Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Ruth Hufton of Doddington Parish Council. Councillor Hufton stated that Doddington Parish Council objects to the application as Doddington was designated a growth village in the current Local Plan and in addition to the 127 homes, the 15% growth required, a further 196 have already been built and they have confirmation from FDC that no further housing would be required under that plan. She made the point that there are no affordable homes scheduled and 106 monies will not be allocated to be used in the village, with it likely to be used elsewhere in Fenland.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the developer speaks of this development being perfect for the elderly, but, in her view, to access the High Street from the south of the new development will mean a 1500 metre walk through the new site into Juniper Close onto Wood Street before joining High Street, with there being no access directly onto High Street. She feels that this means that more car journeys will be made leading to additional congestion through the pinch point at the top of Wood Street that opens onto a Puffin crossing taking children to and from the village school.

 

Councillor Hufton expressed the opinion that construction traffic will cause noise, dirt and congestion on the High Street through phase one of Juniper Close and onto Wood Street, which is narrow making it difficult for two HGVs to pass each other. She understands that the plan changes at 9 Sutton Way to extend the garden and provide a walkway into the site has not been discussed with or agreed by the resident.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that residents of 9 The Larches have serious concerns about the impact of this development on their home, with their main living spaces sitting directly on the eastern boundary next to plot 7’s proposed 5.2 metre high garage. She expressed the view that this structure will be overbearing and cause significant overshadowing particularly in the garden room, which is used daily as a home office and this room is not shown on the plans so the loss of light has not been properly assessed, with their home already suffering from poor natural light and the addition of a pond area and 90 metres of dense shrubbery, which could reach 3.3 to 6 metres in height will worsen this further and force greater reliance on artificial lighting.

 

Councillor Hufton expressed the opinion that due to the difference in land levels, the public pond will overlook their home and garden, severely reducing privacy, whilst also exposing the public space to views from The Larches. She feels the risk of stagnant water and health impacts so close to a kitchen, diner and patio has not been addressed, with these serious impacts on residential amenities having not been properly considered.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the Grade II Listed Windmill Tower is the only remaining artifact from that period of the village’s history and is, in her view, an important part of the heritage of Doddington. She feels the buffer between the tower and the proposed bungalows now contains an attenuation pond, which when it is dug may cause damage to the foundations of the building.

 

Councillor Hufton expressed the opinion that when the first phase of Juniper Close was built, the fenestration in the Windmill Tower was compromised with all the glass falling out and she felt that piling had taken place on the site which was categorically denied by Reason Homes but she has since acquired an e-mail from the Senior Planning Obligations Manager dated 22 June 2022 which states “in addition to the appraisals that have been submitted I have also received evidence of piling costs confirmation of the assumed cost for plot specification….” which confirms her suspicion that the damage was caused by piling and that Reason Homes blatantly lied to herself and her partner. She, therefore, feels that piling in this new phase could cause irreparable damage to the foundations of the tower.

 

Councillor Hufton stated that the roadway in the first phase was not completed and reassurance is needed that this will happen if and when this second phase is completed, questioning whether it will be adopted or managed by a residents committee. She made the point that Anglian Water are concerned that surface water issues have not been addressed properly and could propose a risk of flooding and pollution, with the site having been flooded for two years to a depth of 6 to 8 inches when rainfall has been heavy, which is something that is expected to be the norm in the coming months and years.

 

Councillor Hufton expressed the view that the site is already teeming with wildlife with a plethora of mammals, rare birds and myriad insects and plant life and questioned how the developer will mitigate for that loss but not by building a wildlife pond and the plans also contain no information as to who will maintain that. She added that the same problems still remain as were present when this site was put forward for development in the past, with the school being at capacity, the doctor’s surgery being full and the sewerage system has not been fit for purpose for many years and despite remedial works that have taken place at Coneywood it is still not functioning without constant problems.

 

Councillor Hufton expressed the opinion that add to that poor public transport, parking problems throughout the village but especially on High Street and Wood Street and this development makes no sense.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Hufton as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if there is any proposal to maintain the Windmill Tower? Councillor Hufton stated that it is privately owned and is nothing to do with Doddington Parish Council so it is not known but it is weatherproof.

·         Councillor Connor asked if and when where Councillor Hufton lives gets brought by some other person it is possible for that person with money being able to put that Windmill right? Councillor Hufton confirmed this to be the case.

