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 David Pritchard, Patrick Humphris and Kate Humphris, objectors. Mr Humphris stated that he is representing a large number of residents from the village of Newton who object to the proposal and has three points that he wishes to highlight to the committee, stating that the application does not constitute infill development and is, therefore, contrary to policy LP3 of the Local Plan. He referred the committee to the advice and detailed policy analysis provided by an independent planning consultant that he has engaged along with the officer’s report which has concluded that it is not infill development.

Mr Humphris referred to the presentation screen and made the point that the photo shows sporadic housing on Rectory Road and the surrounding area which is green and beautiful countryside. He stated that his second point refers to the rural character of this part of Rectory Road which, in his view, would be harmed by the proposal and should make it contrary to policies LP12 and LP16 of the Local Plan.

Mr Humphris drew members attention to the aerial photo which clearly demonstrates, in his view, that the site is flat arable land and the surrounding area is mainly open fields, has sporadic dwellings and no linear development. He stated that he objects to the proposal because it will harm the rural character of Rectory Road and is contrary to planning policy.

Mr Humphris explained that the residents of the village overwhelmingly object to the development and strongly oppose the plan and have made their views clear through 42 letters of objection and by their attendance at every Parish Council Committee meeting. He expressed the view that he finds it baffling that some of the Parish Councillors have not listened to the views of residents or taken their concerns raised with regards to planning policy and material considerations seriously.

Mr Humphris added that, whilst it is recognised that a tension will always exist between how to keep Fenland growing without losing the uniqueness of Fenland, the Local Plan clearly sets out that Fenland has a unique character with its flat open landscape and big skies as well as complex networks of drainage channels and watercourses and he asked the committee to help to protect the balance and to refuse the application.

Mr Pritchard stated that the application site is landlocked and, therefore, a discharge pipe has been added which only just touches the corner of the whole field, diverting all of the water from the site and much of the remaining field into higher flood zone. He explained that the permission to discharge given by the Lead Local Flood Authority is subject to riparian rights and he owns the adjacent field and dyke which has those riparian rights.

Mr Pritchard stated that his land is already saturated and, in his view, he is being put at an increased risk of flooding so he does not give his permission. He explained that the village has no amenities and, therefore, the site is not sustainable, with there having already been over 20 houses for sale in Newton as well as the threshold for houses having already been met with a six and a half year surplus without the additional nine houses which have recently received approval on the same field and with the same owners.

Mr Pritchard expressed the view that the development is not in accordance with current policies or emerging Local Plan. He stated that it will cause demonstrable harm to the rural character and environment of the village, and he asked the committee to support their officer’s recommendation of refusal.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked why the Parish Council appeared to be in favour of the proposal when there was clearly so much objection from residents in the village? Mr Humphris responded that he finds it baffling when there was so much objection from the residents. He added that the Parish Council decision was not unanimous and there were some Parish Councillors who were in opposition and some who abstained and the only other point that he can factually note is that the applicant is a Parish Councillor and is the applicant’s sister.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he would have expected both the applicant and Councillor Clark, the applicant’s sister, to have abstained from voting and they would have hopefully made no comment and left the room.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether the majority of the Parish Council voted in favour of the application? Mrs Humphris, also a Newton Parish Councillor, stated that the majority, but not all of the Parish Council voted for the proposal. She explained that she objected, and she raised concerns at the meeting with the concerns raised by the local residents attending the meeting not being listened to.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarity with regards to the field flooding. Mr Pritchard explained that in the winter months there is always a lot of water which sits on top of the field and his piece of land is adjacent to the field which he finds he cannot walk to the bottom of due to the water level being so high.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the applicant or agent has made any contact with him concerning the ownership of half the dyke? Mr Pritchard confirmed that no contact had been made. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that is the first thing that they should have done.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the application for nine dwellings which the committee approved at a recent meeting and flooding was raised as an issue. He asked Mr Pritchard whether his field is actually drained at the present time? Mr Pritchard explained that he is the third generation in his house and the family used to farm the field which falls down to the dyke at the rear of the property and the garden and there is no land drainage as it is a natural fall into the ditch. Councillor Marks made the point that mitigation measures such as land drainage could be implemented if the field is already wet and asked what the perception is of a Fenland village as, in his view, it is houses built on the roadside and not back garden developments as a standard. Mr Humphris stated that there are different categories of Fenland villages which includes one which are designated as small villages and Newton is classified as a small village B, and the proposal is located at the very end of the village. He added that the Planning Officer explained that the application is not really considered to be in the centre of the village and the aerial photo highlights that the village is off to the left of that photo and that is why there is very sporadic housing at that end of the village location. Councillor Marks stated that there are other properties in the area which are located on the roadside and, therefore, regardless as to whether they are in the centre of the village or on the outskirts most Fenland villages have sporadically built properties as you go in and go out of the village. Mr Humphris agreed, however, in this case, he feels the dwellings are sporadic and there are not 6 houses in a linear development. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that on the entire length of Rectory Road there are 6 houses and the proposal is to add a further 6 houses in a very small plot almost doubling the number of houses on the road in a concentrated area and that is introducing a population and housing density which does not suit that end of the village. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that is down to interpretation. Mr Humphris stated that it is not interpretation it is a fact with regards to the number of houses and the size of the village and the location at the edge of the village which is all factual information.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked whether there is any historic evidence with regards to the site flooding in the field which Mr Pritchard made reference to? Mr Pritchard explained that when he walks down the field to the rear garden where he keeps geese and animals the ground is very soft under foot as you get close to the dyke due to the natural fall. He added that beside it in the field the photograph on the presentation screen shows the amount of water that just sits on top of the field and he explained that when he built his own house, the development had to stop due to the height of the water table which was high so the footings could not be dug. Mr Pritchard added that the level does rise very high in the winter and falls naturally into the dyke and disperses and currently the dyke is still half full and maintains water through a fair part of the year. Councillor Imafidon asked whether the water remains stagnant in the dyke and does not flow anywhere. Mr Pritchard explained that the water builds up.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked whether there are adequate properties for the young people who live in the village and she made reference to the number of houses for sale in the village questioning whether people stay in the village and are properties too expensive for people to stay in the village. Mr Humphris explained that he is also a father of two children and there are children in the village, with there being a nice playing field in the middle of the village. He added that there is a lack of school spaces so other people that his family knows who have children have had to send their children to school in Littleport as there are not enough spaces in Thomas Clarkson Secondary School which he believes is an issue. Mr Humphris added that Newton is a nice village and is a nice green and open place for children to grow up despite the fact that there are no amenities.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked whether the children as they grow choose to stay in the village. Mr Pritchard explained that he is the third generation in his parent house which was falling down and he rebuilt it. He added that because there is not really anything in the village for children to do he would have to transport them out of the village to various places to take part in activities. Mr Pritchard explained that there are no sports teams in the village and only a small playing field and he found life to be quite boring as he grew up. Mrs Humphris explained that with regards to families’ prospects in the village, Mr Pritchard is third generation as is the applicant but she is relatively new to the village and there is a really good mix of people who live there with new people moving in. She added that when considering whether people with families stay in the village consideration has to be given to employment and where people can find jobs which will determine whether they will be able to stay in the village.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if villages in Fenland do not expand then they could die and the way to get more services, in his opinion, is for development of houses and more footfall.

