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 Kate Wood, the agent. Ms Wood stated that the application is for 21 houses on this partly brownfield site immediately adjacent to the edge of the town of Chatteris. She continued that the proposed development will facilitate the removal and remediation of the noisy engineering company on the site, which will now be able to move to a larger and more modern facility elsewhere in Chatteris.

Ms Wood expressed the view that the main positive impact of the development will be the improvement of the road at West Street, all the way from where it starts to be an unmade track further up the street. She feels the road improvement will benefit neighbouring dwellings that are effectively accessing their properties off a track currently as well as providing a safer length of access for the many dog walkers using this route towards the pocket park which is further south.

Ms Wood reminded members that a similar application on this site was supported in principle by the committee in 2022 but at that time they had not resolved the upgrade of the byway through the Definitive Map Modification process with the Highway Authority and, therefore, the application was refused for that reason alone. She continued that since then they have worked through that process with the Public Rights of Way Team at the County Council and the byway has been formalised in its width through their processes and that has allowed them to reapply for this application.

Ms Wood made the point that the process resulted in the width of the byway being defined as wider than assumed at the northern end of the application site and this has required them to lose one dwelling from the scheme so that they could move the frontage dwellings back off the definitive right of way and while the access itself will be created as a normal estate road the hatched area shown on the presentation screen will fall into the front gardens of the first two properties and the Highway Authority requires them to provide highway markers through these gardens to make it clear which is highway and which is private land.

Ms Wood expressed the view that committee can be confident to approve the application in the knowledge that a proper access can be provided now and a further benefit of the application is that it provides public open space which will result, in her opinion, in a more attractive and pleasant walking route through the development itself as well as ecological enhancements. She referred to Paragraph 10.60 of the officer’s report where it mentions the timing of the application was such that BNG is not required, however, they did undertake a biodiversity assessment which concluded that there would be a net gain in area habitat of 28% and an absolute gain in linear habitat from the baseline of zero so, in her view, the scheme more than meets the 10% gain that is normally required.

Ms Wood stated that the proposed development will also result in much needed affordable housing providing further choice in the area for those seeking homes through affordable routes. She made the point that all other technical matters as has been said have been resolved, such as flood risk, drainage and residential amenity impacts and she hoped members would now be able to approve the application as per the recommendation.

Members asked questions of Ms Wood as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if there was going to be any play equipment on the public open space? Ms Wood responded that there would be no play equipment as it is not the size of a site that would require it. Councillor Mrs French made the point that there are 21 homes and will probably be 50-60 children so thinks they should reconsider.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to drainage board and asked who is going to maintain it after the development as it does say in the report that it is not considered to be sufficient through the agent technical response? Ms Wood responded that there is a drainage strategy that was submitted with the application which sets out how drainage will be managed on the site and any runoff into the IDB system has been assessed by the IDB. She continued there is a separate process for a discharge application to the IDB drain, which is the ultimate way that water will come off the site but there is attenuation and filtration in the drainage strategy which is that there is permeable paving in parking spaces and there is the attenuation basin within public open space which are ponds effectively and they collect all the surface water from the site, roads and roofs and then it filters out and is controlled in its exit from the site to greenfield runoff rates and that is when it goes into the IDB system clean. Councillor Mrs French stated that it does say in the report the receiving ditch may need improvements and asked if they were prepared to improve this ditch that is going to receive the water? Ms Wood responded that the IDB ditch is maintained by the IDB but if they want to discharge anything into this ditch, the IDB will ask them to pay for any extra work that is required to do that and they will have to pay.

·         Councillor Connor asked if a management company will be formed for the upkeep of the dwellings if approved? Ms Wood responded that the affordable dwellings will be managed by whichever housing association takes them on and the dwellings themselves are managed by the occupiers and then everyone pays into a management company which covers the upkeep of any private areas of road, the drainage system and the public open space.

