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 David Ward, an objector. Mr Ward stated that the applicant has submitted a proposal on land which is not in his ownership, explaining that there is a strip of land which contains a metre wide dyke running behind all of the bungalows in Green Park and this area was fenced off against the applicant’s property and has been the legal factual possession of the residents of Green Park for the last 50 years. He stated that the applicant’s company is aware that they do not own the strip of land and illegally removed all of the fencing that runs along their properties.

 

Mr Ward expressed the view that if the application is granted then the Council may find that developers submit planning applications on land which is not in their ownership. He explained that there was a Judicial Review on the parcel on land which took place in June 2003 where planning permission was refused for a similar sized development and the Inspector for the Secretary of State had at that time stated that the proposals were of a significant harm both to the character of the area and the amenity of the adjoining properties, with planning permission being refused due to the fact that there was no benefit stemming from the development which was sufficient to outweigh the harm.

 

Mr Ward added that drainage calculations provided by the applicant are incorrect and appear only to rely on the rainfall entering and using recognised greenfield rates and ignore the massive watershed which comes from the three lanes of the bypass which deposits water downhill into the site and at least doubles greenfield rates. He made the point that pooling will also occur due to the fact of the methods that the applicant is proposing to provide drainage with the roads being sited on top of clay and water does not dissolve in clay.

 

Mr Ward added that rear gardens are unusable every single year and to cope many residents have had to dig trenches along the side of their bungalows in order to prevent water from entering their properties and in significantly bad weather those steps have often proved to be insufficient.  He explained that a dyke which has been constructed on the Lancaster Way development has needed to be initiated in front of the houses since the development commenced due to the fact that the flooding was coming from New Road into the buildings.

 

Mr Ward expressed the view that the large 5 bedroomed house located behind his property will mean that his rear garden will be in shade for most of the day and he expressed the view that it will also impact his privacy, which he feels is unacceptable. He added that the orientation of the house means that the bungalows along the east side of Green Park will have all of their gardens overlooked removing any privacy that they have.

 

Mr Ward expressed the opinion that there are many valid reasons for not approving planning permission which are valid planning reasons including overshadowing a neighbour’s property which causes loss of light, overlooking other homes causing lack of privacy and the appearance being out of character with the existing properties. He added that there have been no houses or buildings built in the area which have been located behind bungalows as they have always been built before it.

 

Mr Ward made the point that the plans for the area are, in his view, over developed in accordance with the point made by the Secretary of State as it appears to be so similar to the previous proposal. He added that there is a negative effect on nature as two protected species are located on the site and there is a lack of need for the development as Chatteris has already reached its quota for buildings.

 

Mr Ward expressed the view the Cromwell Community College Sixth Form is already oversubscribed, meaning that some pupils are having to be transported to St Ives. He expressed the view that there is a detrimental impact to neighbour’s amenity by impacting the quality of life of the neighbourhood which has many older residents.

 

Mr Ward made the point that the size of the development is too large for the size of the area allocated for development and the gardens will be too small especially when considering the 3 metres which belongs to others. He stated that the negative effects of character and appearance of the area and other developments have not seen buildings built behind bungalows as there has always been a normal bungalow or spaces between.

 

Mr Ward stated that with regards to the property and the access, there is going to be at least an additional 50 vehicles given the proposed size of the development and the proximity to the Primary School and the new Lancaster Way development, means that there is likely to be a major risk of accidents to children or passers-by and there has already been an accident in front of Lancaster Road along New Road along with several accidents caused by exiting onto the bypass. He expressed the view that there is going to be significant noise coming from the development due to the fact that they are located in close proximity to his home due to the small size of the gardens which he feels are too small for the size of the proposed dwellings.

 

Mr Ward requested the committee does not grant the application for a couple of main reasons and if it can be proven that the application is not similar to the previous one which was refused then the Council could find that they are facing legal action as happened with a site in Whittlesey. He added that if the committee choose to grant planning permission then they will be knowingly allowing an application to be passed on land which is not owned and set a permanent precedent.