·         Mr Humphris stated that there used to be a school in the village, a post office and shop which all closed. He added that it is like a chicken and egg situation, if the village expanded significantly then maybe some of the amenities would open again, but, in his view, you cannot build to the scale and then expect those amenities to come. Mr Humphris added that when there is a designation of small village, the people who live in the village do not choose to do so because it is a suburb of Wisbech, they live in Newton because it is a rural green village and people who chose to live in Newton did that knowingly. He explained that there is already significant building in the village and Newton has exceeded its targets by 133% and there is already a great deal of building which is taking place on brownfield sites across the village and Newton is in a very healthy position having exceeded all the building targets. Mr Pritchard added that there are 18 properties currently for sale in the village and, therefore, there are properties available should people want to move in.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked for clarity on the number of dwellings available for sale. Mr Pritchard said the additional 9 dwellings are where planning has been approved recently on the High Road in Newton on the same field which are still to be built.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he finds this application difficult as the Parish Council has identified the site as part of the emerging plan for the area and it forms part of their future. He added that there were letters of support for the proposal as well as those in objection, however, the Parish Council appear to put quite significant weight into supporting the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she does have concerns with regards to the flooding and she also has concerns that the applicant has not contacted Mr Pritchard with regards to discharging into the shared dyke.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Clark, the applicant and Chris Walford and Peter Humphrey, the agents. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is in outline form for 6 dwellings, with the application being submitted in November 2023. He stated that the site is located within Flood Zone 1 and as a result of a drainage issue which was highlighted recently, Mr Sharman from the North Level IDB walked the dykes at the rear of the site to investigate what the issue was and it was noted that there was a blockage due to a load of potatoes having been dumped into the dyke and Mr Sharman stated that he would deal with the matter.

Mr Humphrey stated that the application site drains the other way to Mr Pritchard’s and a drainage strategy has confirmed that the site can be drained satisfactorily with no detriment to any adjoining landowners. He explained that the Parish Council support the application and although it is controversial, the Parish Councillors are the elected members and they have supported the application at both of their meetings on 21/3/23 and 20/09/24 particularly with the addition of a footpath to the frontage of Rectory Road so that people can almost walk the square without walking on the road.

