Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that she is addressing the committee on behalf of Wimblington Parish Council who are objecting to the proposal, and she explained that a little over 2 years ago Wimblington and Stonea Parish Council began developing their Neighbourhood Plan and as part of that ACOMB were commissioned to produce a professional researched housing needs assessment and a design guidance and code report. She added the reports were completed in early 2023 and were unanimously adopted by the Parish Council and copies were provided to the Planning Department at the Council.

Councillor Johnson added that the housing needs assessment highlighted the fact that the village of Wimblington is way above the national average in Fenland and England for built bungalows, with it also highlighting the high percentage of people over the age of 60. She explained that the Planning In Principle application which was objected to by local residents and the Parish Council has been granted on the corner of the Eastwood End settlement which is east of the A141, with there being no facilities whatsoever on this side of the village and, therefore, to reach any of the village facilities it would mean crossing the A141.

Councillor Johnson explained that planning in principle was granted by planning and now the developers have applied to construct 8 bungalows which are recommended for approval by officers. She made the point that it is obvious that neither of the two professional reports made available to officers have been taken into consideration and she added that the reports were produced for a reason, and they are there to support the draft Neighbourhood Plan which the Planning Officers have received, and it contains a policy in relation to the housing needs in the neighbourhood area.

Councillor Johnson questioned why the Planning Officer has not supported the research undertaken on the housing needs in Wimblington and she also questioned why the developer has not been advised that there is no further requirement for the construction of bungalows in the village. She stated that the design proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area which is a cul de sac of bungalows off a country lane and a proposed pallet of materials which are not consistent with the local built heritage and no specific building materials submitted with the submission which leaves the developer an open door.

Councillor Johnson added that the development is near the construction site of other dwellings on Eastwood End and, in her view, the dwellings are not in keeping with the area due to their size, design, materials and housing need. She expressed the view that bungalows inherently attract older members of the community, and she questioned how they would be able to access local facilities if they choose to walk which would mean having to cross the A141 which would also be the case if they choose to drive.

Councillor Johnson stated that there is a need for affordable homes for the younger lower paid members of the neighbourhood area and if the developer is not prepared to investigate this option then, in her view, they should consider building elsewhere. She explained that the Neighbourhood Plan for Wimblington and Stonea is in the later stages of completion and once adopted it is hoped that it will have an influence on the further development within the neighbourhood area.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Councillor Johnson if she can confirm when the Neighbourhood Plan consultation commenced? Councillor Johnson explained that the initial stages commenced in 2022, however, the whole process did not start until August 2022. Councillor Mrs French explained that as it is in draft form and has not been adopted and approved that is probably the reason that the officers did not take it into consideration. Councillor Johnson added that the Housing Needs Policy has been adopted along with the design guidance by the Parish Council as they are different reports which sit alongside the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Mrs French added that they have not been adopted by the District Council and this is the Planning Authority.

·         Councillor Marks stated that Councillor Johnson has stated that bungalows are needed for older residents but then she has referred to affordable homes. He expressed the view that affordable homes are for young families with children who will still need to walk across the A141. Councillor Marks asked Councillor Johnson whether her view is that it would be better to have houses on the site which, in his view, would be out of character as opposed to bungalows. Councillor Johnson stated that at the other end of the road there is going to be nine executive homes built and that it is going to look totally different to 8 bungalows. Councillor Johnson stated that she can see Councillor Marks view, however, in her opinion, there are enough executive homes which have been built or are due to be built as well as bungalows which have been built off King Street.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that in Manea there is a shortage of bungalows and, in his opinion, there is a shortage across the whole of Fenland. He added that when considering the older generation, they may wish to relinquish houses and opt for bungalows which in turn will release houses for families in Wimblington. He added that there has been a recent application where 8 houses were approved in very close proximity, and he added that he finds the views of Councillor Johnson to be quite strange. Councillor Johnson stated that off King Street there have been 48 bungalows along with the second phase of 21 bungalows being built and there are bungalows included as part of the development off Eaton Estate. Councillor Marks stated that the developer has undertaken some research to find out what is acceptable and what is needed as he would not build solely on speculation in the hope of building and selling something. Councillor Johnson expressed the view that she does not know how the developer has undertaken his research as the housing needs assessment was undertaken by a professional research body.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for clarification as she understood from the presentation given by Councillor Johnson that there is the need for dwellings for families, but Councillor Johnson does not feel that the site in question is right for either bungalows or family dwellings. She added that she understands from Councillor Johnson that what she said with regards to being above the national average for bungalows and people over the age of 60 that she is actually talking about a more blended community in order that the area does not just become somewhere just for those over the age of 60 in bungalows. Councillor Johnson stated that Wimblington does not need any more development, with Wimblington having way over the amount of development that it should have with the number of homes being 116 which is now at over 400. She added that is why the objections have been made by Wimblington Parish Council and local residents and nobody wants all of the development and there is a significant amount of it taking place within the village. Councillor Johnson added that Wimblington does not need houses and there is already an application for affordable homes which has been approved on the way to Doddington, 48 homes behind the Eaton Estate along with another 2 developments. She stated that the Parish Council feel that there needs to be a review of what houses are actually needed if they are going to be built and it is not bungalows within Wimblington.

