Agenda item

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew their 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 asked questions of Shane Luck, the Highways Officer, as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that on the site visit members were concerned about where the footpath is situated as it is on the opposite side of the road to the development, which means when they are affordable houses there will be children who will have to cross the road to get to school, cross the road to get to the village and it was felt it was possibly better to have the footpath link on the same side as the development. Mr Luck responded that in engineering feasibility terms, due to constraint on the width of highway available and the number and nature of direct frontages and their individual access on the north side, a footway on that side of the road is not feasible as it does not fit within the available space and will create visibility conflicts with those driveways. He added that instead of providing or attempting to provide a footway on the north side which would be sub-standard the applicant is proposing a crossing point from the access to a widen and extended footway on the south side of the road, which in the context of the NPPF and highway safety a footway on the south side of the road including a crossing point is acceptable and safe in highways terms.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that her concerns were the same as Councillor Mrs Mayor as lorries access this road to go to IPL and when a crossing point is mentioned is this going to be a dedicated crossing point? Mr Luck responded that it would be a dedicated uncontrolled crossing point so a dropped kerb as based on the nature of the road and volume of usage a controlled crossing would be deemed to be more unsafe due to the infrequency with which it would be used so drivers who drive regularly along the road become used to it not being used as a crossing point and on the occasion it is used it takes them by surprise. He added that controlled crossings need to have a certain volume of usage for it to be considered safe.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked if this meant a tactile lower kerb feature? Mr Luck responded that it would be a dropped kerb with tactile paving.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Marc Hourigan, the agent. Mr Hourigan stated that this is a site that has long been identified for residential development and has the benefit of an outline permission until as recently as 1 May 2021 and it is also a site that is proposed to be allocated for new homes in the Council’s emerging Local Plan, although he acknowledges this is at an early stage of its preparation. He made the point that, as the officers note, the principal of residential development here is considered acceptable in planning terms and a scheme has not come forward previously under the provisions of the former permissions for housing and the new school car park due to the site being a little too big for local developers and on the small side for national house builders and in relation to the school car park, the Diocese was consulted at the pre-application stage and the outcome of that consultation was that there was no commitment forthcoming for the car park and it obviously never came forward.

Mr Hourigan stated that his client’s proposed development is in partnership with the Longhurst Group, a well-known and respected Housing Association, to deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme, which is the key difference between this scheme and the previous one which was an open market scheme. He stated that he has been reliably informed by officers that 100% affordable schemes are quite rare in Fenland because of viability issues associated with delivering development here and the evidence that they have presented in the application shows there is an acute need for affordable homes in Fenland and this scheme will go some significant way to help address that need.

Mr Hourigan expressed the view that if members support the scheme they can be assured it will be delivered promptly. He made the point that the scheme also contains some specialist housing, with plots 60-63 being four large homes in the north-west corner of the site specially designed for people with disabilities for which there is an acute need for in Fenland.

Mr Hourigan stated that within the scheme there is a broad range of house types and sizes from 1-4 beds catering for a broad cross-section of needs and the scheme also includes bungalows some of which are adaptable for disabled access. He referred to energy and as members will be aware the cost of living crisis, the climate crisis and the need to reduce energy consumption is affecting people all across the land and this scheme will need to adhere to the most stringent building regulations that came into force last year, which compared to the previous regulations require 30% improvement in terms of energy efficiency.

Mr Hourigan referred to some of the issues that have been raised by objectors and in terms of drainage they have worked really hard with the County Council, Middle Level Commissioners and Anglian Water to devise an appropriate surface water scheme for this site, consequently there are no objections from these agencies, and it is also intended that all surface water infrastructure will be adopted and it is expected that all roads will be adopted too. He stated that members have heard from the County’s Highway Officer regarding the delivery of a new footpath connection to the village as well as a highway gateway feature on Gosmoor Lane to help reduce vehicle speeds, with the County satisfied with the proposals from a capacity and safety perspective raising no objections to the scheme, with the highway scheme being very similar to what the Council has previously approved on the outline permission.

Mr Hourigan expressed the opinion that it is a well-designed scheme that will fit comfortably with its surroundings but it is right and fair to acknowledge that the outlook for some of the existing residents will change but that is not a reason to resist the scheme, with there being no amenity issues for neighbouring residents as the homes have been sited an appropriate distance away from existing properties. He stated that the scheme does include open space along the northern boundary with the countryside beyond, which will be a usable open space and will only ever be used to store surface water in the most extreme of events, acknowledging that the open space and the site lie within Flood Zone 1, which means it has less than 0.1 chance of flooding each year.  

Mr Hourigan made the point that Elm park is within 300 metres of the site and the footpath improvement that would be delivered would facilitate safe access to this children’s play area. He stated that the position of the Council is not to require contributions for 100% affordable schemes, which is, in his opinion, an entirely reasonable position for the Council to take on planning balance but the consultation responses he has seen simply do not adequately evidence need with regards to social infrastructure.