 

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for the date of the Judicial Review, which was confirmed as June 2003.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens thanked the Planning Officers for their proactive work in bringing the application before the committee and referred the committee to section 4 of the officers’ report, explaining that the same site was approved for 20 dwellings in 2004, ref F/YR03/0054/F, which included 18 four-bedroom houses and two five bedroomed houses. He stated that the application before the committee proposes a maximum of 20 dwellings and does not commit the scale or mix of dwellings, making the point that the site is in outline format and only the access has been committed.

 

Mr Bevens explained that he has worked closely with the County Council Highways Officers from commencement of the application to ensure a safe and coherent road format. He stated that biodiversity and ecology have been the biggest issue on the site, he has submitted detailed biodiversity net gain metrics and biodiversity reports for the site which demonstrate that the biodiversity obligations can be met and subsequent reports will be submitted at the reserved matters application stage when the definitive number of dwellings and mix will be proposed and the appropriate biodiversity measures taken to ensure that great crested newts and reptiles are protected.

 

Mr Bevens explained that he has addressed all the other relevant issues during the planning process and any subsequent reserved matters application will be brought forwards to the Council to review and make comments as necessary. He made the point that the site accords with the spatial strategy as set out in LP3 of the adopted Local Plan and the site is in a sustainable location.

 

Mr Bevens explained that there are no outstanding statutory consultee objections and the conditions suggested by the Planning Officer have been agreed. He added that he understands that a Section 106 Agreement will have to be completed which will be done, and he is happy to proceed on that basis.

 

Mr Bevens stated that given the officers recommendation is one of approval based upon the proposal amounting to sustainable development and that fact that it accords with the development plan, he asked the committee to approve the application.

 

Members asked Mr Bevens the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Bevens whether he had any knowledge of the Judicial Review? Mr Bevens responded that he was not aware, however, his client had provided him with a title drawing which demonstrates the extent of the boundary.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that, with regards to land ownership, is Mr Bevens sure that the applicant owns the whole site? Mr Bevens explained that the red line which forms the whole of the location plan is in accordance with the title plan which the applicant has provided to him.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the proposed dwellings are going to be bungalows or houses? Mr Bevens explained that his preference would be for the properties to be bungalows, however, the application is only in outline format and when it goes to market then the application would be to go for bungalows on the site.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the number of dwellings is likely to be more that the 20 proposed? Mr Bevens stated that given the conversations with biodiversity and ecology then he feels that there are likely to be less dwellings on the site with a more appropriate number being 15 homes. He added that from conversations he has had it is setting a maximum number in order to provide more green space on the site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that when reviewing the site history, it went for review in 2003 and then approval in October 2004 as well as being brought back and then withdrawn in October 2018. He asked for an explanation with regards to the delay. Mr Bevens responded that the applicant has had other sites and other matters to deal with and has just left it. He added that the previous application, which was withdrawn, was for more housing on the site, however, he does not think that this will be the case with the current application. Mr Bevens expressed the view the site will come forward with more bungalows in the reserved matters application.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked Mr Bevens confirm that the time obligations for biodiversity can be met? Mr Bevens stated that the time frames can be met, and he is content with all of the conditions suggested by the officer and the Section 106 elements of it.

 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked why the Judicial Review is not mentioned in the officer’s report? David Rowen stated that he was not aware of the Judicial Review and the information he holds is that planning permission was granted for a full application with 20 dwellings in 2003. He explained that is 22 years ago, and the report in front of members today gives a full assessment of the application in relation to the current policies of the Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework and the application complies with those and on that basis the officer has made their recommendation. David Rowen added that whilst there is reference made within the report with regards to the site having had permission in the past, in his opinion, that is only a passing reference and there is no significant weight given to that due to the age of any previous decision on the site and the officers recommendation is on the basis of the assessment of the current planning policies.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a reduction from 25% to 20% for affordable housing and she does not find that acceptable. She added that with regards to the Section 106, which is for £40,000, only £6,168 is for education, and she questioned where the rest of the contributions are that the County Council have requested. David Rowen stated that the application was submitted in 2024 and, therefore, the Local Plan viability review which was undertaken by the Council in 2020/21 is still considered to be relevant and is a material consideration. He added that the affordable housing contribution and the financial contribution set out do accord with that and are consistent with the approach which has been taken with a number of other applications of this scale over the last few years.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that the detail surrounding viability needs to be reviewed again.