·         Councillor Benney asked Councillor Johnson whether she would be content with more social housing in Wimblington, and he added that generally when social housing with flats is proposed most people do not look on that favourably and would rather see bungalows. He added that if that is something that the Parish Council and the local community would rather see then that could be considered during the preparation of the emerging Local Plan. Councillor Johnson stated that there is an element of social housing already being developed on the way to Doddington. Councillor Benney stated that Councillor Johnson has alluded to the fact that the Parish Council would prefer to see a different kind of housing for young people, and he asked whether they would prefer to see that type of housing rather than bungalows in Wimblington. Councillor Johnson stated that in the Neighbourhood Plan the local community have also stated that this is what they would like to see more of as there are enough bungalows.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application site already has planning in principle for up to 9 plots and the application before the committee is for 8 two-bedroom bungalows. He disagrees with some of the points raised by Councillor Johnson and explained that there are bungalows opposite the application site and a newly constructed bungalow on the corner of the site and, therefore, it appears to be that character of the area.

Mr Hall added that there are no technical objections to the application, and he has incorporated a 6 metre wide drive with a turning head which was a concern for the Parish Council which will allow the refuse collection vehicles as well as delivery vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. He explained that he has spoken to the developer and the spoil which is shown on the site plan will be used to form the bund which is to be set adjacent to the A141 and is a similar feature to the application which was approved for the nine plots to the north.

Mr Hall added that a noise assessment has also been submitted which confirms the suitability of the bund and the site is all located in Flood Zone 1. He made the point that the drainage strategy has been provided and it has been designed at a greenfield runoff rate and officers have stated in their report that they are content.

Mr Hall explained that the site came before the committee 2 years ago as a planning in principle application and at that time the officer recommended it for approval and members supported that, with the application before the committee today also recommended for approval, and he explained that the application was validated at the end of August and officers have provided a very good and efficient service. He stated that with regards to materials, the developer cannot do just what he likes and there will be conditions where the types of bricks and tiles will have to be agreed with officers, with the layout of the site being largely dictated by the water main at the site and he has received approval from Anglian Water to undertake some trial holes on the site for that to be located which has been undertaken and now work has been undertaken to accurately set out where that needs to go.

Mr Hall stated that he has shown 8 2 bedroomed bungalows, and, in some cases, there is way more than a third in garden area and had a lesser number of dwellings been included then the officer recommendation could have been one of refusal as an inefficient use of land. He added that on the opposite side of the bypass there are over 40 bungalows which are being developed with some already completed and sold.

Mr Hall explained that he has worked closely with the developer on this application and the developer is not going to build dwellings which he does not think he is going to sell hence the choice of bungalows. He added that Savage Developments from Manea are extremely keen to commence works on site and they are the builders who constructed the houses directly to the east which are still under construction for different owners.

Mr Hall advised the committee that the archaeological excavation works have already commenced, and the footpath and the access is shown on the site plan and a local contractor has already been instructed to provide all of those details and the bungalows are deliverable by a local builder and comes with an officer recommendation of approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to the proposed footpath and asked Mr Hall whether the footpath will access up to the A141 crossing? Mr Hall referred to the footpath in front of the proposed site and the other sites to the east and explained that there has been a great deal of discussion with the County Council and technical approval has now been given. He added that it will link all the ones which are already constructed as well as the proposed site to the A141 crossing.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the developer has undertaken some research with regards to building bungalows or houses to ascertain which is the better way forward? Mr Hall stated that the developer has spoken to local agents and has ascertained that there are larger dwellings on the other side of the road which do look nice. He added that whilst larger dwellings could have been considered but that would have meant a lesser density, with there being a lot of amendments on the actual bungalows in order to get garages and reach a satisfactory design.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked officers to provide an update on the Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan which has been referred to? Matthew Leigh stated that as he understands it the consultation ran for 6 weeks from the end of October to the 9 December. He added that it is not adopted so it does not form part of the Local Plan evidence basis for any material consideration just like any piece of evidence and it is not considered to be of substantial weight that it results in the reason of refusal around the housing mix.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the bund is 2.5 metres high, and asked what the actual height of the bungalows are? Matthew Hall addressed the committee with the permission of the Chairman and advised the committee that the height to the eaves level where the gutter is approximately 2.6 metres and to the ridge, from his memory, they are about 4 to 4.5 metres which is the typical height for the bungalow. Councillor Marks stated that they will not be able to be seen from the A141 anyway. Matthew Hall confirmed that is correct.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a good application, and she is pleased to see bungalows as there is a shortage. She added that she does understand that Eastwood End is not the easiest road to exit, and she has been working with the County Council Highway Officers to see if there is a way of improving it and for it to be incorporated in with the March Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Mrs French added that she is pleased to see that the developer is actually looking to develop a mix of dwellings especially 2 bedroomed bungalows and not just all affordable homes.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French and, in his opinion, bungalows are very much needed. He added that does share the concerns of Parish Councillor Johnson with regards to the A141 and he suggested that the Parish Council could look to secure a Local Highway Agreement for the implementation of traffic lights or some sort of crossing at the location, but he does fully support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French explained that is something she is looking into, but it would not be a Local Highway Improvement due to its significant cost.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be APPROVED 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 Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant and his family are known to him on a professional basis through his role as a Councillor, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)