Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council.  Councillor Johnson stated she is representing the Parish Council and local residents with strong objections to this application, fully supporting the officer’s recommendation of refusal and reiterating the reasons for this refusal. She added that there are local concerns to those raised by the LLFA and Anglian Water.

Councillor Johnson stated that during the process of developing the Wimblington and Stonea Neighbourhood Plan there were a number of times when the issue of flooding was raised by residents and Bridge Lane is prevalent to these problems, not just surface water flooding but foul water and sewage problems, which is prior to the proposed construction of these nine dwellings. She expressed the view that flooding concerns relating to the dwellings to be constructed has been referenced, but it is also about the homes within that vicinity, with 2B and 2C having had extreme cases of high-water levels on the land surrounding their homes.

Councillor Johnson stated that Lily Avenue, which abuts one of the far corners, has experienced foul water problems resulting in Anglian Water having to come out to pump the drains. She expressed the view that Doddington waste water facility has regular visits from tankers removing excessive foul that cannot be dealt with at the facility.

Councillor Johnson stated that this site sits adjacent to the popular public right of way, the Woodman’s Way, a promoted ramblers walk and part of the Meridian Walk, since part of the ditch at the access point from Bridge Lane was filled in the public right of way is also subjected to flooding. She expressed concern that the application includes the public right of way as part of the access road, which is a public road used by the public for leisure activities as well as a connection through to the village and its facilities.

Councillor Johnson stated that on the west side of the access there is a large telegraph pole which restricts the width of the proposed access, which will mean the edge of the road would be right alongside the bungalow on Bridge Lane. She feels sure that committee will have read through the objections raised by the local community that live in Bridge Lane and the village, the lane is exactly that, a single lane with no pedestrian path, which is a continuation of the Woodman’s Way, with the walk there for people to enjoy the views of the open countryside and the natural historic environment of the Fens, not to be penned in by the view of a high fence, excessive trees or the side of a two-storey building.

Councillor Johnson requested, for all the right reasons raised by local residents, the Parish Council and the Planning Officer, that the application once again be refused.

Members asked questions of Councillor Johnson as follows:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked if HGVs use this single-track lane? Councillor Johnson responded not anymore, a long time ago there used to be an HGV company, Clarks, but they were at the far end of Bridge Lane and did not come this far down, however, the refuse lorries do and that will create a problem because it is proposed to be a private road.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked when the last incident was of foul water and sewage flooding? Councillor Johnson responded that when the real heavy downpours occurred in around 2021 where people were having sewage coming up through their toilets and up through the drains in their gardens. Councillor Imafidon asked if Anglian Water had taken any action since then? Councillor Johnson responded not along Bridge Lane, they have attended Lily Avenue and they have been questioned about it and have said there is ongoing developments.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards reminded members that a similar application came before committee last year and they have acted upon the comments. He stated in relation to refusal reason 2, they have provided the ecology assessment and BNG calculations, which is fully achieved on site and has the approval of the Council’s ecologist.

Mr Edwards referred to refusal reason 3 and stated that negotiations have been entered into with Middle Level and a scheme has been agreed that they would be happy with, which makes improvements to the existing water course and provides more storage of surface water on site than is required for the development and should alleviate surface water flooding in the area and on the site. He expressed the view that as they are only looking for 9 dwellings this is a minor application that would not normally trigger a LLFA consultation so he was surprised to be asked for an extension of time to allow for this but agreed to it as they wanted to work proactively with the officers, however, they were not advised that the proposed response has been returned and found it posted online on 15 April so contacted officers to ask for an extension to allow them time to answer the questions only to be told that the Development Manager was minded not to agree an extension and advising them to withdraw the application.

Mr Edwards stated that he understands there is a need for applications to be determined as quick as possible but feels working together to overcome objections and finding solutions should, in his view, be taken into account. He advised they decided to go ahead with the application and liaised directly with the LLFA providing the revisions and additional information they required, with on 22 April receiving an email from them confirming they had no objections subject to a planning condition on the approval, which was forwarded to officers but they advised they would not be accepting the revisions so they have provided on screen the revised drawings as approved by the LLFA.

Mr Edwards referred to reason 1 of the earlier refusal and expressed the opinion that the officer’s report draws from an appeal decision and Inspector’s comments from an application which was in 2015 and the comments regarding the open and agricultural character of the area was somewhat different at that time to what it is now. He added that this is illustrated at 2.3 of the officer’s report that at time the area marked white had been approved but not the other sites indicated, the numbers approved in the immediate vicinity according to the report is 194 dwellings since that appeal decision and approximately two-thirds of the land around the site has either been approved or is being approved and most of these sites were open to the public realm view whereas this site can only be viewed from the public footpath, being used for the grazing of horses for many years and not food production.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is bounded mostly with established hedging which is not being touched, the boundary with the public footpath they are providing a post and rail fence and hedge to maintain the width required and he would be happy to have a condition tying the height of these so there is surveillance over the public footpath as at present there is none. He expressed the opinion that the site is part of the built form, which is seen on 2.3 of the officer’s report, which also shows to the east a recently constructed dwelling further back into the site and their site will provide alternative executive style dwellings for both self-build and smaller developers to purchase giving a diverse housing mix to the village and district as a whole.

