Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Ward, an objector. Mr Ward expressed his surprise at seeing the documents on the screen as when the system is looked at it did not show Plot 14 on the layout plan on the western side of Green Park and it seems to have appeared again now so he is unsure whether Plot 14 is going ahead or not. He expressed the opinion that the applicant must think the Planning Committee is easily fooled as he provided committee with a street scene that purports to represent the west side of this site, however, they have deliberately missed something, plot 14, which is a 5-bedroomed house and if shown the committee could have objected to this situation based on overshadowing, lack of privacy and character.

Mr Ward expressed the view that the applicant has shown a total disregard of rules and regulations and doubt he will build the 5-bedroom house or otherwise it would not have been missing from the street scene. He referred to the committee requesting that a survey of the site was undertaken due to the scrapyard that was there and when looking at the contamination surveys, of which there were 6, none of them bring together an examination of the site but are generalised systems and reports from places such as the British Geological Survey and the examination reports only show bore holes were dug by the Highways department when they built the bypass, which was nowhere near the scrapyard.

Mr Ward questioned why there was not a soil examination and a proper report added to the application as it has not provided the committee with evidence that the site was examined. He made the point that the committee also wanted to know whether the road was to be adopted, which the applicant has not provided, giving a picture of what was provided previously.

Mr Ward stated that the applicant said he has owned the property since 2002 when in fact the previous owner Mars Construction did a judicial review in 2003 and he does not believe they would have paid for a judicial review of somebody else’s land. He expressed the opinion that the applicant has stated that he has 2 titles to the land, one of which is for the 3 metre wide dyke that ran behind all the bungalows but given this piece of land was originally unregistered the land application would have been applied for by just a statement of truth and he could not have disclosed on this piece of land that it was originally fenced off from his property and that it had been maintained by the residents for over 30 years, with several of the residents planting hedges and plants along the 3 metre strip and one has a permanent greenhouse there.

Mr Ward stated that on the map that has been provided the applicant has written that he is going to correct the boundaries but he does not have the computer skills to access the applicant’s claim title to the previously unregistered strip of land to the statement of truth to see what was said and given the limited time between the notifying of this meeting he could not get a solicitor to look at it and he hoped officers would be able to look it up and see what was actually said. He expressed the opinion that the applicant has stated that the previous judicial review on this site is irrelevant but the site is exactly the same, the number of properties is the same and the only thing different from that review is the developer.

Mr Ward stated that committee told the agent on 2 April what information was needed to be submitted for the committee to fully consider this application and, in his opinion, the applicant has not provided it and given that the application legally expired on 4 April he requests the committee reject the application. He referred to Councillor Mrs French asking the agent at the previous committee meeting why the previous application was cancelled in 2010 and was told the applicant was probably busy with other properties but, in his view, the application was cancelled for two reasons, one of the reasons being that there was no access to mains drainage but that situation has changed now since they have built the estate opposite, Lancaster Way, but they will be in the same situation as they are now, with there being three trucks out there already this year taking the drainage away from the lowest point. 

Mr Ward tried to refer in his second reason to the character of the applicant and what he termed as matters of fact. The Legal Officer warned Mr Ward that whatever he says at this meeting he is not protected by the laws of defamation and whatever is said about the character of the applicant has no bearing on this planning decision. Councillor Connor agreed that this was not relevant to decision making and he should not be detrimental to anyone.

Mr Ward continued that whilst the area is in Flood Zone 1 it is taking that massive amount of rain from three lanes of the bypass where the camber runs straight towards his buildings, which it is already doing with the development of Lancaster Way. He expressed the opinion that it is a ridiculous amount that is being expected under the Section 106, there are schools in Chatteris with not enough places and children are having to go to St Ives, there is a doctor’s surgery that cannot cope and these development cannot kept being built.

Members asked questions of Mr Ward as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon requested clarification about the flooding from the highway and why does he think it floods, is it to do with there being no drainage on the highway? Mr Ward responded that there is no maintained drainage anymore along the highway this side, the other side is by Nightlayers and when the bypass was built had the camber been put towards the Nightlayers drainage they would not have any problems. He continued that before the bypass was built it was just a field and there were no problems but since it has been built they have a battle every year, with water even getting inside their property and people have spent thousands trying to solve the problem but nothing seems to solve it because there is so much water.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked how far away he lived from the development? Mr Ward responded that the development is at the back of his property. Councillor Gerstner asked as far as the flooding of his and his neighbours properties does he ever take photographs or ring up Anglian Water to report as the more you report these things the more chances are that something will be done about it. Mr Ward responded that it has been reported dozens of times and he has letters from the Engineering department of Fenland District Council saying that it is not supported by Nightlayers, nobody has ever wanted to own it and everybody who has ever owned this piece of land have not wanted to know.