·         Councillor Connor asked Councillor Hufton if it is her belief that the piling for the foundations or that the attenuation pond digging will put an end to the Windmill or make it non-viable? Councillor Hufton agreed, she is not capable of saying anything engineering wise but she has no idea what the footings are like on the Windmill or how deep they are. She expressed the opinion that not only did the piling take the windows out of the Windmill when it was undertaken on the first phase of Juniper Close but they have had problems in the house with noise and a bit of cracking.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Anthony Gowing, an objector. Mr Gowing stated that his concerns relate to sustainability and future management of the estate with open questions. He questioned what adoption processes does the developer intend to agree for the road in order to maintain it for the future, will it be a signed Section 38 Agreement which is a binding contract with a bond security or will it be a Section 37 Agreement, like the existing Juniper Close, with there being no guarantee under Section 37 that adoption will happen apart from the developer’s word.

 

Mr Gowing referred to SUDs and questioned whether the developer intends to engage with Anglian Water from the outset to determine the design and maintenance of it as Anglian Water has said they are unable to provide comments on the sustainability of the surface water management in the plan, however, in this application, MTC Engineering say they have used the Anglian Water SUDs adoption process for maintenance, but refer to there being no SUDs approval body in the UK so if adoption does not take place, it leaves the SUDs unmaintained except by the developer until handover. He expressed the opinion that there seems no mechanism to provide maintenance services in perpetuity much like the 2020 existing SUDs in Juniper Close which is overgrown with vegetation, therefore, what mitigations will be in place to ensure the SUDs and pond are maintained from day one of the construction.

 

Mr Gowing stated that MTC also say that detailed design of the surface water drainage system will only take place once planning permission has been granted but Anglian Water say that the developer should note that the site drainage details submitted have not been approved for the purposes of adoption and if he wishes to have the sewers included in a sewer adoption agreement under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act to contact them. He questioned whether there is a risk that the costs when problems might occur to unadopted drainage fall to the homeowners to be shared amongst them?

 

Mr Gowing queried whether the developer intends to form a management company for maintenance of the estate or will they sign the necessary declarations for adoption of everything discussed in collaboration with the relevant authorities? He expressed the view that otherwise they are in the risk category of an unfinished estate and this plan in its present form to him produces a vision most people would love, but he finds the detail ambiguous to satisfy him that he will be seeing a finished adopted estate in the next 3 years or so.

 

Mr Gowing stated that he lives on Juniper Close, he moved there in 2020 and he has not seen the road finished and the developer has assured him that once this construction is finished he will finish the road, but all he has is his word. He made the point that he has had constant communication with the developer and he is not satisfied with the answers that he has been given over 5 years.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Gowing as follows:

·         Councillor Connor assured Mr Gowing that he will be asking the agent the questions that he has asked.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the information that members had and made the point that Anglian Water have no objections so it is interesting to hear what he has just said. Mr Gowing responded that he read forensically all the paperwork on the portal regarding Anglian Water’s correspondence and there is a hands off approach but the developer can communicate with them as the SUDs and the pond will not be adopted and they also have not discussed with them about the drainage, which means at the moment that the sewers will not be adopted either. He presumes this might happen later on, he did look at previous applications, the one in 2017 and could not find details of the 104 agreement but he did see the agreement about connecting the sewers up which had to take place anyway but he sees a conflict between the hydrology engineering company that Reason Homes have employed and the lack of communication with Anglian Water, with Anglian Water having their own conditions as to how SUDs should be designed, built and maintained and if the developer does not go through that route then they will not consider adoption of the SUDs. Mr Gowing stated that he has learned the SUDs that already exist in Juniper Close will never be adopted and it is completely overgrown because it has been unmaintained and the outlet is almost completely blocked. He expressed concern that this could end up an unmaintained estate just like the one he lives in, with the developer in the deeds on his estate in the TP1 stating that there will be no maintenance charges to residents so in that case if a management company is formed in the other part of the estate he can see all sorts of conflicts occurring if for example residents in existing estate are asked to sign a deed of variation so that they come in with the maintenance company for the upkeep of the estate. Mr Gowing stated that he wants the whole estate to be maintained, wanting the binder course top coat to be completed now and not as the developer says, which he uses the excuse of that because he is going to drive his vehicles down this road he is going to damage the road because he actually surfaced Wood Street with a top coat in order to build the existing Juniper Close anyway so he does not buy this argument. He added that he can understand it from an engineering point of view because it saves him money but he was expecting in 2023 to be living on an estate with a finished road and a maintained SUDs and his fear of what is going to happen is if this proposal goes ahead they are going to end up in a very risky situation where none of it is finished to adoptable standards and adopted by the relevant authorities because already the right actions have not taken place. Councillor Mrs French stated that between himself and Councillor Hufton a lot of questions have been asked and maybe the agent will be able to answer some of these questions during his opportunity to speak. She believes under the Drainage Act developers do have the Right to Connect to Anglian Water and they cannot refuse it and sitting on 10 Drainage Boards they have been trying to get the Right to Connect discontinued but Parliament will not do it. Mr Gowing responded that he knows they will connect but he is talking about adoption.  