·         David Rowen stated that as of November 2024 and the publication of the new validation lists, the submission of an up-to-date site-specific viability assessment is something that is now required. He added due to the fact that this application predates that is why the approach that is being taken with this application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she understands the point that David Rowen has made but, in her view, somebody is going to have to pay towards services. She explained that there are contributions towards primary education of £145,496 requested, secondary education £126,265 and she questioned how those figures are going to be met as there is a shortage of school places. David Rowen stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French, and added that it is clear that £40,000 does not cover the requested contributions, which he stated is a fairly common situation in Fenland. He made the point that the committee will recall a number of applications where the fully requested contributions have not been met. David Rowen stated that the Council’s assessment has indicated what is a viable level of contribution and the application meets that. He added that members will also be aware that it is not necessarily grounds to refuse an application because there is not the delivery of the full range of financial contributions.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that when considering the contribution of £40,000, there is £332 towards a library which, in her view, is a ridiculously small amount along with the contribution for the ambulance service which is £740. She stated that if there is going to be 20 dwellings regardless of whether they are going to be houses or bungalows, somebody has to pay for this, and the current contributions, in her view, are not acceptable.

·         Councillor Marks questioned whether the roadway will be a private road and not adopted, and he also made reference to the refuse collection. David Rowen stated that the southern part of the access road is indicated to be of a shared surface which would not be adopted by the County Council. He added that dependent on the standard of the build and whether the Council’s Refuse Team were provided an indemnity to go down there could be the case or a private refuse collection may be used. David Rowen stated that condition 16 refers to a refuse collection strategy which should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority alongside the reserved matters and, therefore, it is addressed through the condition.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that should a road be adopted it would need to be made up to an adoptable standard and would also be governed by a 20mph speed restriction.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he knows the land very well, explaining that it used to be scrap metal yard and due to that fact the land will definitely be subject to contamination as the Environment Agency did not undertake any enforcement until the early 90’s. He stated that he would like assurances that there will be a detailed survey undertaken to ascertain the level of contamination in the land and the remedial action required. David Rowen stated that the Council’s Environmental Health Team have been consulted as part of the application, and they hold a detailed history of historic scrapyards and, therefore, should be aware of the site. He added that their comments are included in full within the officer’s report and they have requested a condition known as unsuspected contamination which is included as condition 23 in the schedule of conditions.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the road and questioned whether it is going to be adopted? David Rowen stated that from the submitted details, it appears that the upper half half would be built to an adoptable standard including the appropriate width with footways and it is the lower half which is unadopted and, therefore, there is a potential for a split in terms of that arrangement. He added that there is no obligation for a road to be adopted and whilst the upper half maybe to an adoptable standard it is not necessarily the case that it would actually be adopted by the County Council.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has untaken site visits and looked at developments similar to the one being determined and found some of the road surfaces to be in an awful condition. He asked that if the application is approved then could it be conditioned so that until the road is made up to an adoptable standard then the last dwelling remains unoccupied or unsold? David Rowen stated that there is a difference in this application due to the fact that the site is not 100% to be served off of an adoptable road as there are quite a number of the dwellings that appear to be served by a private roadway. He added that he is unsure whether the same wording would be applicable in this case or quite as reasonable. David Rowen added that if the committee are minded to want a condition to that effect then it is something that could be potentially delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chairman for appropriate wording to be formulated. Councillor Connor expressed the view that it would give him great comfort and he would hope that the committee would also be in agreement.

