Agenda and minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and resolved that Councillor Connor be elected as Chairman of the Planning Committee for the municipal year.

It was proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Benney and resolved that Councillor Marks be elected as Vice-Chairman of Planning Committee for the municipal year.

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of April 5, 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of 5 April 2023 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Victoria Batterham, an objector. Mrs Batterham stated that she does not have any particularly new points but wanted to reinforce the views of local residents, 500 people that have all raised very valid and similar concerns about this application. She referred to those concerns being in relation to the traffic in the area and the flooding and when they have looked at some of the reports the methodology, in residents opinion, does not seem to be factually or reliably evidence based on what residents see on a daily basis in terms of traffic, danger and accidents, with there being several accidents in Cavalry Drive with children at school particularly on the bend where people have been hit by on-going traffic.

Mrs Batterham referred to flooding in the area, she has provided numerous photographs where homes have flooded on more than one occasion and as local residents they have had a problem where nobody wants to take responsibility for this, highways and Anglian Water do not want to take responsibility. She read out the comments of Anglian Water at 5.15 of the report and made the point that the foul water network in the area was constructed many years ago when there was far less people living in the area and Anglian Water have also stated that the connection is acceptable but adding further developments to this system which is already overloaded is one of the main concerns of residents.

Mrs Batterham stated that members are receiving a summary report but are not reviewing all the information separately and when you are reviewing the information separately, particularly the developers reports which sometimes conflict against each other, it is very important rather than reading the summarised evidence.

Members asked questions of Mrs Batterham as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if Mrs Batterham lived in Upwell Road or Cavalry Drive? Mrs Batterham responded that she lives in Cavalry Drive.

·       Councillor Marks asked what Mrs Batterham believes is the accident rate in the vicinity? Mrs Batterham responded that cars are parked both sides of the road, visibility is very difficult and there are near misses all the time even trying to access her own property at certain times of the day. She is aware of 4 accidents in the area and this is in the last 3 years, 2 with children near the school and 2 with adults crossing on the bend.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Reilly, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Reilly stated that he is Head of Planning for Allison Homes and the application under consideration is an outline one for 110 dwellings with all matters  ...  view the full minutes text for item P4/23

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Simon Machen, the agent. Mr Machen updated on the outstanding technical matter which is archaeology and reassured members that is not something that is trying to be shirked but is something that is complicated and unexpected. He stated that he and planning officers prior to the application being submitted scoped the technical reports that would be required and archaeology was on neither of their lists on the basis that the site has been remediated to a depth of about 2 metres as it was part of the former gas works, timber yard and metal manufacturing complex that fronted the river.

Mr Machen made the point that The Boathouse adjacent had nothing more than a watching brief condition attached to it when that was built so it was unexpected the level of interest from the archaeologists but they have interrogated the remediation strategy which includes borehole samples and the archaeological reports from the consultants is expected by the end of next week as they have been waiting for the County Council’s archaeologists to provide them with the heritage data information. He expressed concern that the County archaeologist is seeking an intrusive investigation prior to the grant of outline planning permission and the outline before committee does not commit to the siting of buildings or layout so it is not actually known where the built footprint will be and they would be reluctant to go on some kind of “fishing expedition” in terms of archaeological survey work which is likely to be a geo-environmental survey with boreholes down to 4 meters which is where any remains will be in the river silt.

Mr Machen expressed the opinion that there are two options, one is to go with the officer’s recommendation which may require them to do archaeological works at this stage before consent is granted or the second is to do what is quite normal in the case of an outline planning application is to impose a detailed planning condition requiring a scheme of investigation at Reserved Matters stage as the fear is that it may hold up the outline consent depending upon the amount of work that needs to be undertaken to satisfy the County archaeologists but critically nothing can be undertaken in terms of building on the basis of an outline planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Machen as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how confident he was that the archaeology can be sorted out? Mr Machen responded that he is confident that they can satisfy any concerns about archaeology, it is the time at which they need to satisfy is that prior to the grant of an outline consent with all matters reserved in terms of an intrusive on-site investigation or is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P5/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a written statement from Councillor Alan Gowler on behalf of Chatteris Town Council read out by Member Services. Councillor Gowler stated that Chatteris Town Council consider this application as consultees and it was remarked on during the discussion about how local authorities should be supportive of local businesses, large or small, to support the local rural economy, with it being unanimously agreed that the Town Council should support taking into account the standard planning considerations and they are quite perplexed to be informed that officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Councillor Gowler referred to the first reason being “a significant incursion into the countryside”, but the Town Council feel the site lies literally yards away from the South Fens Business Centre and well away from residential developments and it is his personal opinion that it is an extension to an existing building so the effect on the countryside is all but negligible. He referred to the second reason for refusal in that there has been no demonstration of alternative sites within the locality but expressed the opinion that there is virtually no availability of industrial land or buildings in the vicinity of Chatteris and common sense would lean strongly towards development of the existing site.