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated that they have worked closely with the Planning Officer, Alan Davies, throughout the planning process and dealt with any issues proactively and this scheme follows a previously refused scheme for 16 dwellings in 2022 and 14 dwellings in 2024. He expressed the view that this scheme is significantly different to previous applications, not only is there over 35% less numbers but it also provides a greater public benefit for viewing the Grade II Listed Windmill.

 

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the application does not create any flooding issues and has been designed to accept surface water runoff from the adjacent development at The Larches, which have soakaways that do not work in clay soil hence the flood into this site. He made the point that Anglian Water raise no objection and there are no objections from Highways or ecology.

 

Mr Bevens stated that the proposed density equates to 9 dwellings to the hectare which is very low density and not overdevelopment. He feels the Conservation Officer clearly rates the setting of the Grade II Listed Windmill highly, but, in his view, it cannot be easily seen from any public vantage point, referring members to the presentation screen he stated that he has walked the public footpath around the site and there are very limited views of the former Windmill, it cannot be seen from the High Street which is the main thoroughfare through the village.

 

Mr Bevens added that he has walked the public footpath FP10 that exists from Benwick Road and runs north past the village hall, with the first three slides showing the views towards the former Windmill from various points along this route, with the position of the former Windmill highlighted as it is obscured by vegetation and the only current views are long distance ones. He referred to slide four showing the current view of the former Windmill from the application site and again, in his view, the Windmill is largely hidden by existing trees and vegetation which will remain unaffected by the proposal.

 

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the Conservation Officer has the chance for the public to see the former Windmill much clearer rather than trespassing on private land and should there be the possibility of the Windmill being converted or renovated in the future it is even more important that the public can see it. He stated that the applicant has suggested they are happy to pay for signage to allow the public to reach the new area of public open space on the site, which has seating proposed, allowing much better views of the Windmill as well as improving the setting of the Listed Building.

 

Mr Bevens referred to slide 5 showing the comparison between the current scheme of 9 dwellings and the previously refused 14 and feels that members can see that the layout has significantly improved the setting of the Listed Building by providing a greater green setting to the north and east with previous dwellings being removed from this area. He stated that slide 6 shows the area of public open space and attenuation pond is part of the application site and not just an area that has been left out of the application, with great attention to landscape detail and ecology having been made to provide the public with a useable space but also to provide seating that faces towards the former Windmill, with over 35% of the proposed site being green space.

 

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the slide also shows how the proposed development has been sympathetically inserted into the site with all single storey dwellings and how the setting of the Listed Building and Conservation Area have already been eroded by the two sheds directly next to the former Windmill and the erection of a bland detached house with integral garages built in the early 80s. He stated that his heritage consultant has tried to address the concerns raised by the Conservation Officer but the site does not lie within the Doddington Conservation Area, which is more focused on the High Street and Benwick Road and the curtilages associated with these properties, with the site being surrounded by suburban development and not visible or appreciated from any part of the Conservation Area and there are no views into or out of the Conservation Area across the site due to the tight building line along the High Street to the south and enclosure of the site by the existing development to the north.

 

Mr Bevens stated that the Conservation Officer notes that the Windmill is best appreciated from its immediate setting in close range where it can be appreciated in full view and these views will only be possible from the application site. He expressed the opinion that the proposal will provide the views that the Conservation Officer seeks close range, with a large area of public open space to allow the wider public to appreciate the Windmill.

