Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ms Wood, the agent. Ms Wood stated the site is partly brownfield and immediately adjacent to the edge of the town of Chatteris. She expressed the view that the proposed development will facilitate the removal and remediation of a noisy engineering company on the site, which is in the process of moving to another location in Chatteris.

Ms Wood referred to the emerging Local Plan which proposes the allocation of 45 hectares of land for employment purposes in Chatteris and she feels there will be no loss of jobs as a result of this development. She expressed the opinion that this proposal will enable the business to build new premises to replace the existing poor-quality buildings on the site, which members from seeing the site will appreciate is partly constructed with asbestos.

Ms Wood expressed the view that the development will also result in road improvements in West Street and members would have seen on site that West Street is a well-used route towards the Pocket Park, especially with dogs. She stated that the application scheme includes the provision of public open space, which will result, in her view, in a more pleasant walking route that will be better overlooked and thereby safer.

Ms Wood stated that the proposed development will result in the provision of much needed affordable housing, 6 units, which will be able to be provided more quickly than waiting for larger housing schemes to come forward, especially as this is a full application. She made the point that the Council is looking to allocate significant areas of land in this locality for housing development in the next Local Plan so, in her opinion, this proposal would not represent undue encroachment into the countryside with the site’s allocations in the Local Plan including over 200 houses to the south-east of this site accessed from Blackmill Road, London Road and Fairbairn Way.

Ms Wood expressed the view that their proposal for 22 homes will contribute quickly to the sustainable growth of the town and provision of choice. She feels the refusal reasons were addressed in her e-mail to members on Monday, but in summary the development will be in character with the area because it will introduce residential use within residential surroundings rather than continuing the industrial use, this locality is evolving into a larger residential location and the development will provide a pleasant area of open space that will form a transition between built development and the countryside beyond.

Ms Wood referred to refusal reason 2, the amenity of 88 West Street, and expressed the opinion that this will be improved by the removal of the industrial use and the provision of new boundary treatment with the nearest house being 5 metres, a car length, from that adjacent bungalow at its closest point and the nearest part of the house at plot one will be a single-storey garage which can be further reduced in height if members prefer and there will be no windows facing this bungalow.  Regarding refusal reason 3, Highways, she expressed the view that the Highways Officer was satisfied that his requirements could be overcome by conditions and she has already liaised directly with Highways regarding slight amendments to the plans which they have confirmed to be acceptable so she would anticipate that planning conditions requiring the submission of these plans formally for approval along with a condition regarding the consequential minor changes to the road drainage scheme should be workable.

Members asked questions of Ms Wood as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton asked how the new road layout differs from the one it supersedes as he could not see too much difference? Ms Wood responded that neither could she which makes her point, there are minor changes about the way the footway comes down the road, it was going to be on the west/left side and the Highway Officer thought it needed to be on the right due to changes in levels.

·       Councillor Benney asked how close is the applicant to having an agreement to the upgrade of this road, with there also being land ownership issues which is not a planning consideration, but to having a workable access committed to this development? Ms Wood responded that the access is part of the planning application, the applicant is in the process of purchasing the site from the current land owners who own most of the site but part of the site is highway land so highway rights are paramount and there is a small part at the southern end of the site which is unknown below ground ownership which is why a Certificate C was served putting a notice in the newspaper asking if anybody claims this land, but it is possible to carry out the improvement works with an associated Section 278 Agreement, which is a highway agreement.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to 9.41 of the officer’s report where 25% of affordable housing is being offered, which seems generous, but members have been promised this before and once applicants get planning permission a viability study is undertaken, and then no affordable housing is provided, and she asked what is the likelihood of a viability study being undertaken? Ms Wood responded none as the applicant has agreed to buy the land and it is in the process of being purchased now, he has done his due diligence to make sure he can afford to buy the land with the constraints on it one of which is the requirement for the provision of affordable housing others are for example the demolition of the buildings, remediation of the site, disposal of the asbestos. She stated that affordable housing is one aspect, but the applicant has done the maths and as far as she is concerned affordable housing will be provided, which will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. Ms Wood reassured members that if there was a situation where for some reason affordable housing was not wanted that would have to be a whole new planning application and it would come back before committee for consideration. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view the allocation is generous as well as over £260,000 for education and she just wonders how this site will be viable if planning permission is granted. Councillor Connor agreed that applications do come back before committee due to applicants promising to provide various allocations on site and then it being unviable, and he is really pleased that the agent has addressed his fears.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney made the point looking at the access for this site there are issues and asked is this something that can be overcome or dealt with by way of conditions? Nick Harding responded that to the best of his knowledge the agent has had an exchange with County Highways, but he is not aware whether or not that Highway Officer has merely looked at the plans in providing the response to the agent or whether there has been the benefit of a physical site visit as well as looking at the drawings. He stated that in the absence of that knowledge he would not rely purely on a condition as otherwise the committee is effectively agreeing to the principle of that highway improvement but in a way of being blind to what the impact may be in relation to any constraints as there are, for example, trees down that right hand side which is thick with vegetation so it is not known if there are any ditches there and, therefore, he would not want to rely on a condition to solve this problem until there is some written evidence to say the highway work is feasible. Nick Harding stated that a drawing would also need to be submitted by the applicant which would have to be subject to public consultation and there may be representations received that object to the footway on that side of the road so in that situation the application would potentially be brought back to committee for determination again.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the width of the footpath not being able to be determined and asked if this is going to have an impact on what the applicant is allowed to do? Nick Harding responded that a 1.8 metre footway is currently proposed but on the “wrong” side of the road and not achievable as the agent alluded to and there has been a conversation with Highways about moving the footway to the other side of the road and given the constraints that might be found during any survey work it may mean that a 1.8 metre footway is not achievable.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to drainage and read the comments of the Highway Officer who says “I can’t object on this basis, but the applicant may be stung later if they don’t consider this now as an acceptable solution” which is talking about the access road appearing to be on the existing road already serving houses in that area, therefore, it is assumed that the drainage system for this area remains unchanged and goes on to say “This assumption isn’t correct. The existing highway drains over edge i.e., water runs off the carriageway into the adjacent soft verge. By including a footway on one side with a kerb upstand, the ability for over edge drainage is removed and the impermeable area increases. The applicant would therefore need to provide a means of drainage for the existing highway during any S278 application”. She feels the officer is saying that the current proposal is not going to work. Nick Harding responded that the S278 process is completely separate to planning and the way that it generally works is that you have a planning highways drawing and the officer at highways will consider whether or not that highway improvement is achievable within the land available within the public highway and there are always going to be technical elements that will be dealt with down the line through the S278 process, detailed design matters which planning is not privy to and is legally separate but as part of any submission of any additional highway details to change the footpath to the other side of the road the Highways Team at the County Council would need to be satisfied that the principle of being able to drain that road is going to be achievable.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to elsewhere locations and out in the open countryside and asked how, in officers view, is this proposal any different to Womb Farm and Sutton Road Wisbech, which were agreed under the unallocated land policy? Nick Harding responded that Womb Farm was allocated for employment use and was subsequently changed to residential use given the lack of interest for employment development. He stated that when it comes to development on the edge of settlements, planning officers have to make a careful judgement and there is a degree of subjectivity to that judgement, and he can understand situations within which members may reach a different decision to the one that officers have made. Nick Harding referred to the 3 reasons for refusal, which relate to the design and character of the proposed development considering it to be a too urban character and should be a lower density design; secondly the potential impact on No.88 West Street and thirdly the provision of a footway within the public highway.