·         Councillor Marks asked if he lived on Green Park? Mr Ward responded that he does behind what would be plot 14. Councillor Marks questioned plot 14 being missing from plans as it is on the plan on screen now so asked when he believed it was not there? Mr Ward responded that he has a screen print that does not show plot 14 but it is there now.

·         Councillor Connor expressed his surprise at what was said in relation to contamination and that no bore holes were made as even in 2005 when that contamination report was made that is what they do, those bore holes are measured and taken away for sampling by a registered provider and a report is provided on what contamination there is, if any, and it would have to be dug up, taken to a reclamation place and virgin soil put back on the land. Mr Ward responded that it has been rumours that nobody would go on the site to undertake the sampling so a computer sweep has been relied on going through the geological surveys, DEFRA and everywhere else.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens made the point that members discussed this scheme at length at the last planning committee meeting and requested that he provide answers on queries about the road, refuse collection, boundary confirmation, the judicial review, contamination and the dwelling mix and scale. He stated that he has provided officers with a comprehensive update statement on 9 April and this was uploaded to the Council’s website on 15 April, which he is sure members would have read and the officer has highlighted the pertinent points in the update contained within the application report.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that he has clarified the issues raised within the road and the access for refuse vehicles discussing how they went through the process with Highways and the road has all been designed to adoptable standards even though it is not committed at this stage. He feels he has clarified the issue with the boundary and title ownership, obtaining the titles from the client and he has been told by the client that they own all the land and have served notices on some of the residents on Green Park because they have overstepped their boundary.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that he has clarified contamination concerns which he thinks one of the councillors raised and his client has spent over £100,000 on decontaminating the site in 2007 and there is a completion certificate to say the site is clean. He stated that he has also provided clarification on the scale and mix, with the indicative elevations being shown on the presentation screen which does show that the intention is to put bungalows on the Green Park boundary although this is not committed.

Mr Bevens stated that there was a specific drainage strategy undertaken for this site and the surface water has been dealt with, with there being no issues with the LLFA and Anglian Water and as a reserved matters scheme comes forward that will be looked at again specifically for the number of units on the site. He asked that committee follows the officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·         Councillor Connor referred to the proposed access road on the site and that they are thinking of making it up to adoptable standards, making the point that he does not want a repercussion of what has happened in other parts of Fenland and asked that comfort be given to him so that he does not have to propose a condition on this application. Mr Bevens responded that the scheme before committee has only committed the access and until a reserved matters application comes forward he cannot give the certainty about the adoptability of the road as the layout is indicative which has been designed with Highways to be to adoptable standards and if this is implemented then the developer would create it to adoptable standards. He continued that it has shared surface access and the coloured strips are raised tables to reduce the speed of the road, there are turning heads and tracking has been provided for refuse vehicles, which would indicate that it is to be to adoptable standards. Mr Bevens stated that when a reserved matters comes forward he is sure that it will be dealt with to an adoptable standard by the developer and will probably come before committee again to determine. Councillor Connor stated that he hopes he is on committee when that does get submitted as he will be pressing for a Section 38 Agreement to bring it to an adoptable standard.

·         Councillor Connor thanked Mr Bevens for working very hard to bring this back to the next committee and he feels the questions that he and other members had have been reasonably well addressed.

·         Councillor Imafidon acknowledged that this is outline application but asked about the drainage the objector referred to? Mr Bevens made the point that the objector is a resident of Green Park and they know the site better than he does, however, their drainage consultants worked with Anglian Water and have designed it so that there are no reasons to refuse it as this stage. He added that the reserved matters application that comes forward will determine the number of units on the site and he feels that it may be less than 20, but 20 is the maximum being proposed, which will alleviate those drainage concerns.

·         Councillor Connor stated he is disappointed that only £2,000 per house in contributions is being offered but acknowledged that there is little that can be done about this unless there is a voluntary contribution. Mr Bevens made the point that these are rules they are working within and thanked David Rowen for assisting him with getting the application back to committee so quickly.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the agent has done what has been asked of him.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that he met with residents regarding this site when he first became a councillor and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he attends Chatteris Town Council meetings but takes no part in planning)