Councillor Gowler made the point that there are many other consultee comments on this application, none of whom raise any significant issues and the Council’s Economic Growth response is very similar to what he has described. He stated that Chatteris Town Council maintain their support of this application and feel that this type of business should be encouraged by local authorities to expand.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that at present this site is used as a steel fabrication business for the applicant, the company initially rented these premises and has now purchased them to secure the business. He advised that the applicant, who was in attendance at the meeting, has been trading for approximately 8½ years and has been at these premises for approximately 6½ years.

Mr Hall stated that the company carry out a number of steel fabrication works for a number of local businesses within a 15-20 mile radius, which can include steel frame buildings, mezzanine floors, steel work in buildings, agricultural buildings and steel work for the recycling industry. He advised that the first shed as you come into the site is rented to SS Motor Fuels, another Chatteris business, and is on a long-term lease, with that building used for occasional servicing of vehicles.

Mr Hall expressed the view that Boss Fabrications are established at this site and wish to expand its existing premises, with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P6/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey expressed the view that members will have noticed on their site visit that this site is a bit of a mismatch and his client does want to rectify it hence this application to try and resolve all outstanding planning issues and he has also stopped work as the officer reported so he has listened. He stated that the annexe is for Mrs Pope’s, who lives in the bungalow, carer who is also her granddaughter and this would make life so much easier for them and if members consider the annexe is too tall the roof is not complete, as seen from the photographs, and the pitch could be lowered to make it more compatible and in keeping with the existing bungalow.

Mr Humphrey made the point that there have been numerous extensions to the original bungalow and the effect of this has unfortunately eroded the original garden space, which has caused them to take the garden which was paddock between the portacabin and the annexe to give the bungalow a new garden in effect and somewhere the grandchildren can play. He advised that the existing portacabin has been on site for a number of years, previously used as a hairdresser salon and beauticians, which has now changed to a hobby/playroom and a space for Mrs Pope’s grandchildren.

Mr Humphrey stated that the applicant is happy having this as a temporary approval and it could be removed in 3 or 5 years if a temporary consent is granted for that. He advised that it should be noted that this has been in position since 2011, however, additional landscaping could be undertaken to mitigate the effects this would have when looking at it from the road.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Connor asked where does Mrs Pope senior reside at present? Mr Humphrey responded that Mrs Pope senior lives in the bungalow with her husband Ivan and her granddaughter is to move into the annexe, who is her carer.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked how many other residents are in the property? Mr Humphrey responded that he does not know the answer, he knows Ivan and Thelma Pope live in the bungalow and knows they do like to keep their children around them. He stated that there are people coming and going all time. Councillor Imafidon stated that the only reason he asked because as seen by the photographs it is quite an extensive property so if it was just to provide accommodation for Mrs Pope’s granddaughter and if she does not already live on site he would assume there would be enough room for her to live on site without the additional one-bed annexe. Mr Humphrey  ...  view the full minutes text for item P7/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Cooper, the applicant. Mr Cooper stated that all he wants to do is take an old derelict building and build a family home for him and his family. He stated that he has lived in Elm all his life and comes from Newbridge Lane Caravan site moving up to Belt Drove with his family and his Dad and has worked on every farm in the area.

Mr Cooper expressed the view that the way house prices have gone up how can you afford them, he has lived in Elm all his life, he is not doing anything different just taking an old derelict building, recycling it to make a family home.

Members asked questions of Mr Cooper as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how long it has been derelict? Mr Cooper responded that he brought the property in 2018 and it was derelict before this.