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

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that this proposal is at committee a month too early as there seems to be issues around the road and members are being told one thing by one person and something else by another. He feels it would have been easier to have made a decision if members had concrete evidence that the highways can or cannot be delivered.  Councillor Sutton stated that he does not like deferrals but in terms of where this application is he personally cannot see any difference to this scheme to Womb Farm or Berryfields, they are all unallocated land and he does not have a problem with the proposal from this point of view, with the positives being the affordable housing provision and the welcome contribution to education but questioned how committee can approve the application given that members are not sure on highways. He stated that his preferred option today would be to defer the application to get clarification as to whether the highways as suggested can or cannot be delivered.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with Councillor Sutton, she feels the affordable housing and contribution to education would be welcomed but that the access and highways needs to be resolved. Whilst she does not like deferring applications, she feels that Councillor Sutton is correct on this application.

·       Nick Harding stated that having listened to the debate it has given a clue as to where the proposal may go but made the point that there are three reasons for refusal and if members are going to propose a deferral then the understanding is that members are happy with the proposal in every respect other than the matter to which it is suggested there should be a deferral so the first reason for refusal relates to the urban nature of the design of the development then there is the impact on No.88 so members need to be satisfied that they are happy with those two matters and when it comes to the final matter in relation to the improvement of the byway then the deferral would say that committee would wish to see greater detail and a highway response in relation to detailed design of that improvement proposal.

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is his area as a local Chatteris person and made the point that there are other developments all along West Street that have not been built out yet and this is just a continuation which, as Chatteris Town Council indicates, links to the Pocket Park so if this development went ahead this would improve the access to this park. He does not feel he could grant this application today with the access not being resolved, the access being the sticking point. Councillor Benney referred to building out in the open countryside and feels that there is nowhere within the town boundary that you could put 22 houses, with Chatteris earmarked as a growth town and it does need to grow, it needs houses but he does not feel it can be passed without the access being committed and if this can be done by way of deferral where refusal reasons 1 and 2 are satisfied as members being happy with the principle of development on that site but deferred on access only to allow the additional work to be undertaken and if it can then the development will go ahead and if the access is not agreed it will not take place, which he is feels is a fair way to proceed rather than a refusal. He referred to 88 West Street and made the point that the agent did say that they would reduce the height of the garage which would improve the visual impact and light and he would like to see these amendments made in the plans when it comes back to committee.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she would also like to see a management plan as she has been inundated the past few months with phone calls about dust, noise and disturbance on two sites in March and the lives of existing residents should not be made unbearable. Councillor Connor agreed with these comments as it has also happened at a site in Whittlesey.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that this application be DEFERRED only to seek clarification that the revised highway improvements are acceptable and achievable.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal for reasons 1 and 2 as they feel that the proposal would not adversely impact the area, with the issue of unallocated land being subjective and the proposal being no different to other developments that have been approved and mitigation measures can be implemented which will lessen the impact on 88 West Street.

(Councillors Benney and Murphy declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)

(Councillors Benney, Connor, Mrs Davis, Mrs French, Purser and Sutton declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)