Mr Edwards stated that refusal reason 2 has largely been covered with the lifting of the objection from the LLFA and the consultation with Middle Level, however, regarding the need for a sequential test due to surface water flooding, not only are they providing a positive solution to overcome this on site there has also been a recent appeal decision that if the site was found to provide wider sustainable benefits then planning permission could be granted despite the failure to comply with sequential test.

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards and Mr Love, the applicant, as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to photographs being shown of the flooding in Bridge Lane in 2020 and asked if there has been any more flooding down this road since this time? Mr Love responded that there was the worst flooding in history in 2020, but it did not flood and was drained into the substrate around the drain. He continued that they have included excavating part of the ditch in the revised scheme, which adds to the net biodiversity gain and they have 1,500 cubic yards extra in that attenuation pond. Mr Edwards added that the attenuation pond for the development requires it to be 347 metres cubed and they have provided an additional 1,500 metres cubed of storage on the site so it is four times bigger than it needs to be. Mr Love stated that not only is the site being drained but there is a net benefit to everyone surrounding it.

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the comments of the Parish Councillor with concerns about the public right of way and asked how they plan to address this? Mr Love responded that they have widened the public right of way, almost doubling it in size on the length of their field and he plans to put a post and rail fence along here that enables greater security and he will provide lighting so the public right of way can be used after dark. He continued that the right of way was provided so people could get access to the village.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked if the public right of way will include a pedestrian path and in relation to the foul water and sewage problems that occurred previously what has been undertaken to address that issue? Mr Love responded that prior to the last application he provided land drainage at the rear of the two bungalows and it has not flooded since, however, in this application they have met with all the LLFA requirements and surpassed them considerably, there will be less water leaving the site if is developed and they have alleviated the risk to the neighbours. He stated regarding the public footpath, they have widened it and will liaise with the Public Footpath Officer regarding the surface of it, he has lobbied for a surface. Mr Love expressed the opinion that lorries have used Bridge Lane and that is why he has some hard standing here but lorries have come in and out with no issues. Mr Edwards added that, regarding the sewage, they undertook a pre-app with Anglian Water who have said that they have capacity available.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to LLFA and the additional information submitted, which officers refused to accept and asked when it was submitted? Mr Love responded that it was on 17 April that it was refused by officers.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for clarification on whether the path is a public right of way. Councillor Connor responded that it is a public right of way.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the report stating that there is an Inspector’s report that looked at the openness of the area but the applicant/agent said that this goes back to 2015. He asked for officers to clarify when this Inspector’s report was? Danielle Brooke responded that the original application was in 2015 and it was dismissed at appeal in 2016, with there being a further refusal and appeal at around the same time, both of which suggested the openness of the character along Bridge Lane and particularly the land south of Bridge Lane which is part of this site. She added there has also been a recent refusal for the land immediately to the west and one of the reasons for refusal was again on the basis of character. Councillor Benney asked if there was an appeal on this decision? Danielle Brooke responded that this was a recent refusal, there may be one lodged but it has not come through yet.

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the map on screen showing planning applications surrounding the site and stated it looks built out already. Matthew Leigh made the point that not all those applications are approvals and there are some refusals also. David Rowen provided an explanation of each of the applications and made the point that this site and the site to the west, which was recently refused, are considered to form an open space and the last piece of open space along Bridge Lane and because of this it is quite important in providing relief from the dense built form elsewhere within Wimblington.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked why officers refused to accept the documents on 17 April? David Rowen responded that there were two potential reasons for refusal, one of which relates to character and in addition the flood risk reason for refusal did not relate to an actual detailed drainage strategy, it was the fact that no sequential test had been submitted as part of the application to assess the sequential acceptability of the site rather than the specifics of a drainage strategy. He added that the Flood Risk Assessment that has been submitted only deals with the fact that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and with matters of flood zone flooding and does not address, as the NPPF requires, all sources of flooding and the clear surface water flood risk that is evident on this site.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the application should be deferred to look at what the LLFA are saying and to get a sequential test submitted.

·         Councillor Connor agreed.

·         Councillor Benney agreed, he feels drainage is important but the appeals mentioned in the report are too long ago and the character of the whole area has changed since so if there is a deferment he would only like to see it on the drainage and sequential test. He expressed the view to defer it on all the reasons for refusal is unfair and if it is refused just for drainage, which does need to be resolved, that is the reason that it comes back to committee and if a good drainage scheme can be achieved it will help alleviate the problems.

·         David Rowen reminded members that an outline application for 9 dwellings on this site was refused in 2023 on the grounds of the character of the area, the in-depth nature of the development, which is essentially the same scheme in front of committee now. He continued that the character of Bridge Lane has not changed dramatically in the last 2 years and questioned what has changed since March 2023.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the building work and the 88 Reason Homes at the top had not started then and now they are underway they are part of the character so that is what changes it and the fact that other development has been allowed in the vicinity is good reason to only defer it on the drainage.

·         David Rowen stated that he believes the Bellway site had commenced in 2023 and even if it had not then there was a permission in place of 88 dwellings on that site so nothing has changed since then.