Mr Hourigan reiterated that this is a much-needed affordable housing scheme, it will deliver a high quality development, all technical issues have been addressed and he asked members to grant full planning permission in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Members asked questions of Mr Hourigan as follows:

·       Councillor Meekins acknowledged the need for more housing, with the previous application being for 50 and this one for 63, but queried the non-provision of any play area within the estate, with him knowing Elm well the only playground is opposite the school so the children would need to go up this road and cross the road to access this play area and a play area, in his view, would have enhanced the site to potential purchasers. Mr Hourigan responded that the outline permission was for 50 and when this project was started he contacted the previous architect involved with the scheme and asked if there was a reason why 50 was the figure given in the application and the answer he was given was that there was no technical reason why it was 50 that was just the number they came up with. He made the point that this application site is slightly larger than the previous application site as when you consider the proposals previously as a Council there was the housing, an area in the north west corner which was going to be a school car park which clearly is not needed so this area is now being proposed to be developed for housing. Mr Hourigan stated that the scheme does include open space along the northern part of the site and the principles that were established in the outline illustrative scheme have been followed, which will also be a dual purpose storage facility for surface water in the most extreme of events, with the site lying in Flood Zone 1, with there being 0.01% risk of flooding so for almost all of the time it will be used as open space although he acknowledges that there is not children’s play equipment within it but Elm park is only 300 metres away and members have heard from the Highway Authority that the access to site and the continuous footway from the site to the park is satisfactory in highway terms.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that he would not be happy for children to travel 300 metres up a busy road to reach a play area and asked about the area where it says SUDs attenuation pond. Mr Hourigan responded that it would be grassed over to provide dual usage.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed his concern regarding the play aspect, he recognises that there is the SUDs and it serves two purposes but he is also aware that there will a lot of young families on this development and it appears to him that some type of small play facility for small children somewhere around that SUDs would be far safer and far more accessible to the families that are going to live in this development, it is an enclosed area and if there was something there he feels it would be far more suitable for the younger families especially rather than go down and across the road to get to the main play area in the village. Mr Hourigan expressed the opinion that he has already answered this question, with officers and the Highway Authority saying it is acceptable and it is no different from all the other residents who live on the estate opposite if their children want to go to the park they go down the road, past the shop and across the road opposite the school. He made the point that it is not like there is not any open space as there is 1,355 square metres of open land for people to use. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that Mr Hourigan was being a little disingenuous and he realises why as there is a cost involved but it seems to him that in a development such as this the more one can provide for the families in a safer aspect is better and this proposal is in effect requiring the youngsters to go out into the big world from the end of the estate, with these being smaller children which is where the main facility in Elm comes in as it is a good play area and whether the officers feel one way or another he feels is irrelevant. Mr Hourigan responded that talking about young children, chances are they will be accompanied anyway by parents so if it is a safety concern then those young children would ordinarily be accompanied by a parent or grandparent to the existing equipped play area in Elm which is only 300 metres away and within acceptable walking distance, although he recognises the point that Councillor Cornwell is making but open space is being provided on site and to provide what is being suggested the amount of affordable housing would have to be reduced.