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

·       Councillor Purser expressed the opinion that this is a site of an old hut which has been left unattended and in relation to traffic, in the days of the Scouts there would be cars in and out all of the time and this is just a family home so there would not be cars in and out all the time. He feels it is recycling of an old site which he thinks is a good thing to make it into a nice family home. Councillor Purser referred to the comment that it is functionally isolated so it is miles from anywhere and he has friends who live 1½ miles from the main road being functionally isolated and they are perfectly happy there so why can’t this applicant not be the same.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that when members visited the site one of the observations that the officers made was that the access was on a sharp bend and a blind spot and he wanted to know if the applicant has plans to make the access safer and as it was a scout site before it would have been very well used by people coming in and out and being developed as a family home he feels the issue with traffic would be minimised.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that Highways have said it is not a significant harm, although they are not totally happy with it, and it depends upon how much weight members give to highway comments.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that he has looked at the site and he does not deem it to be an exceptionally sharp corner.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that Highways are not objecting to the proposal and at the moment the site is an eyesore so this application would get rid  ...  view the full minutes text for item P8/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Cutteridge, the applicant. Mr Cutteridge referred to the Council saying this is not a sustainable site, but expressed the view that the site is 0.3 miles from the centre of the village and the village stretches out over 1.6 miles in most directions, with 11 houses approved in Turf Fen Lane with no pedestrian footpath on a blind bend and this is 0.6 miles from the centre of the village so he considers this to be a walkable distance. He stated that many people walk Hospital Road on a daily basis, walking their dogs, with no incidents or accidents whatsoever and the Council has approved a café and shop for Mega Plants further down this road where Highways had no objection.

Mr Cutteridge expressed the opinion that 8 weeks ago Highways did not see any problem with the road improvement and then 4 weeks ago it stated it was unsure whether the improvements to the roadway could be achieved so he is obtaining an engineer’s report to show it can be achieved with the work having commenced and he is prepared to go wider. He stated that he does own the land beside quite a lot of Hospital Road and is prepared to give up some of this land to widen the road and move the ditches if required and so is his neighbour that owns a small portion.

Mr Cutteridge made the point that he only knew this application was coming to committee 7 days ago and thought they had time to have the engineer’s report submitted and thought the Council was allowing them to submit this report. He stated that he is happy to have a four-month delay on approval to allow the engineer’s report to be submitted to say that road can be widened to the degree that Highways require it and put a pedestrian footpath in, which will not just improve the road for their dwellings but also to access Mega Plants and the dog walkers that use it daily.

Mr Cutteridge referred to open countryside but made the point that the dwellings at the front have already been approved so it will not make any difference from the highway and to the opposite side is the Hospital property that cannot been seen due to a large hedgerow and also to the other side he has planted 18 acres of woodland which is 10,000 trees so it will not be seen from that direction either. He expressed the view that in relation to surface water there is plenty of space to run off into the woodland and the properties are having their own individual treatment plants so this will not affect the Doddington sewers.

Mr Cutteridge made  ...  view the full minutes text for item P9/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from John Maxey, the agent. Mr Maxey stated that this application is in accordance with the existing Local Plan policy, it is a limited growth village where there is scope for a sensible amount of development that is in accordance with the village shape and existing built form. He expressed the opinion that it is surrounded, as can be seen by the plans, on three sides by existing development, it is in the heart of the village, within walking distance of the school and all other facilities and entirely in keeping with the form and character of existing development in that area, Well End being primarily linear.

Mr Maxey asked members to make their decision on the current Local Plan, however, as officers have said it is also proposed in the emerging Local Plan for allocation and this means that there has been further additional scrutiny recently that has effectively confirmed that the site is still suitable for development. He made the point that there are no technical objections to it, it is in Flood Zone 1, there have been discussions with Highways through the course of the application and plans have been produced that show that, notwithstanding all matters are reserved, it is possible to achieve a safe and proper access with plenty of parking the dwellings and whilst there are one or two comments about the form of development on whether it should be houses or bungalows this is an outline application for 6 dwellings with all matters reserved and that aspect can be considered and an appropriate design formulated at the Reserved Matters stage.

Members asked questions of Mr Maxey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of the Parish Council who object to the proposal and asked if he is aware whether there are school places available? Mr Maxey responded that he believes the school is probably tight but this site is not of a size where there would normally be Section 106 contributions requested and they are effectively objecting to any new development in Friday Bridge not just this site.

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

To determine the application.

