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 Kelly Kennedy, in objection to the application.

Mrs Kennedy stated that she lives in Paddocks Farmhouse at number 2 and is addressing the committee as a representative of herself and some of the residents in Minuet Paddocks, making the point that when she purchased her property, she was led to believe that there would be dividing land between her land and the proposed development. She stated that, from the revised plans, the dividing land has been added to the other side of the development and expressed the view that some of the detail in the plans are misleading as there were hawthorn hedges and trees shown at the back of her property dividing her from the proposed development and this is clearly not the case as there are only twigs in place, with the plans that were received also showing that her garden, which is finished at the rear by a 3ft country open style fencing, will now have peoples gardens attached to her own garden.

Mrs Kennedy stated that on her deeds of the property it details that the 3ft open style fencing cannot be changed for 5 years, which means that the rear of her property which is already very open will have proposed new gardens backing onto her property, which she feels is an infringement on her family’s privacy as well as her neighbours. She added that when purchasing her property they were advised that there would be dividing land, including environmental features, and had they been informed that her garden would be attached to somebody else’s garden then she would not have purchased the property. She added that she has had to erect a bamboo style shield to negate the issues of lorry drivers disturbing her children in the garden and, in her opinion, the way to provide privacy for all concerned would be to erect a 6ft fence before any development commences and this would provide privacy to all residents.

Mrs Kennedy stated that her children are aged 6 and 11 and there is no school bus service for her daughter from Sir Harry Smith School to Coates and Eastrea. She expressed her concerns for her daughter having to use the road to get to and from school, making the point that there have been speed cameras installed at Whittlesey Green, but there are none through Eastrea and Coates, with there being very often vehicles which speed through Coates and Eastrea at high speed, which is a safety concern for the current and any future residents living in the area.

Members asked Mrs Kennedy the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton referred to Mrs Kennedy’s presentation where she mentioned a 6ft fence and he asked her that if that was erected would several of her concerns would be addressed? Mrs Kennedy stated that she has discussed her concerns with Mr Warner, the developer, however, she had discussed the issues with her solicitor prior to signing the contract for her property and it was within her deeds that the fence cannot be changed for five years.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mrs Kennedy how long she has occupied her property and she advised she has lived there since July 2019. He asked whether all the properties on the development are occupied and she stated that they are all sold subject to contract, with the Manor House still to be built.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Gordon Smith, the Agent and Brent Warner, the applicant.

Mr Smith stated that this is a reasonable site for development, the harm to the countryside is limited, and the Council has granted permission for similar schemes elsewhere. He stated that they undertook their own consultation as encouraged by Local Plan Policy LP12 that the officers regrettably have not reported on, but they have received a good measure of community support and he stated that, importantly as well, this is one of the few sites in the district outside any flood risk. 

Mr Smith stated that there are no consultee objections, there is no visual harm and the only view of note is from the main road adding that there are no footpaths to the south.  He explained that with regard to the separation distance between Coates and Eastrea there is only a 18% reduction, which will be enhanced by considerable landscape work extending across 1/3 of the frontage and that this would eventually screen much of the development in these views. A new landscaped edge to Coates will result that will better focus and frame southward views from the main road

Mr Smith referred to an example of where the Council has approved a similar scheme in Doddington and added that both examples are connected by continuous built form to the opposite side of the road.

Mr Warner stated that Postland Developments is a local developer based in Coates, who employ local people and want to continue to do so. He added that there is a considerable amount of local support for the scheme including that of Whittlesey Town Council and that he has listened and acted on their comments as well as the comments of residents who, during a public consultation process, provided a considerable positive response.

Mr Warner stated that he wants to fulfil the need and will, therefore, should approval be given, incorporate bungalows specifically for the over 55s within the development. He stated that during the building out of an adjacent scheme to Minuet Paddocks, he was approached by several self-builders, who were in the majority local people, asking whether he would sell plots and two weeks ago he received a telephone call from another local expressing their interest in a self-build plot should planning be approved.

Mr Warner stated that this development is supportive of self-builders, accommodating 4 such plots and he added that when he was last before the committee regarding Minuet Paddocks, this scheme received a lot of positive comments from the Councillors regarding its design and attention to detail and one thing in particular was raised at that time and that was whether he would build it out or land bank and would he build it out as it is shown. He made the point that at that time his response was that he will build it out and it will be as designed, adding that he has kept to his word.

Mr Warner stated that should the Councillors see fit to vote in favour of this development he would give that same word that he will build out a high quality development, accommodating the needs of the older generation by building bungalows for them to down size in to, and will allocate self-build plots for those aspiring to build their dream home and in doing so provide much needed homes for the people of Fenland.

Mr Warner concluded by stating that as Mrs Kennedy has pointed out the concerns she has with regard to the fence and overlooking and privacy, he will on his side of the development, erect a 6ft fence to address and negate some of her concern.

Members asked Mr Smith and Mr Warner the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor stated that he can see no mention of any affordable housing or financial contributions within the detail of the application and asked whether this was correct? Mr Smith stated that as the application is recommended for refusal and officers have not brought forward any proposals for affordable housing, it is not relevant. He added that if the application was recommended for approval then the normal policies would apply.