·         Councillor Marks stated that, with regards to the roadway, it would appear from the site plan that there is an element of block paving included, and he was of the view that block paving is not acceptable for road surfacing as an adoptable standard. David Rowen stated that part of the road that is indicated as being a shared surface would not be to an adoptable standard, and he referred to the presentation screen and indicated the section in golden colour which does not appear to be a road that would be adopted by the County Council.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen referred to the first section where there is only one house on the plan before the block paving is reached and then a tarmacked surface and questioned whether there is going to be a mixture of road surface types. David Rowen referred to the presentation screen and explained that there is an area of shared surface or different coloured surface within the grey road section. He added that that it could be an indicated traffic calming measure but the rest of the roadway down to the point of the turning head within the middle of the site does appear to be to an adoptable standard in terms of the road width and predominantly the use of a bounded material including footways.

·         David Rowen made the point that whether or not the road is adopted or not is not a material planning consideration and would be dealt with, in the view, of officers appropriately through the relevant conditions indicated.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether the refuse collection freighter is going to be able to access the unadopted road? He added that consideration needs to be given to the fact that there is a proposal for up to 20 dwellings there and on the indicative site plan there does not appear to be a great deal of room for pedestrians. David Rowen referred to the presentation screen and stated that there is a roadway which is 5 metres wide and typical for a width in an estate along with a 2-metre-wide pedestrian footway and is more than the required adoptable standard. He expressed the view that there is nothing to indicate that the site cannot be accessed adequately, and the Highway Authority have not raised any concerns in that respect.

·         Councillor Connor made comment with regards to Section 38 Agreements dealt with by the County Council and the County Council cannot insist that developers make roads up to adoptable standards, they can only advise them.

 

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she does not think that it is a good application as it appears to have too many details which are not confirmed along with other uncertainties. She added that there appears to be a dispute with land ownership, a Judicial Review which members have no details of, and an unknown factor of whether there are going to be bungalows or houses. Councillor Mrs French made the point that whilst that detail will be known at the reserved matters stage, the application is for up to 20 dwellings, but the agent has stated that it could be 15. She expressed the opinion that she is aware of a roadway in Christchurch which still is not finished even after 22 years which impacts 38 dwellings. Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not like the application, and she is not going to support it.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is also aware of an unadopted road with raised ironworks, which remains unadopted after 10 years which has an impact on the residents who live there and their vehicles. She added that as an elected member she represents residents, and she does not feel comfortable with a number of aspects which have been outlined regarding the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees and also has unadopted roads in Manea. He made the point that the application before the committee has a piece of land which has previously had planning permission granted and whilst there are concerns over the roadway and the number of houses, consideration needs to be given to the fact that technically there is still a piece of land which could have something built on it. Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is poor that there is not more information to accompany the application including number of dwellings and the roadway but if comfort can be provided that the roadway will be brought up to a standard, albeit not adoptable. He stated that the application is for houses which the site has already had, and he does not see how the committee can refuse the proposal when considering the officer’s opinion.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with Councillor Marks, and added that in 2004 the site had planning permission for 20 houses and was withdrawn in 2018. He expressed the view that he does not see how the application can be refused in its present form. Councillor Connor added that as far as the road is concerned, which is his biggest worry, if it could be stipulated that the last 2 houses cannot be occupied until such time as the road is either adopted or brought up to an adoptable standard then it would alleviate that concern. He stated that he does not feel content to refuse the application although he does appreciate the points made by Councillor Mrs French.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he does understand the points made by Councillor Connor, however, the number of properties is still not known for sure at the current time and he is actually considering whether it would be worth deferring the application so that there is a categoric number of dwellings in order that it can then be agreed how to proceed regarding occupation and the situation concerning the roadway. He referred to the indicative site plan and stated that he also has concerns with regards to the roadway as there appears to be an area of block paving after house number 1. Councillor Marks expressed the view that he is not content to see the application refused as there are some unknown elements but he would like to see the application deferred.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the application is in outline and the number of units and type of dwellings is still not known. He stated that the committee need to make a decision based on what is in front of them.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the application is in outline and applicants are allowed to submit applications in outline form with a certain level of unknown, including number of dwellings, lack of clarity on scale, mass in bulk and housing mix. He added that as decision makers the committee needs to be confident that an application can come forward and can be acceptable and, therefore, the two elements need to be balanced against each other. Matthew Leigh added that normally members are worried that there could be more dwellings rather than less which is often the issue and the agent has explained that it is relatively urban in appearance and elements such as biodiversity net gain and public open space needs to be taken into account. He expressed the view that he would not be content with regards to imposing a condition where it stated that it had to be adopted because there is not requirement for that to be but he understands the members concerns with regards to highways, access, vehicular movements within the site which is a completely relevant planning consideration. Matthew Leigh explained that if members have a strong feeling with this point then rather than looking at adopting where that maybe more appropriate for other schemes when taking into account the scale of this scheme and the fact that it is probably unlikely that it would be adoptable and the fact that the number of dwellings is not known is a concern, it would be possible to require a condition to require a hard standing and access details to be provided and for that to be provided prior to occupation of first dwelling. He explained in theory should permission be granted then they could deliver the dwellings at the front by getting approval under the hard standing and then that would mean that rather than having a cap on the number that could be completed and then still not having the roadway they would have to provide the roadway for each dwelling. Matthew Leigh explained that as this is a fairly small site there are no concerns with regards to interactions between different roadways where on a larger scheme it would not normally work. He expressed the view that there is a potential for a condition that could overcome the members concerns which he would suggest is delegated to officers.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the application was passed in outline form could it be brought back to the committee in detailed stage in order to address members concerns. David Rowen stated that it would depend on the scheme of delegation at the time of any reserved matters or full submission. He added that if the minutes stated that the committee requested that they wished to see any future detailed scheme on the site be considered by the committee that could be something that officers could ensure would happen.

