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 Lorena Hodgson of Gorefield Parish Council. Councillor Hodgson explained that she is the Chairman of Gorefield Parish Council and she has lived in the village for 25 years whilst other councillors have lived there all their lives. She stated that the Parish Council support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as per the executive summary in relation to location, land and the number of dwellings.

Councillor Hodgson stated that the location is in the open countryside and Hassock Hill Drove is a 60mph road, with the site having been a horse field for at least the last 25 years since she has known it, with flooding in that end and there is always a big pool there. She stated that the site is located outside of the Council’s own Local Plan and is located in the highest flood level, with Anglian Water having commented on sewage and surface water and, in her view, it relates to the flood zone, and the water needs to go somewhere.

Councillor Hodgson referred to the issue of individual cess pits, which if you have got 14 houses means there will be a lot of tractors coming to collect a lot of sewage and the waste plants attributed to the houses are going to be small and will require regular emptying. She stated that the reason the application is before the committee is due to the letters of support and they refer to the proposal improving the street scene, infill, vitality, viability and the local economy, but at 9.4 of the report there is no previous improvement when that has been brought up in the past and those who are supporting the application are not supporting it with any planning consideration as referenced earlier.

Councillor Hodgson made the point that Gorefield is a small village in the Local Plan and the threshold has already been breached from 33 dwellings and now there are 85 already further into the village nearby with the five that are being built now which are already causing problems as they are large houses and access is already a problem as well as speeding cars. She explained that was approved last year and the Parish Council also objected to that application for the same reasons as today and they were disappointed with that decision last year because they have seen that the problems that they had objected to have now come true.

Councillor Hodgson made the point that the application is for nine dwellings but with the inclusion of the other five dwellings that will mean that there are 14 dwellings. She expressed the view that the sequential test should be district wide, but it is not and, in her view, that makes a difference as there are plenty of other places that can take development.

Councillor Hodgson added that she finds it interesting that the application amounts to 18 dwellings per hectare as locally it is 3.2 one side of the road and 8 to the other and density is part of the consideration for planning in principle applications. She stated that the Gorefield village sign was moved last year by one of the developers for the recent development, but it was right at the edge of the village with a factory opposite.

Councillor Hodgson highlighted that the view for people all coming out onto that road is a factor as the road is bouncy and visibility to the left will be difficult and using the crossroads will also be problematic. She made the point that the committee have refused other applications with less issues than this application has and she asked the committee to consider refusing the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site has been in the applicant's family for over 50 years, which also used to include 167 High Road, which was sold a while ago, and has not been used as agricultural land for over 20 years and he referred to the presentation screen and pointed out the site which he considers to be part of Gorefield. He referred to Policy LP12 of the Local Plan where there are properties all at the front that are not shown on the map that were approved and he referred to policy LP16d which refers to making a positive contribution to the area.

Mr Hall sated that the site to the south was given planning approval by the committee and works have commenced on those plots which have all been sold with one already being built out, with these properties being approved in 2023 in Flood Zone 3 and they have been sold as people want to live there. He explained that he has reviewed the highway comments with the applicant and they are fully aware that a speed survey would need to be undertaken for the site and they will engage with a highways consultant to consider a possible reduction in the speed limit.

Mr Hall made the point that it is an indicative arrangement which has been submitted, and the Planning Officer has referred to that in her presentation, and the layout does show members what might be allowed on this site if it is approved, with there being more than adequate access within the site for a bin lorry, parking, turning, a fire engine and to exit in a forward gear within the site. He stated that one of the reasons for refusal is overdevelopment and the indicative proposal he has submitted for nine dwellings clearly shows that all those properties would have much more than a third garden area, adequate parking and be a mixture of properties.

Mr Hall referred to an earlier application in Doddington where it was considered by officers to be inefficient use of land, but with this application it is over development and there was a time where the ratio was 30 dwellings per hectare, but this is obviously a lot a lot less. He referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the site in red, and pointed out that to the east, north and south there a number of properties right next to this site, directly to the south a site was approved in 2023, and all of the properties have been sold, making the point that it is up to the members to decide whether the proposal forms part of the built-up form of Gorefield.

Mr Hall added that to the west of Hassock Hill Road it is open Fen land, even to the south here there are factory buildings, and dwellings all continuous to the east. He explained that, during the application process, the applicant was proactive and he provided an email which was sent to officers from Jonathan Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of Diamond Learning Partnership Trust and read from this e-mail which stated “the heads have forwarded me your latest email and ask me to respond. You'll understand this is a tricky situation for us to work in. So, I think the planning application and any support for the school need to be separated. However, if it's helpful, I thought it might be sensible to point you towards the document below on the County Council's website that shows in the future we are likely to have a falling pupil role and therefore growth in the area would help ensure we can continue to provide the high quality education we want for the community. You can open the document etc. the building is in a poor state of repair through age, not neglect and some much-needed investment required.”