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

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from George Le Cornu, an objector to the proposal. Mr Le Cornu advised members that he lives at 55 Cattle Dyke and has lived in the Fens for over 14 years, buying this property as his forever home on the understanding that the current Fenland plan and the future emerging Local Plan would prevent any development to the rear of his house. He is requesting that the committee agree with the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

Mr Le Cornu expressed the opinion that the proposal is contrary to multiple planning policies by being backland with no road frontage on previously undeveloped land in Flood Zone 3 and he feels the proposal has no merit and should be refused. He expressed the view that development on this site would result in an irreversible loss of habitat with the site being in the Great Crested Newt amber zone and in addition the strip of woodland on the south of the site is home to bats and other protected species and this should not be disturbed.

Mr Le Cornu expressed the opinion that on preparation for this development a water body has been filled in to prevent any requirement for an ecological survey and as a small village only residential infill or use of previously developed land would be suitable for development, with this site meeting none of the criteria for a brownfield site as it has had no previous development. He expressed the view that the agent, Mr Humphrey, has attempted to support the infill criteria by producing a misleading map as part of the application attempting to show a domestic property shown as No.59 but in reality this is an open sided pole barn used for agricultural purposes and No.59 has been invented for this application.

Mr Le Cornu stated that as there is no road frontage this proposal cannot be considered, in his view, as infill, the site has had no previous development and because of this Gorefield Parish Council have also objected, with the site gaining very little support with only one comment of support at the expiry of the consultation period and Mr Humphrey’s office was well aware of this as well as the lack of merits of the site and was granted an extension to source and submit a further five letters of support in order to force this application to committee as they were fully aware the Planning Officer would recommend the proposal for refusal. He showed on the presentation screen four of the canvassed responses, all looking the same, not submitted by Gorefield residents but, in his view, by Mr Humphrey’s office.

Mr Le Cornu displayed a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P11/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Mead, the agent. Mr Mead made the point that this is an application for a Permission in Principle, which is to demonstrate the principle of a certain form of residential development is acceptable in a certain location up to a certain size and this case is slightly unusual as this is an allocated site within the built up area within the Broad Concept Plan (BCP) for development to the west of March. He stated that the proposal being suggested is for up to 3 dwellings but this could be 1, 2 or 3 but that is the whole point of Permission in Principle it is just to establish the principle and the only information that needs to be submitted is a red line plan.

Mr Mead stated that the site is half an acre for up to 3 dwellings even allowing for part of the site, but not a significant part, to provide a spine road which is unlikely to be much more than 10 metres wide the frontage of the site itself outlined in red is 50 metres and the depth of the site is another 50 metres and if you take the frontage from the western front corner of the site to the eastern far boundary which is the land up against the bungalow at 181 Burrowmoor Road it is 80 metres to allow for an access road and 3 dwellings. In his view, there is enough information to demonstrate that it can fit and the slide that showed the position of the spine road, accepting it is only indicative on the BCP, also demonstrates that there is room for both.

Mr Mead expressed the opinion that what happens next, if this is approved, is they go to the technical detail stage, which provides all of the details required to demonstrate clearly how the development can take place showing the exact position and layout of any element of the spine road and the position, design, elevations, floor plans and drainage that you would expect in a full application. He reiterated that this application is only asking for the principle and it is nothing else apart from this.

Members asked questions of Mr Mead as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how far away this site is from Cherryholt Farm? Mr Mead responded that the western boundary of the site is approximately 45 metres from the farmhouse.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French questioned that as this land has been in the BCP for several years so with the recommendation being for refusal are officers saying, she does not know what is happening with the rest of land with her understanding there are about 25 landowners here and she  ...  view the full minutes text for item P12/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for a new dwelling for Mr Thomas who is well known within the local area as being a major employer with at one stage 230 employees with that business having now been sold and Mr Thomas’ current enterprise employs approximately 70 people. She expressed the view that over the years Mr Thomas has put a lot into the local community and continues to do so as his health allows but unfortunately in more recent years Mr Thomas has suffered considerably poor health with one of the resulting main issues being reduced mobility and he is struggling to gain proper access in and around his existing dwelling at The Chimneys, with an opportunity presenting itself with the site next door as the Bowls Club is now closed there is a redundant brownfield site next door to his existing dwelling and the redevelopment of a brownfield site as proposed would provide an opportunity for Mr Thomas to design a purpose built dwelling to meet his specific needs, it will allow him to stay within the area that he loves, close to his existing home, family and business.