 

Mr Bevens referred to the officer’s report noting that there is currently no mechanism proposed for the public open space to be secured for public use but the applicant will retain the area of public open space and continue to maintain it so there is guaranteed access to view the windmill in the future. He stated that the sensitivity of the application site and the Listed Windmill and the proposals will enable much better appreciation of a key building in Doddington without, in his view, detriment to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

Mr Bevens asked members to look at the benefits that this scheme can provide and largely supporting nature of the planning officer’s comments and go against the Conservation Officer’s recommendation. He expressed the view that the scheme is a sustainable development and according with the Development Plan as a whole they would ask members to support and approve it.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked who owns the trees that are obscuring the Windmill? Mr Bevens responded that the vast majority of the trees are outside the ownership of the site and are in adjoining land. He added that there is a hedgerow that runs around the boundary which is 50/50 ownership and then there is a couple of trees that are outside the application site.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that the last two speakers had quite a lot of questions and perhaps Mr Bevens may be able to answer some of their questions. Councillor Connor stated that he was happy to put some of these questions to Mr Bevens.

·         Councillor Connor asked if the application is successful will there be a management company looking after the 9 dwellings? Mr Bevens responded to his knowledge there will be no management company, with the areas of open space being controlled by Construct Reason.

·         Councillor Connor asked about the attenuation pond with Mr Gowing saying the attenuation pond on the first phase has not been taken over and, in his opinion, is in an awful state and when he visited he agrees it is not the best. He asked who will be managing the attenuation pond and will it be adopted? Mr Bevens responded that he has photographs of the current SUDs at Juniper Close from fairly recently and it is pretty well maintained, with there being a lot of dry weather and then a lot of wet weather. He stated that the attenuation basin will be maintained by Construct Reason because it is within that area of open space and if it is owned by Construct Reason then it will be offered as part of that public area and can guarantee more that the public can go into that area. Mr Bevens referred to the mention of piling and believes on the first phase the piling was undertaken by orbit pile and he is surprised to hear of windows coming out of the Windmill undertaken by orbit piling as if its flight driven the vibrations can be disruptive but orbit piling generally does not cause that sort of damage.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the road and his comments on the last application, what is going to happen to the road is it going to be adopted by a Section 38 Agreement or will it be as Mr Gowing said possibly by an Section 37 Agreement because 5 years ago with the same developer the road has not had anything undertaken to it at all apart from how it was left with the iron works showing which is wrong. He asked what is going to be the difference between the 28 houses where the road has not been brought up to adoptable standard and these 9 houses? Mr Bevens responded that his understanding is that the remainder of the road will be undertaken under a Section 37 Agreement for the remaining 9 plots, with the footpaths in Juniper Close already having been brought up to adoptable standard but the road has not and the reason for this is as discussed is that the County will not allow the roads to be finished until the development is finished. He continued that there has been several applications on this site over the last 3-4 years with the intention of extending the road further than it currently ends at the moment and whilst he has sympathy for the speaker that has been going on for the last 4-5 years in terms of applications. Mr Bevens stated that until this is decided and the road put in for the 9 dwellings then the whole roadway will be finished to adoptable standards. He does not believe there are raised iron works in the current Juniper Close, they are sitting at base level and they will be lifted to the correct level when the topcoat goes on. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that they are raised and the topcoat has not been put on, he accepts the explanation given but it gives him no comfort for these additional 9 dwellings. He feels that any future maintenance would fall on residents if there is no management company. Mr Bevens responded that Section 37 is also for adoption and it will all be offered for adoption, with the footpath already to adoptable standard.