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen which showed a table of data taken from the County Council website and that information was provided by the applicant and it shows for 2024 to 2025 total school places are 100 for Gorefield Primary School then numbers decrease between 2029 to 2034 from 100 to 84, with in the small print it states that major changes in future house building will also impact intake and cohort changes. He stated that there is an opportunity here, where a development such as the proposal with a mixture of homes, could support this school.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that this is a planning in principle application for nine dwellings and if it is approved, they do not have to supply any section 106 contributions. She added that she has listened to the point made concerning the school and stated that she is unsure whether those figures provided would be correct. Councillor Mrs French added that the speed reduction is badly needed, and she asked whether the two houses at the top form part of the ownership of this site or is a separate applicant? Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and explained that the properties just below the red line to the south were owned by this applicant and he sold all those plots off. He added that he did formerly own those five plots and he has sold all of them off. Councillor Mrs French made the point that it appears it was the applicant’s whole site which then makes the number of dwellings 11 which would then make it subject to Section 106 contributions.

·       Councillor Benney questioned whether the applicant intends to provide anything to the school to help with the poor state of repair? Mr Hall explained that the applicant has spoken to the school and Jonathan Lewis, the Chief Executive Officer, has responded. He added that a speed reduction has been discussed and as Councillor Mrs French has stated that if the application is approved then it would be necessary to look at affordable housing and Section 106 contributions which he would be happy to go to the school and for an amount to be agreed with officers.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she was under the impression that the number of dwellings was 11 but Mr Hall has confirmed that it is 14 and, therefore, that means it is now subject to Section 106 and affordable housing contributions, and she asked officers for clarification. Matthew Leigh explained that, when considering planning in principle (PIP) applications and legislation, if it is seen that an applicant has intentionally split a site to avoid financial contributions the Council can either refuse or seek additional contributions. He added that as this is a PIP, additional contributions cannot be sought because there is no legal mechanism in which to do so. Matthew Leigh explained that that there is case law on this aspect which looks at matters such as ownership, whether it could be classed as one development or was it one planning unit, which is more complex and there is a requirement to actually look at this in a whole way and assess the planning balance. He expressed the opinion that if members are concerned about this, he would advise that the best thing the committee can do is to defer it on this one item and officers can bring back a supplementary report that explains the case law, which will give officers time to look into this point and provide members with some information.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the earlier application in Berryfield where there are 15 additional dwellings and not one penny towards any kind of affordable home or Section106. She expressed the view that it appears that there is a policy for one application and there is another policy for another one and the planning policies appear to be contradicting each other. Matthew Leigh stated that they are not contradicting each other, and the policy acknowledges when a scheme is not viable and it is evidenced and independently reviewed then the NPPF accepts that there may be times where contributions are not sought. He added that the Council are trying to work with statutory consultees to have a better understanding of the harm that has happened from this ongoing shortfall in contributions. Matthew Leigh added that Full Council has now agreed to move forward on a new Local Plan and as part of that officers will be looking to bring forward an IDP (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) and other aspects which will give officers a lot more information and will actually be infinitely more helpful for officers to advise members and come to recommendations on viability. He explained that when considering this application there is no viability in front of the committee because that has not been looked at.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there will be no new Local Plan until at least 2027/28 and it will not resolve the applications that are being submitted. Matthew Leigh stated that the IDP will help because that will give officers evidence and it is the evidence base which is needed. He added going forward as soon as any application is submitted it will mean that officers will be able to be a lot stricter because the evidence based on the new Local Plan is still material consideration.

·       Councillor Benney asked for confirmation as to whether a Section 106 Agreement can be undertaken in conjunction with a PIP and he was advised that you cannot. He added that if it came back in as a full application then if it was felt at that stage with the information provided, an assessment could be made as to whether there are any 106 contributions from that. He added that there is a live document within the Council that says that north of the A47 contributions do not need to be provided. Matthew Leigh stated that this document is no longer valid as this was an evidence base for the previous plan and the evidence basis for the new Local Plan is a material consideration, they are not policies but if a new housing needs assessment is undertaken and the evidence shows that there is a need for four bed houses or a need for one bed houses or whatever a new housing needs assessment would help the Council change the housing mix it was looking for. Matthew Leigh added that when considering infrastructure delivery, if information arises that shows that certain areas have a unbelievable shortfall in education or NHS and schemes in that area are not able to be self-sustaining in relation to contributions, it is much more likely that they will be refused because there is clear demonstrable harm whereas at the moment the IDP is relatively out of date itself.

