Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members:

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Moules, the applicant.

Mr Moules stated that the design and specification of the full Condition 11 footpath, as produced in conjunction with Cambridgeshire Highways (LHA), has continually grown and the cost now stands at £124,000. He added that the requirement is no longer for just a footpath, but for a considerable road improvement to remedy the longstanding drainage issues along the frontage of other houses of 39-45 Cattle Dyke.

Mr Moules stated that throughout the current application process, he has focused on the viability issues created by this demanding specification for the existing Condition 11 footpath and he is confident that he has succeeded in demonstrating that the £124K cost of the works is too much for the site to bear. He stated that, his own planning and that of other developers, has shown that the site cannot produce an adequate developer return if the full footpath is constructed and added that this explains why it has proved impossible to deliver the site during the past six years.

Mr Moules expressed the view that the Developer Appraisal Tool (DAT) has also shown that the developer return is too low and the deficit shown by the DAT translates to a £10K net profit on a Gross Development Value (GDV) of £1.45m and this is clearly a non-starter. He added that the S106 Officer has suggested that a higher marketing price is used to increase the GDV to improve the situation, however, he disagrees with this approach and stated that he uses land registry out-turn prices valued for the last three months in accordance with the standard property valuation procedures used by surveyors and, in his opinion, the figures are much more accurate than Rightmove aspirational figures, which are invariably discounted.

Mr Moules added that in any event, even if the S106 Officer's GDV figures are used, the developer return would remain too low and the Council’s own Local Plan Viability Assessment (LPVA) methodology used to inform the emerging Local Plan shows an inadequate developer return if applied to this site with the full Condition 11 footpath and, in his opinion, the raw figures are quite startling. He expressed the opinion that in all the crucial areas the costings fail to meet the viability criteria required for site delivery and his off-site costs are 18.8% of direct build costs, whereas the LPVA anticipates 5% for a small greenfield site growing to 15% for a large greenfield site requiring a significant road system and the footpath accounts for most of this excess.

Mr Moules expressed the view that the LPVA uses a 17.5% developer return for its study modelling and accepts 15-20% as reasonable, and if the LPVA pricing maximum for North West Fenland is applied to the site, with adherence to the rest of the methodology, the developer return is between 6-7%, which is way below LPVA and DAT assumed levels and, therefore, the site cannot be delivered without some sort of compromise.  He added that he is keen to move on and develop the site, appreciating that the village wants an early completion.

Mr Moules expressed his understanding that there were no houses constructed in Gorefield in 2020 and if a compromise can be agreed then the site can be started immediately. He stated that he is prepared to accept the inevitably low developer return and in the best-case scenario it is likely to be around 11% if a compromise can be found over the footpath, but he cannot risk going ahead at a forecast return of 6-7% with the full footpath; the site would not generate enough funds to cover the forecast 5-8% construction inflation anticipated for subsequent re-investment in any future site and as a result, there is every chance that the development will remain undeliverable for another extended period.

Mr Moules expressed the view that with regard to what is a fair and reasonable infrastructure charge for a small site, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), S106 and CIL guidance all recognize that viability is the key to providing infrastructure and the third obligatory test of the NPPF is that infrastructure be fair and reasonable and in proportion to the size and scale of the site is not optional and the test must be passed. He stated that the undeniable figures show that the full footpath is 44% of the quoted land value, 18.8% of the direct build cost, 50% of the net profit and these ratios are prohibitive, with the equation only being rebalanced by reducing a significant part of the footpath, i.e. that part within the Village 30mph zone.

Mr Moules stated the road safety input has only emerged during this application and if there is a road safety issue, it already exists and has done for many years. He expressed the view that the issue is certainly not dependent on the development of this site and there are eight additional dwellings further south along Cattle Dyke that have no access to a footpath, nos 39 – 45, but the Highway Authority having defined the problem has never attempted to resolve it and the reduced footpath he is proposing will provide a level of improvement.

Members asked Mr Moules the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity over the savings which will made if the footpath is reduced? Mr Moules stated that if the footpath is 140 metres long it will be £124,000 and if it is reduced to 40 metres the pro rata cost will be £44,000.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether number 45 Cattle Dyke falls within the 30mph zone? Mr Moules stated that the vehicle access to number 45 is in the 60mph, but the front part of the dwelling which is the pedestrian access is in 30mph zone.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Alex Woolnough, the Highways Officer, for his professional opinion on the application. Alex Woolnough stated that each application is looked at on its own merits, the development is within a walking catchment of village amenities and, therefor,e it is anticipated that the development will generate a number of pedestrian trips. He added that if the decision is taken to remove the link between the development footpath and the existing footpath, pedestrians will be forced to walk along the carriageway and, in his view, that proposes an unnecessary risk to highway safety and undermines the policy objectives as set out in LP13 and LP15 of the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated he recalls the original application and Highways were consulted at that time, with the developer putting forward the suggestion of paving it all the way along. Councillor Miscandlon expressed the opinion that highway safety is still an issue and, in his view, getting worse due to the speed vehicles travel at and he asked Alex Woolnough to clarify whether the proposal is a solution to a highways issue that has been generated by the traffic and the development proposal? Alex Woolnough stated that he agrees and as soon as pedestrians are forced to share the carriageway space with vehicles, it is, in his view, unacceptable, especially in times of darkness or poor visibility. He expressed the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a footway to be delivered as part of the development.

·         Councillor Murphy asked Alex Woolnough to clarify that he is saying that anything the other side of the 30mph going into the 50mph zone is dangerous? Alex Woolnough stated that the principle of the 4 unit development, which is going to generate a number of pedestrian trips, and with a development of that nature, it is reasonable to secure a footway link that connects the development with the existing footpath arrangement within the settlement regardless of the speed of road that it sits on.

·         Councillor Connor stated that in the officer’s report it highlights that Gorfield Parish Council are in support of the application and have stated that at some time in the future they may be able to fund the extension of the footpath and, in his opinion, road safety is paramount in the view of the Parish Council. Alex Woolnough referred to the viability statement that Mr Moules had submitted and said that there is an alternative scheme available as an internal footpath that can be provided, which would avoid carrying out any works within the highway and this would reduce the footway link between the site and the existing footway that is on Cattle Dyke.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he cannot see a Parish Council being able to fund a pathway at such a significant cost.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he has reviewed the history of the site, which show in 2011 three dwellings were approved and in 2014 four dwellings were approved, where a condition was added, which is why the application is before the committee.  He expressed the view that he cannot support any proposal which effects highway safety and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that if the application was built out in 2011, or 2014, it would not be back before the committee. He added that the developer was willing create the footpath in 2014 and since that time road conditions have deteriorated, adding that road safety is paramount, even if it means a developer gaining less profit. Councillor Miscandlon stated that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated she will also support the officer’s recommendation and added that she finds it disappointing that developers agree to conditions to obtain planning permission and then state that they cannot afford it.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that prior to December 2011, the plot would not have been worth very much, but in the present day each plot may be worth £100,000, and there are plenty of options available to the developer, who if they choose not to develop it further they could pass it on to another who would be prepared to include a pavement for safety reasons.

Proposed by Councillor Miscandlon, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the application be REFUSED, as per the officer’s recommendation.