·         Councillor Connor asked if the application was successful would they be prepared to build the dwellings but only 6 to be occupied before the road is made up to adoptable standard and they would sign an agreement for this? Mr Bevens responded that, as the previous speaker stated on the previous application, if there is a condition worded, because no conditions have been agreed currently, that gives the reassurance as he believes it is tricky to restrict it to three because the construction traffic is still going to need access and the County will not adopt the road until the development’s finished. Councillor Connor stated he is saying build the 9 properties if the application is successful but 3 are not to be occupied until the road was made up, which means there would be no more heavy traffic going through the development. Mr Bevens responded that on that basis he does not see a problem with keeping 3 back from occupation until such time as the road is made up to an agreed standard.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the Windmill, making the point it is a Grade II Listed Building and he was invited by Ms Hufton and her late partner to look at the damage attributed to the piling and she is absolutely correct. His own feelings are that if the attenuation pond is in the same place as it is proposed it could undermine the foundations of the Windmill. Councillor Connor stated that he does like old buildings and wants to preserve them for future generation and he does not feel comfortable with putting that Windmill into jeopardy. He continued if the 9 were piled it would cause irreparable damage to the Windmill. Mr Bevens responded that he understands where Ms Hufton is coming from and he cannot confirm or not whether that damage was caused by the piling but all he knows is that orbit piling generally does not cause that sort of damage whereas flight driven does but it was not flight driven. He acknowledged that the attenuation pond would have to be created sensitively and he agrees that a Grade II Listed Building should be kept and looked after, however, if a condition could be put together that asks for a schedule of works or something similar for the creation of the attenuation pond that could be judged by officers to ensure that there is a protocol in making sure there is no damage to the Grade II Listed Building. Mr Bevens stated that he does not see piling being used to create the attenuation pond but there will be heavy machinery involved.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the proposed pathway from the site, making the point that Mr Sutton owns the roadway from Wood Street into the site and whilst he notes that the footpath in the proposal is providing a shortcut into Wood Street and then into the village nobody has said anything to Mr Sutton and he will not agree to it anyway, which puts another obstacle in the way possibly. Mr Bevens agreed possibly but those discussions can take place post agreement of planning permission to ensure that whatever mechanisms are needed or reassurance can take place. He stated that extra garden is being given to Mr Sutton. Councillor Connor made the point that Councillor Hufton has spoken to Mr Sutton and he is adamant that none of this will happen, no one will be able to walk, cycle or enjoy this pathway and he does not believe he will change his mind.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Bevens to answer the questions with regard to Anglian Water? Mr Bevens responded that they have produced a drainage strategy by experts, MTC, and Anglian Water have not raised any objection to the scheme. He stated that in the conclusion in MTC’s report they have said that infiltration testing will be done once all planning approval is agreed and if the worse case scenario is that the current drainage strategy is based on zero infiltration taking place then surface water will be discharged to the adjacent drain along the northern boundary with discharge restricted to the rate of 2 litres a second during all events and the applications will be made to ensure this is all undertaken properly.

·         Councillor Benney asked how far away is the Windmill from the nearest build point on this development? Mr Bevens responded that the distance from the Windmill to the edge of Plot 1, the corner of it with no habitable window, is 31.6 metres and to an actual ground floor window it is 32½ metres.

·         Councillor Benney asked what Mr Bevens’ assessment was of the standard of the Windmill and is the building in fairly good structural state? Mr Bevens acknowledged that it is an expensive building to repair, he has only seen it from the application site and, in his view, it in an average condition. He would not say it is at risk but it does need somebody to spend money on it in order to bring it into use again but that would be costly to undertake.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what the reason was that the previous application was refused last time? Alan Davies responded that it was the same reason as for this application, which is the impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed Windmill. He referred to the plan on the presentation screen and the advice from the Conservation Officer is by developing this site, which is currently a field, it is slowly eroding the agricultural fields that surround the Windmill, which is impacting upon the character and significance of that setting. Alan Davies stated that the refusal reason for this application is heritage due the impact on the setting of a Grade II Listed Building and the reason for refusal is not the impact on the Windmill itself but the setting so the Conservation Officer has not raised concerns with the structural stability of the Windmill or how it will be affected by vibrations and piling.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the roads and drainage being mentioned but the only reason for refusal is the setting of a Listed Building and he does not see anything that is not seen every week in Planning Committee about the drainage, with members having concerns about drainage and the road surface and he agrees with the Chairman about holding 3 houses back in this case. He stated that there is nothing in the report that says there is a reason for refusal on any of the drainage or the road surface and asked if it is correct that these are not relevant planning matters? Alan Davies confirmed this to be correct, in terms of highway impact Highways have commented that they have got no objections to the scheme, with the layout, parking and car parking spaces for the dwellings considered to be acceptable. He continued in terms of drainage there are no objections from the LLFA, with drainage having been satisfactorily addressed.

 

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she cannot see anything to debate, members have asked the questions and received the answers.

·         Councillor Purser expressed concern about the access road, with construction traffic utilising it, the roads being narrow with people parking on the side of the roads and this having a detrimental impact on the neighbours. He added that he is also concerned about heavy vehicles damaging the drains underneath as well.

·         Councillor Connor referred to Councillor Meekins making a relevant point on the previous application saying that local members are probably not being taken notice of and the Parish Council, if this is approved, are not being taken notice of.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that the Windmill has been there for many years, probably built in the 1600s, and it is a shame to see it deteriorate. She can understand what Councillor Hufton has said, but she is concerned that if action is not taken it is going to end up falling down and then the developer can come back and get the planning application no problem. 

 

Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Meekins and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

 

(Councillor Connor declared that he knows Councillor Ruth Hufton being the District Councillor for Doddington and Wimblington but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)