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the comments made by other members, and he agrees that there needs to be consistency. He added that the bungalows opposite are an absolute credit, and he will be looking to support the application, but he does not think he will be able to support anything else down Wype Road in the future.

·         The Legal Officer advised members that they must keep an open mind when considering any future applications.

·         Councillor Connor stated that a condition cannot be added to an application which dictates that if an application is submitted then it will not be considered.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and decided that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to apply suitable conditions, including the construction of the path prior to first occupation and also that the dwellings be single storey.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that they need to be consistent with the two previous applications which have already been passed on the opposite side of the road.

(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)