·         Councillor Connor asked for clarity that officers are confirming that the detailed scheme would come back to the committee. David Rowen stated that if it is noted in the minutes that members have requested that a full or reserved matters application is brought before the committee then it would be something that the officers dealing with such an application would address such a request at that time.

·         Matthew Leigh added that it would be down to the authority of the Head of Planning to send any application to the committee, and he would hope that would be done.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that there are still a number of points which have not been addressed which includes the issue of contaminated land. She made the point that if the application were to be approved then the applicant does have three years and by that time the District and County Council will not exist.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the applicant has held on since 2004 and another three years will not make much difference, however, it will make a difference to some of the residents. He added that in three years they may come back for 25 or 30 dwellings, and he made the point that the application before the committee is recommended for approval by officers, however, he is not happy for the application to be approved due to the number of unknown factors. Councillor Marks stated that if the application is deferred with a number of questions for the agent to consider and then to come back to officers in a timely manner at that point the committee can then reconsider the application. He stated that, with regards to the roadway, whatever is put in place is, in his view, a good idea so that the applicant knows that is what they are up against unless they want to bring the roadway up to an adoptable standard. Councillor Marks reiterated that he feels that the application should be deferred.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the committee need to consider the application before them and access will be dealt with at the reserved matters stage, along with other factors that members appear to be concerned with.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Imafidon to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation, however, this was not supported by a majority vote.

 

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be DEFERRED in order to receive further information from the Agent.

 

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a Member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in Planning. He further declared that due to the fact that he attended a meeting with the residents in New Road, some years ago, he does not feel that he would be able to remain impartial with the knowledge that was given to him and, therefore, he did not take part in the discussion and voting thereon)

 

(Councillor Marks declared in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct of Planning Matters that he attends Chatteris Town Council meetings although he is not a member of the Town Council, but he leaves the room when planning matters are discussed)