·         Councillor Connor asked if the attenuation pond will be adopted? Ms Wood responded that she does not have an answer for this yet, sometimes Anglian Water will take on bits of it so they will take on, for example the flow control system that takes it out but she feels in this case because they are not using any Anglian Water drainage infrastructure they would not be interested, which is why there needs to be a separate management company that looks after this. She stated that this is a requirement of either a condition or the Section 106.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the roads, lampposts and paths, and asked if they will be brought up to adoptable standards or will they sign a Section 38 Agreement with the County Council so they will be adopted? Ms Wood responded that West Street itself will be upgraded to adoptable standards with footpaths to the correct widths and street lights and will be adopted. She continued that within the site the main spine road, which is quite short, is likely to be adopted and will be to adoptable standards and then there are private ways leading off them that would not be adopted. Ms Wood pointed out on the plan on the presentation screen where the private drive would be.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that developers on many applications have said they would get roads, paths and lights adopted but have not, only the binder course is applied and then they are left and he likes comfort and he would request, with the private road having 4 houses, and there being 17 houses in the remainder of the development, if developers are absolutely honest about their intentions, which he has no thoughts that this one is not, build the houses but 25% cannot be occupied until such time as the road is brought up to adoptable standard so that residents are not left with unfinished roads. He asked if she would agree with this? Ms Wood responded that she does agree and feels there is a fault in Condition 19, which she read out, and feels it should say the road should be finished to finish level within 3 months of the final occupation or similar as there is no trigger point for finishing the road off, which is a problem she has found over the years and Condition 19 might need amending before it is issued. Councillor Connor stated that could be looked at but made the point that despite all the good intentions he wants some comfort so problems can be alleviated for residents going forward. Ms Wood responded that it is the intention to have the roads adopted, it is easy to do so as the responsibility goes to the County and it means that not such a high management fee is charged through the management company to residents. Councillor Connor asked that if this application is approved she is happy for this to be applied as a condition? Ms Wood responded that she feels it is already in the conditions. Councillor Connor stated the 25% is not. Ms Wood expressed the opinion that it is not physically possible because Section 38 agreement takes years. Councillor Connor made the point that County Council or Fenland District Council cannot force a developer to enter into a Section 38 Agreement and this would give him comfort that actually what they say they are going to do will be undertaken. Ms Wood expressed the view that what she thinks members might want is the road to be to a good standard when people move in and for it to be maintained thereafter. Councillor Connor stated that is the least he wants, he does not want a binder course and iron works protruding from the binder course for x amount of years and feels it will inspire the developer if there are 4 houses that cannot be occupied to get it done quickly and requested a yes or no answer. Ms Wood responded in the affirmative and referred to Condition 18. Councillor Connor agreed it goes someway to achieving what he wants but the agent is not saying this is fine. Ms Wood stated that she is saying it is fine but what she is concerned about is promising something that cannot be delivered by the County Council as the Highway Authority. Councillor Connor stated that this concerns him also and he does not like making promises to residents but the condition that he outlined would alleviate any problem, the applicant would be getting their development and committee would be getting the roads resolved which residents would want. Ms Wood agreed but stated that Condition 18 about street maintenance does have the arrangements in there for management which they have to agree and one of those points in that arrangement could be amended to add a timescale so there is a timescale in there that could be agreed as she thinks officers would want to agree this also with the Highway Authority as they may be committing the Highway Authority to something that they cannot deliver. She stated that she does not want to promise something that cannot be achieved but if there is a condition there is something agreed about the timescales and the way it is going to be maintained and, in her view, she thinks should give committee comfort. Ms Wood referred to Condition 21, which she read out, and believes this issue is all controlled by conditions.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he fully understands where Councillor Connor is going about the road surface and it is requested on many applications. He referred to the previous application and that plot 1 near 88 West Street was going to be a bungalow when it was resubmitted but it is still a house because there is overlooking, with No.88 having a conservatory and this house is going to look over into somebody’s conservatory, which is not what committee asked for and what committee asked for has not been undertaken. Councillor Benney requested an explanation. Ms Wood responded that looking at the site plan the conservatory is on the end of No.88 and plot 1 has been set back from this so that it does not overlook the conservatory or face it in any way. She added that there are not any windows in the north elevation of plot 1 and feels that condition 3 could be expanded to include that no windows at all shall be provided in the north elevation of plot 1, which would cover any overlooking opportunity. Ms Wood stated that there was a different design for that house but because they have had to lose a plot to accommodate the changes to road alignment and not being able to provide any developments other than crossings, paths and accesses across the public right of way they had to move the house back and there was less space which was why a house was removed. She added that the previous application had a garage at that side and was stepping down but they have moved that property down and south from the boundary of No.88, which she hopes is acceptable. Councillor Benney made the point that it may have been moved but committee were told that this plot would be a bungalow and it has not been resubmitted as a bungalow. He feels that the agent is asking committee to take her word that the roads are going to be made up to adoptable standard and they have not undertaken what they said they would do when the previous application was refused so he is not inspired with a great amount of confidence. He referred to Ellingham Gardens in Chatteris which is exactly what the committee do not want and is another unmade road and he feels the agent has not listened to what the committee previously said. Ms Wood apologised and stated they have worked closely with the architect and on the previous application they did not have the width of the road set and because of that they were not able to provide what they wanted to provide on the site, they have lost a whole property from the scheme which has had an huge impact and things have changed significantly since the previous application. She added that it is not financially possible to put a bungalow on that site and there is no objection from the neighbour, with officers assessing the impact on the neighbour and decided it is acceptable, if they had come back and said it was not acceptable unless it was a bungalow on this plot then they would have obviously changed it. Ms Wood made the point that this is an expensive scheme now, with the road improvements to West Street and a bungalow takes up a huge space geographically on the ground so to do that they would end up with a cramped development or losing another unit and it needs to be a property that people are going to buy to make the scheme work. She expressed the opinion, in relation to road adoption, there are very strongly worded conditions which make sure that the road will be properly provided, made up to proper standard and thereafter maintained. Councillor Benney stated the fact that a plot has been lost viability is not a consideration for this committee as is if the land deal is not undertaken properly that is not a consideration. He reiterated that a bungalow was asked for on this plot and it has not been delivered. Councillor Benney made the point that every week other agents readily agree to what the Chairman has proposed regarding occupancy before the final course goes on the road but there seems to be some resistance against that which he fails to understand. He agrees that there are no objections in the report but a bungalow was requested and there were assurances that this would be undertaken and it has not been delivered, and he is hesitant about whether the top course will be put on the road. Ms Wood responded that she feels the conditions are sufficient and she would just want the officers to liaise with Highway Authority before putting that condition on but if it is something that has occurred elsewhere she would accept it. She stated that she has no problem as a planning agent saying they will make the road up to adoptable standard throughout prior to the occupation of 25% of the houses as it would probably happen anyway but she is just wondering if it is legal in meeting the planning tests. Councillor Benney thanked Ms Wood and feels the answer has been forthcoming that was requested earlier.