Mr Humphrey added that the application predates BNG and, therefore, that does not need to be taken into consideration and the Highway, North Level IDB and LLFA find the application acceptable, with the archaeology team requesting an investigation. He expressed the view that he is disappointed to see the officer’s recommendation for refusal, particularly with regards to LP3 small villages, where the policy states that development will be considered on its merits.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that the merits of the proposal are enough to warrant support. He circulated an email to members of the committee which he had received in August 24 from a previous Planning Officer who had advised that the application was being written up with a recommendation for approval and the officer had asked him to agree pre-commencement conditions which he did and he never heard anything further until the committee report was published last week with a recommendation of refusal which he found most surprising and he asked the committee to consider the application under its original recommendation from officers, according to the email which he received which was for one of approval.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked why he has not chosen to circulate the email he received previously rather than wait to Planning Committee itself? Mr Humphrey stated that he did not see the need to do so.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Clarke to confirm how long he has actually owned the field? Mr Clarke confirmed that the field has been in the family’s ownership for 80 years or more, with the family having grown cut flowers. Councillor Marks asked Mr Clarke whether he has ever known there to be any flooding issues? Mr Clarke stated that the field is fairly well drained as he grows cut flowers on it.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and the issue of infill development making the point that the approved application for 9 dwellings on the High Road, in his opinion, was infill development. He explained that officers have advised him that the 6 dwellings on Rectory Road take up 100 metres and questioned how many metres the application on the High Road took up as infill development. Councillor Marks added that consideration needs to be given to the fact that on Rectory Road there is one property on either end. Mr Walford explained that to the best of his knowledge the other development on the High Road was 130 metres wide with the one on Rectory Road being closer to 100 metres. Councillor Marks made the point that the distance is shorter but in the opinion of officers it is not infill even though there is a property at either end which is the same scenario as the High Road. Mr Walford explained that both applications have a property at either end and, in his opinion, if one is infill the other is the same due to the fact that there is a house either end.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether anybody has contacted the other owner who shares the riparian dyke? Mr Clarke explained that he has not contacted them, but he added that he did contact the Drainage Board because he owns 30 feet of the dyke and he believed he only had to contact the Drainage Board. Councillor Mrs French made the point that with a riparian dyke it does belong to both parties and if one is going to undertake works then there should be an element of courtesy to advise the other owner. Mr Walford referred to the presentation screen and indicated that any water will flow away from Mr Pritchard’s land and towards the IDB network. Mr Clarke explained that it actually flows both ways.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the email that Mr Humphrey had circulated with regards to agents and applicants being misinformed with regards to their applications and she added that this has happened on a previous occasion and must not happen again.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that the application for the 9 dwellings on the High Road came before the committee on a couple of occasions and officers have added that in their view the new application is not infill development even through there is a property at either end which is the same as the approved application on the High Road which is longer. He stated that he cannot see how this application cannot be classed as infill, and it is not back land development. Councillor Marks stated that he can see nothing different and added that members are told that they need to be consistent in decision making. He stated that the majority of the Parish Council voted for the application to be approved, and he added that he will be looking to support the application.

·         Councillor Benney state that he agrees with Councillor Marks and added that members need to be consistent in their decision making. He added that villages die if they do not grow, and he explained that he visited the site and drove around the village where, in his view, there has been other building along Rectory Road as it is evident from the type and style of architecture. Councillor Benney made the point that Doddington is a prime example of what housing development can bring to a village as it was going to lose its shop but now has two. He added that development keeps schools alive and brings prosperity and services to an area and he can see nothing at all which is wrong with the application, and it is infill.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that Newton is a lovely peaceful village and she appreciates the concern in retaining that beauty and peacefulness but feels it is better to see a local man who wants to build a small number of houses rather than a larger developer who has no local knowledge. She added that she does understand the need to retain the sense of tranquillity in the village, but she does support the views of both Councillor Benney and Marks.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if somewhere has the right kind of development and the right kind of people then it brings an enhancement to an area. He added that he agrees with Councillor Sennitt Clough that you do not want to see the wrong kind of development on this site and, in his view, this is the right kind of development.

·         Councillor Marks stated that in Manea, the village is full of large applications and the application in Newton is a small application and members need to be consistent. He added as the committee have only recently approved development on the High Road, it would not be right to then refuse this application and say it is not infill.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the majority of the Newton Parish Councillors voted in favour of the application and whilst it is not a material consideration their views do need to be considered.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the application is in Flood Zone 1 and, in his view, villages do need to stay alive, and it is not impossible. He referred to the village of Coates where a small supermarket is being introduced because of development in the area and Planning Committee have seen small shops being passed by the committee previously and there is hope for the villages if they are let to go and breathe then they may get amenities which come along. Councillor Gerstner stated that he fully supports the views of the other members.

·         Councillor Connor stated that Turves is another prime example and has not grown in the last 20 years since the Red Barn Estate and is slowing dying as it has no shop or public house, meaning that people do need to travel. He added that villages do need to grow but with sympathetic development. Councillor Connor expressed the view that he does think that it is infill development with a house each side and he will look to approve the application.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority given to officers to apply reasonable conditions.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider that it falls under LP3 and feel that it is in the sign postage of Newton and it is not detrimental as it will add character and bring sustainability to the village

(All members declared that the applicant is the brother of Councillor Sam Clark, but they only know her as a fellow councillor and not socially, and would remain open minded)