Mrs Jackson noted the officer’s comments with regards to the location but feels there are benefits to be had by redeveloping this parcel of previously developed land, which is something supported by the NPPF and it would also remove a non-conforming leisure use which could attract unlimited numbers of traffic and noise away from a residential dwelling and business. She expressed the opinion that it is argued that the reuse of this previously developed land would result in a site which is sequentially preferable in terms of flood risk, it is important to note that although the site lies within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood maps for planning these maps do not acknowledge local flood defences and taking into account these defences within the area in reality there is actually a low probability of flooding on this site and this position has been set out in the Flood Risk Assessment which has been acknowledged and supported by the Environment Agency and accordingly there are no sustainable objections in terms of flood risk.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application has received 7 letters of support from the local community and no objections from local councillors or statutory consultees and it is considered that there are valid planning reasons to support this application in terms of the benefits of removing a non-conforming use, the reuse of brownfield land and the acceptability on flood risk grounds.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is a brownfield site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P13/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that the existing site is adjacent residential buildings both to the North and East and there is already a brick building on this site which is to be demolished and immediately adjacent this site there are 6 residential dwellings as was shown on the presentation screen. He expressed the opinion that this site was part of a larger site that was a commercial farm park for over 6 years that had over 40,000 visitors a year and there are a number of buildings over that site at the time which have since been converted with approval.

Mr Hall stated that in February 2013 in an officer’s report to this Planning Committee it confirmed that this site as part of the overall site is on the edge of a sustainable location, Friday Bridge, which would be under Policy LP3. He stated that the site is in Flood Zone 2 and checking throughout this application and even this morning there are no other sites on the market with planning permission in Friday Bridge that are for sale in a lesser flood zone than this site and there is no objection from the Environment Agency to this proposal on a site that already is surrounded by residential properties to the East and North that were granted approval in 2013 when under the previous Local Plan.

Mr Hall stated that the applicant, who is present today, is a member of the local drainage board and has lived at this site for nearly 60 years and there has been no history of flooding in five generations. He advised that the applicant submitted pre-application advice in 2019, which is referred to in the officer’s report, and that advice was given under this Local Plan and confirms that this area of the site is suitable for limited residential development and the advice was to reduce the proposal from 2 dwellings to 1 because that would be preferred but in that pre-application advice there is no mention of the sequential test or flood risk.

Mr Hall stated that there are no technical objections to this application from Highways, Environmental Health and the Environment Agency as well as no local objections. He made the point that an application was approved today that was not supported by the Parish Council and had 22 letters of objection but this application does have the support of the Parish Council and also has 18 letters of support from persons in Friday Bridge clearly showing local support for this proposal.

Mr Hall referred to the indicative site plan on the presentation screen, which he feels shows that two plots would round off this development and to the West is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P14/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that he does not believe that he has seen such as strong letter of support from a Parish Council, which he read out and there has been one letter of objection, five of support and as the application is for 6 dwellings they would happily take a planning condition that the dwellings will be either chalet or two-storey. He stated that a traffic survey has been instructed, with the results received this afternoon too late for today’s meeting but in any event the Parish Council want to move the speed limit signs so that the whole of High Road is 30mph.

Mr Humphrey expressed the opinion that key to this is the new footpath and referred committee to Paragraph 160 of the NPPF which states that development on the exception test would provide wider sustainable benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, which was used by Fenland District Council in its own planning application in Parson Drove. He expressed the view that the development would be safe for its lifetime taking into account the vulnerability of its users without increasing the flood risk elsewhere and where possible will reduce flood risk overall, with this detail being supplied at a technical stage as this is a Permission in Principle (PIP) application.

Mr Humphrey stated that as highlighted by officers within the report Newton Parish Council feel this will allow an appropriate level of growth to ensure the long-term sustainability of the village. He summarised that it is supported strongly by the parish, the Environment Agency has no objection, the footpath will provide community benefit, 6 dwellings is 11 per hectare and officers say this is an acceptable density, the site is acknowledged as infill and the proposed Local plan has one allocation for 6 within the village of Newton so this shows clearly that this development of 6 will be of a similar standing and requested support for the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French acknowledged that this is only a PIP application but asked if this was approved would the applicant be prepared to contribute towards a footpath and the reduction of the speed limit? Mr Humphrey responded that he has suggested to the client that they will have to do both of these in order to achieve planning permission so one plots value will be used up in putting the footpath along High Road and around the corner into Rectory Road. He stated that they have undertaken a speed survey, which will be passed to the Parish Council and see how they want to take this forward if this is approved.

David Rowen referred to the comments regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item P15/23