·         Councillor Connor stated that this course of action has been undertaken on about 8-10 occasions as unfinished roads are not wanted and each time agents/applicants have agreed to it, with there being no challenge to it yet.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French requested that officers’ answers some of the questions that were raised by members. David Rowen referred to the issue of the bungalow and as set out in the officer’s report and in the presentation, the previous application was refused purely on the issue of the unknown width of the byway and the delivery of the road improvements. He added that there was a recommended reason for refusal relating to the relationship between the plot closest to No.88 which was ultimately not included within the refusal, with that relationship in the northeastern corner having been assessed and deemed to be an improvement on the previous application. David Rowen stated that whether members were under the impression that a bungalow was going to be delivered there or the agent indicated this is irrelevant given that the application in front of members has been assessed as being appropriate and committee need to assess whether it is an acceptable relationship or not and given that the previous reason for refusal regarding that relationship was not carried through onto that decision it would be difficult to say that an improved relationship is now unacceptable.

·         David Rowen referred to the condition regarding the road surface and he feels there may be some talking at cross purposes between members and the agent as he thinks members are looking for a condition that requires the road to be to adoptable standards rather than actually adopted and the Chairman is correct in that has been used in other situations where there has been a requirement for x number of dwellings to not be occupied until the road is made up to adoptable standard. He feels the difficulty on this proposal is that there is about 20% of the development served from a private driveway and there is the issue of West Street needing to be upgraded to an adoptable standard in any event which would serve several other dwellings so he feels that to put a blanket condition on of 75% of the dwellings can be occupied prior to the roads being made to adoptable standard then nothing beyond that until adoptable standard would be difficult in this particular instance. David Rowen stated that, however, if members want that form of condition to be included, the conditions that are set out in the recommendation are draft and delegation could be sought for the Head of Planning to finalise those. Councillor Connor stated that he would like that condition included, which would give him, future residents and the committee comfort.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the presentation mentioning that the majority of the built form is in Flood Zone 1 and asked what percentage of the built form is in Flood Zones 2 and 3? David Rowen responded that he could not put a figure on it, however, none of the actual dwellings are within Flood Zones 2 or 3, with these zones being on the plan on the western side of the site and do include some car parking spaces and ends of the turning heads on the access roads.