·         Councillor Lynn asked Mr Warner to confirm that he has stated that he will erect fencing to separate all the houses that back on to his development and not just Mrs Kennedy’s property? Mr Warner stated that he will do that, he appreciates the residents of Minuet Paddocks want their own privacy and he will incur the cost of the erection of the fence. Councillor Lynn commended Mr Warner for his goodwill.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that some of the proposed properties for development have been identified as bungalows for the over 55’s and he referred to a small development in his ward where the houses started off as being for over 60’s but now the age limit has been reduced and asked whether Mr Warner has anything in place to ensure that the bungalows will be guaranteed for purely over 55’s? Mr Warner stated that in terms of insisting in that for perpetuity, he doesn’t know. He added that it is his intention and it could be conditioned in the planning permission that the bungalows are for over 55’s, with the reason it has been put in place, is that a number of people who have approached him have wanted bungalows have been in the over 55’s age group and he wanted to be able to provide assurances that there would be bungalows for them to buy.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the developer brings forward a high standard of development, which stands out. He stated that we are surrounded by countryside in Fenland, making the point that whilst he appreciates that villages like to have their defining line of boundaries, the division line does not run down the middle of the road, it runs across the road and that on the opposite side of the road there are already houses and, in his opinion, the principle of development is sound. Councillor Benney stated that there are two fields between the two villages and by building into this by only 59 metres across, it will bring much needed homes to people. He sympathizes with the residents, but if the developer is prepared to put a fence up, it will define the boundary and overcome some of the problems that Mrs Kennedy has alluded to. He expressed the opinion that the proposal will bring forward a required high-quality development and he will be going against the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that Whittlesey Town Council approved the proposal unanimously and added that the other development that the developer has completed looks very nice. He stated that public consultation took place, with the outcome being generally that the development was very much needed, with there being other development already in place across the road from the proposed site and if there can be some financial contribution attributed to the application, he will support it.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he will also support the application, but he would like to see the 6ft fence added as a condition, so that there is something in writing.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion that he also likes the development and there is the need for housing as well as the inclusion of much needed bungalows. He hopes the developer has the same positive outlook when the Section 106 discussions take place and he will also request that the 6ft fence is added as a condition.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the second reason for refusal is the Section 106 Agreement and he asked officers how could the Section 106 be secured as it is a reason cited for refusal? Nick Harding stated that if the application is approved contrary to the officer’s advice then it would be subject to a Section 106 Agreement being entered into. He added that Mr Smith had stated earlier that his client would be prepared to enter into a fully policy compliant Section 106 Agreement and if that turned out not to be the case, then the application would be brought back to committee before any final decision is made on the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if a financial contribution is brought forward, could it be ringfenced for Coates, Whittlesey and Eastrea? David Rowen stated that the Section 106 Agreement would have to meet the necessary tests related to the development, including any requirements with regard to a contribution for affordable housing, which would have to be spent in the most appropriate manner relative to the development.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regard to the approach for affordable housing contributions, it would be for the money to be spent anywhere in the District because the amount of money to be obtained in lieu of onsite provision in terms of affordable housing is quite small and if a restriction is added to say it can only be spent in the parish within which the development is proposed, then it may mean that no development site would come forward for affordable housing. The contribution will be placed in a district wide pot.

·         Nick Harding stated that regarding Section 106 Agreements there is a requirement for the money that the Council is trying to obtain through the agreement is that all physical projects must be related to the development in question. He added that in the case of affordable housing, because the opportunities for the delivery of it is very rare and the housing need is quite widespread, it is appropriate that an exception be made in that context. 

·         Councillor Sutton stated that in the past, registered providers have not wanted small amounts of housing on a small development and he questioned whether that was still the case. Nick Harding stated that the preference is for onsite, and the normal process is for the developer to approach the Registered Social Landlord sector to ascertain whether there was any interest with onsite provision and if that is not the case then the off-site cash contribution is reverted to.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Lynn that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 106 agreement and boundary treatment along Minuet Paddocks.

·         Stephen Turnbull stated that, prior to a decision being made, the Section 106 requirements need to be resolved.

·         Nick Harding stated that when providing planning reasons to go against the officer’s recommendation, specific reference needs to be made regarding whether the development compromises the separation between the two settlements. Councillor Murphy stated that in his opinion there is still a distance between the two settlements.

·         Nick Harding stated that the proposal to grant consent is subject to a condition regarding fencing to be added to the approval and the entering into a Section 106 Agreement that is policy compliant.

·         David Rowen stated that regarding the 6ft fence, the application is an outline application with details of layout not committed and there would be a standard outline condition requiring reserved matters including landscaping which would include boundary treatment to be submitted.

Members approvedthe application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; The site does not harm the open character of the area, with there still being an acceptable separation between Coates and Eastrea and is, therefore, being looked at sympathetically.

(Councillor Clark took no part in the vote or the discussion thereon for this application, as she lost internet connection during the debate)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she has taken part in the discussion and voting when this item was discussed at Whittlesey Town Council Planning Committee, and, therefore, left the meeting whilst this item was determined)