·       Councillor Benney stated that with this application as a PIP, whether it has got five houses or 15 houses on it, it does not make any difference at this stage, and it will be dealt with in a later application that follows on from this. Matthew Leigh explained that there is a cap on the number of dwellings that you can submit in a PIP and that goes hand in hand with the guidance on NPPF in relation to majors because of that requirement. He explained that the issue with this application is to ascertain whether or not arguably they have intentionally split the site and provided two different schemes and that is what Councillor Mrs French has asked. Matthew Leigh explained that is something that could be used as a reason to recommend refusal on a PIP if committee think that actually the site could accommodate more or that they have brought forward two schemes that are separate. He added that if members accept this is nine dwellings and do not look any deeper then that is the end of the matter but if members recommend approval and go against officer’s recommendation and approve the scheme, Councillor Mrs French has raised an issue that has not formed a consideration and he explained that he is not comfortable in really going into too much detail on the specifics of this application because information is not before members as a committee.

·       Councillor Marks stated that the gentleman has sold some plots but it is not known what has happened historically or what could happen in the future. Matthew Leigh stated that is correct to some extent but there is case law in relation to certain matters that mean that is not the case and there is case law that says if you split a site consciously then that should be read as one site irrespective of the number being considered.

·       The Legal Officer stated that site aggregation is a known issue, a known problem for most planning authorities and he has not looked into this in detail either and he explained that if members are concerned that is what has happened with this application then it should be deferred so that officers can give proper advice when it is reconsidered.

·       Councillor Marks stated that the committee are considering the application before them and if it is felt that there is some underhand action which has gone on behind the scenes previously then surely that is for Legal and Planning Officers to consider and, in his opinion, the committee should move forward with the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she went to the application site and from what she saw and read in the report she would have agreed to go with the officer's recommendation to refuse but considering the houses that are already there along with the two being finished off, the proposed nine dwellings, in her opinion, will finish off that part of the village. She added that next to that there is another dwelling so it could be classed as an infill.

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

·       Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that there has been a great deal of focus on historic matters in relation to the site and members need to consider what is proposed in front of them and whether it is acceptable or not. He added that there has been some properties sold off previously, but that along with more houses will probably enhance the area. Councillor Marks made the point that the report from the school makes interesting reading, and there are local facilities which need supporting so he is minded to grant the application.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he was in support of the other houses and when he visited the site he was really surprised how nice they look and nice houses on the entrance to a village sets the scene for the village and the houses that are being built there look really nice. He stated that the application that is in front of committee is what members should be focussing on and Section 106 agreements cannot be tied to a PIP and if it comes back in with a later application with speed reductions introduced here he thinks it is only right, but planning is about land usage. Councillor Benney added that there is community benefit which comes with the application when considering the school numbers and the school needs support as the numbers are projected to fall and the only way the school number are likely to improve is to build houses and bring people here. He added that schools need to be retained as they are a major part of any development in any town or village and if you do not put houses there, schools will close and all the children in the village will end up being bussed off to somewhere else like Wisbech. Councillor Benney stated that the Parish Councillor stated that Gorefield has been overdeveloped as it was ear marked for 33 and it has got 85, yet the school numbers are falling still and that does not make sense in his view. He added that the school is a major part of an area and once a school is lost, it will never return and, in his opinion, he thinks the people of Gorefield deserve this to see the village grow, keep the pub open if it has one and the shop open.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he likes to see villages grow by keeping local facilities open and he added that other villages have suffered as they have lost so many of their facilities. He added that the speed reduction is also a benefit to be considered, and Councillor Mrs French stated that cannot be included under a PIP. Matthew Leigh stated that Councillor Mrs French has suggested that there are material considerations that weigh in favour and as this is a PIP, it has to be looked at just on land use as to whether it is acceptable or not.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated if the application is approved, when it goes for outline reserved matters then the fact of keeping the school open is a community benefit by keeping it open.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the map demonstrates that the application is infill development as it is in Hassock Hill Drove which is a defining boundary line. He added that if you accept that this is a boundary line then it is not in the open countryside and is within the village of Gorefield.

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

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the community benefit of trying to keep the school open outweighs any objection and they do not consider the application to be over development but a good use of land.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined, and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined, and will consider the application with an open mind)