·         Councillor Benney referred to a percentage of houses not being occupied but it has also been undertaken with a number, such as the last 3 houses cannot be occupied until the road has been made up to adoptable standard so can this not apply here for the last 3 market housing. He made the point that he does not want to see West Street left where this road is not made up all the way down and there is a considerable amount of money to be spent on this which is worked within the scheme. Councillor Benney made the point that Ellingham Gardens was worked up and was a viable scheme but the developer refused to make the roads up and he does not want to see the opportunity missed for a long stretch of West Street to be brought up to adoptable standard, although it does not have to be adopted. He stated that he would like comfort on this to know that this is going to happen and if it is not undertaken as a percentage of houses which is awkward when there is a mix of housing but on the last three market housing cannot be occupied until the top course has been applied.

·         Councillor Connor suggested that the last three market housing be used as proposed by Councillor Benney and asked that it be added. David Rowen drew members attention to Condition 21 and read out the wording which he fully anticipates that this condition would include as part of that timetable an actual schedule for when the final level of tarmac will be laid relative to the delivery of the wider development so the mechanism that Councillor Benney is referencing is already included within this condition.

·         Councillor Connor requested the 3 still be added for extra comfort. Councillor Benney stated that if it is already covered there should not be any problem with adding a second condition and as much as 98% of all developments go ahead smoothly and work, councillors get left with bits that go wrong and that is what is trying to be prevented here as it is known that developers walk away and save thousands of pounds by not undertaking this. David Rowen responded that as he indicated earlier if the committees desire to see that form of condition imposed then that is something that officers can try to take forward. He stated that his concern would be that potentially putting the kind of triggers that is being talked about may be less stringent than the scheme that would be brought forward as required through Condition 21 so there could potentially be two conditions that are slightly working against each other.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if committee is being told that the condition already in the recommendation covers this and what that they are trying to stop then he feels it is acceptable as it does not want to be in conflict which could cause further trouble later on. David Rowen responded that he anticipates the scheme submitted as part of Condition 21 would set out at various stages of the delivery of the development what highway improvement works would be carried out and that would include a commitment to when the final level of surfacing would be applied to the road. Councillor Benney asked if this condition would be agreed before the decision notice is issued and if it is, could himself or whoever proposes or seconds this application and the Chairman take a look at it to make sure they are happy with it. David Rowen responded that this is not how a condition works, the condition is including within the planning permission so the planning permission would be issued and then there would need to be those details submitted through a separate discharge of condition application at whatever stage that this is brought forward within the three-year life of the permission. He added that if members are wanting to see that information submitted before a decision Is made then they are effectively wanting to defer the decision to allow that information to be submitted, which he feels is not in anybody’s interest. David Rowen expressed the view that Condition 21 as proposed would deliver the necessary information that the committee is trying to seek. Councillor Connor stated that members would like to think so but with the 3 that is a good backup and it may be that if everything goes smoothly there is nothing to worry about. In his view, he would still like to see the 3 put in the condition. David Rowen provided a scenario in that members are wanting a condition requiring 18 dwellings to be delivered prior to the road needing to be made up to adoptable standard, as part of Condition 21 it could end up with a potential scenario where the developer says “I want to deliver the road to adoptable standard before the occupation of say 50%”, which is a better situation under condition 21 which is being declined because it conflicts with the additional condition so there are two conditions which are in conflict with one another. Councillor Connor stated that on the other side he referred to an estate in Wimblington where they were going to put conditions on the roads and paths had to be installed before 50% occupation and 3-4 years after the path has still not been installed and road not finished so it does not necessarily mean that as you have an occupation that the developer is going to comply with it.

·         Councillor Mrs French suggested that committee moves on, she feels that officers have answered the questions and the conditions should be left to the officers to resolve.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has listened to what David Rowen has said and because a big part of the development is on a private road he does see what he means and in this case he thinks a Section 38 is a better condition that applying a number to it so long as West Street is made up which is covered in Section 38 he is happy with this.

·         Councillor Meekins referred to no mention about the number of objections and the objection from the Town Council, with there being a significant number who do not want this proposal to go ahead. He feels there seems to be a lot of ifs, buts and maybes and the officer did say it could be deferred until these issues were resolved.

·         Councillor Benney stated that it is all very well having 11 individual objections and a petition with 167 signatures and it is in his ward but it comes down to policy and planning applications are not about popularity, with this application being refused previously on the access and the only thing that committee can approve or refuse it on is the access and, in his view, it is now right. He made the point that issues cannot be brought up that were not previously included and there is no other reason to refuse this application and if deferred what would it be deferred for and if it is refused it could go to appeal which could be overturned and people’s Council Tax will increase to pay for that bad decision. Councillor Benney stated that whilst he is disappointed with some aspects of the proposal there is no reason to refuse it and not liking something is not a reason to refuse an application, with this proposal being policy compliant.

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

(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)