·         Matthew Leigh advised members that the Council’s decision for the adjoining site is also a material consideration and that is still so recent that the applicant could submit an appeal. He continued that whoever makes the decision there should be consistency and the adjoining sites decision and an application previously refused on this site would be significant material considerations in determination of this application.

·         Councillor Marks acknowledged what officers are saying but feels the area has changed dramatically and it has changed when you drive down Bridge Lane. He asked what was the reason for 0449 being refused? David Rowen stated from memory there was about 7 different reasons for refusal. Councillor Connor added that the application was proposed for refusal and was referred to him, he took a look at the site and did agree with officers and there were 7-8 reasons for refusal. Councillor Marks made the point that there is now just one issue on this site which is flooding so with a deferral it is hoped a resolution can come forward. David Rowen stated that the refusal reasons for the 44 dwellings on land west of 2A Bridge Lane, which was refused earlier this year, was surface water flood risk and the application failing to pass the sequential test, character and appearance of the area, failure to provide sufficient transport information and highway mitigation, failure to demonstrate a high quality layout, housing mix, no affordable housing provision, failure to provide open space and failure to provide a legal agreement. Councillor Marks made the point that a number of those reasons for refusal do not relate to this application so committee needs to take what it has in front of it today and not what there was on a next-door site refusal and whilst he agrees with consistency, the applications are not like for like. He expressed the view that it is the reality of flooding that is the only issue as he thinks the character of the area is changing and feels that a deferral should only be on the issue of flooding.

·         The Legal Officer stated that given that the refused application was just over a year ago it does engage the Code of Conduct guidance that if members wish to refuse or approve an application that has recently been refused as this has then the proposal should identify the reasons for the change in planning circumstances that justifies the approval. He added that if it is only being deferred today on the flooding/drainage issue then the proposer needs to give planning reasons why matters have changed since March 2024.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the first reason for refusal and she feels that 9 dwellings is not large scale and asked the Legal Officer to point out what part of the Code of Conduct he is referring to. The Legal Officer responded it is Paragraph 12 and read it out to members. Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is not being suggested that it is approved or refused but deferred. Matthew Leigh stated that Councillor Benney put forward the idea that the rest of the scheme would be accepted and it was only on flooding/drainage that it would be deferred so the Legal Officer’s guidance is in relation to Councillor Benney’s suggestion rather than the initial suggestion from Councillor Mrs French. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the Code of Conduct would only come in, if it is deferred, when it is brought back depending on what the outcome is then.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that the Legal Officer is saying that if it is only deferred for drainage, how is committee addressing the issues that were previous reasons for refusal and asked if this is correct. It was confirmed by officers to be correct. Councillor Benney asked for the reasons why the application on this site was refused previously? David Rowen responded that the application was refused in March 2024 on ecology, which has now fallen away, surface water flooding and that the proposal would result in large scale in-depth development in a rural area characterised mainly by frontage development and would erode an important visual gap and area of separation between this part of Bridge Lane and the main built form of Wimblington, with the proposal, therefore, being contrary to LP3, LP12 and LP16 of the adopted Local Plan.

·         Councillor Benney stated that for surface water there needs to be a drainage strategy and looking at the street scene, this application is more backland development than it is changing the street scene. He feels those reasons for refusal are not valid with this application  as it does not change the street scene.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney, the actual road frontage is minimal so how is this frontage development. David Rowen read out the reason for refusal again with this reason saying that this is backland development in an area characterised by frontage development.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he is uncomfortable, the committee has to be consistent and only less than a year ago an application was refused so he needs to be persuaded that the characteristics of this application has substantially changed since the previous application. He feels that members must be mindful that if the application is deferred on the grounds of flood risk or sequential test is the committee then giving the nod that when the application comes back to committee it will be acceptable and he feels the committee is putting itself at a big risk.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that if the committee defers the application and is looking solely for information on a single reason for refusal then yes it would be a risk but if members defer it for additional information, debate it and determine it fully when it comes back then there would be no risk.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the difference between now and when the application was refused in 2024 is that there are now all these houses surrounding the site, which she believes is a material consideration.

·         Matthew Leigh advised that the wording for this reason for refusal is the same as previously refused and the indicative plan is very similar as the previous application and he is unclear why members would not have thought there were going to be 88 houses coming forward at the other site when it was already approved and in construction. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that members were aware but did not realise the visual intrusion into that part of Wimblington and, in her view, 9 houses in Bridge Lane will not make any difference.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French, at the time when site visits were undertaken there were not 88 houses being built as they are now and it has changed the street scene and, in his view, it is making a difference and the only issue now is flooding. 

·         Matthew Leigh stated that in discussion with the Legal Officer, committee would not be able to agree certain parts of the application as members would be binding the next committee meeting so members need to defer an item on a specific issue, that issue is looked at and then an appendix report would be presented on this issue at a future meeting but the recommendation on the character of the area would still stand irrespective of what occurs with the sequential test, and at that stage members could consider if there had been changes in circumstances or there was not any harm.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to provide the applicant an opportunity to provide a sequential test and for the drainage to be considered by the consultees.