·       Councillor Purser stated that when the children come out of the school they have got to cross the busy road and go around the houses to get back to the housing estate and previously there was an application for 55 and now this proposal is 63 with some houses pushed into the corner and asked if there was no provision to put some sort of gate so children can go through from the development into and out of the school, which would be safer for those children living on this development. Mr Hourigan responded that this part of the site is where the specialist housing is located and if there was a gate there he is not sure how it would be planned but they would also need the agreement of the school and he believes on the other side of the fence it is undeveloped land, part of the playing field so it would need a path and there is not that agreement with the school. Councillor Purser made the point that surely the school would use its common sense for the safety of its children to agree to this request. Mr Hourigan responded that the car park that was agreed previously had that link in and when they engaged with the Diocese and the school there was not any appetite for providing that car park and he can only assume that the school did want any people coming through that part of the school, but engagement did take place with the school and Diocese and nothing was forthcoming from them. He reiterated that it is only 300 metres to walk to the school along a wide footpath. Councillor Purser expressed his surprise that the school did not engage with the agents.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he is not happy with the answers provided to Councillors Meekins and Cornwell regarding the play area, with most of it taken up with the attenuation pond and it will probably have some sort of water in it or not but has that purpose. He made the point that Elm School does not have any vacancies at the moment so what is going to happen when children have to be bussed of to school so he can see problems in the future. Councillor Connor referred to the Management Plan which shows wheel cleaning facilities, which he applauds, but he would like, which he feels Councillor Mrs French will agree with, a road sweeper available at all times which will hopefully alleviate most of the problems on Gosmoor Lane with mud and debris and whilst this cannot be enforced he would like a cast iron guarantee that there is a pre-commencement condition for a sweeper to be provided as in inclement conditions there will be mud on the road. Mr Hourigan responded that he has taken instructions and Councillor Connor can have that cast iron guarantee. He referred to the public open space and having water in it and expressed the opinion that it would only be in the most extreme flood events and that would be after the pumps had failed as there is a pump system, with a back up pump and the pump system has an alarm so all of this would have to fail before there would be water in this dual purpose facility. Mr Hourigan acknowledged the school places as an issue but the resolved position of the Council is not to request contributions towards education for 100% affordable schemes and he also acknowledges that there is parental choice not all the people who live on this development will want to send their children to that school. He has seen the responses on education and they do not go into much detail on what would be required to justify contributions under the CIL regulations but that is not the position of the Council as he understands it, which is to take a balance with the affordable housing provision which are 100% affordable housing schemes and further contributions are not required.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is glad that Councillor Connor mentioned the mud in the road as she is fed up with the Council having to constantly attend to clean out drains with the two big developments in March and she is glad the developer has agreed to the action proposed. She referred to education and made the point that the County Council does have a statutory duty to supply education but this Council does not have a statutory duty to enforce Section 106s.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Hourigan mentioning in his original presentation that it is unusual for 100% affordable housing and he is right it is but asked if he is aware that it is not unusual in Elm itself as there has only just been 27 agreed at the end of Grove Gardens and that 27 in a Section 106 Agreement supplied around £43,000 to go towards either the proposed new village hall or more likely make major alterations to the church so that it becomes a community facility so if this £43,000 is pro-rata to this scheme it comes to about over £100,000 so could this be expected through a Section 106? Mr Hourigan responded that the position with this application is that there are not any contributions and they have not been asked to provide anything, with the resolved position in the SPD is that infrastructure contributions are not asked for on affordable schemes. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the contributions were not asked for on the 27 scheme but the developers and the Housing Association wanted to give something back to the village and it does not have to be CIL compliant for it to be offered it be undertaken unilaterally.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to the bungalows, with there only being four and two are disabled and the four properties at plots 60-63 she is concerned that they are right up in the back corner and if they are for disabled people she thinks they should be nearer to the entrance to the estate or even more bungalows, but she is delighted that four is being proposed, and asked where there is a possibility that those other properties that are for disabled people can be moved? Mr Hourigan responded that the issue with those types of units is that they are very land hungry as they are very large units so that is why they are in the north west corner of the site, with the land being flat so from an accessibility point of view that should not be a problem. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that it just seems that they are in the furthest point from the main entrance to the estate. Mr Hourigan acknowledged this.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he is the Council’s representative on the Hundreds of Wisbech Internal Drainage Board and also as part of this is on a sub-committee called The Works Committee, with The Works Committee having input into all sorts of things to planning applications to works that need undertaking and he usually does not attend The Works Committee if it is solely about a planning application but he is always copied in to any correspondence. He read out an e-mail he received a few days ago “the case officer confirmed that the officer recommendation for this development is to grant prior to section 106 but please note the issues concerning the piping and/or filling of the sites open water courses has not been resolved as discussed previously, the piping and/or filling of long lengths of open watercourse is contrary to national, local and the Board’s policy and the applicant has been advised that my recommendation for a Section 23 application based on the current proposals would be REFUSED. There are many issues involved with this which need to be resolved and whilst it is accepted that the development provides social housing the Board are reminded that the water level and flood risk management authority may be considered negligent if it approves the application”. Councillor Connor interrupted to say he is not sure the agent can answer this and it is perhaps a question for officers. Councillor Sutton acknowledged the point but said he did not want to get in debate and then someone say why did you not ask the question. Mr Hourigan responded that he has not seen this e-mail and queried whether Councillor Sutton involvement with this IDB had implications for determining this application but made the point that there is condition proposed to obtain drainage consent for the scheme so the developer will have to go through this separate permitting process.

Nick Harding stated that the planning system cannot duplicate matters which are covered by other legislation and the IDB consenting is completely separate legal process but it is recognised there is an intermeshing of planning and drainage consent and if planning consent if given by committee that does not give the applicant automatic rights to obtain drainage consent. He referred to a equipped play area and made the point that adopted plan policy is that where there is a site of under 2 hectares, of which this is, there is no requirement for on-site equipped play to be provided and as heard from the case officer and the agent the SUDs feature is going to be dry 99% of the time so it is agreed that having the embankments down into the bowl means that it is not going to be accessible for all there will still be an area of open space. Nick Harding stated that the previous consented scheme did make a Section 106 contribution of £38,500 towards off-site play space improvement but officers are mindful of the fact that this is an affordable housing scheme which can be factored into the deliberations but if during the debate committee might want to make a request of the agent to come back and see if he would be willing to match what was previously agreed on the original proposal. He stated on the education side, the education authority does not object to the application, they have said it would be nice to have a contribution to provide additional spaces and they did comment that the school is currently full and does not have any spare places but they did not outright object to the scheme. Graham Smith added that they clarified that if the school was full that it is the County Council’s responsibility to find places.

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

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the previous application coming before members, which came as a dual application, one for the 50 houses and one for the car park, which was agreed that day and if he remembers rightly members were slightly concerned about there being 50 houses in a small village but the feeling was that the benefit to the school. He stated that the previous agent and former owner withdrew the first application because they could not gain support from the Parish Council or the local population and they came up with this scheme whereby they were going to provide a car park and he knows the headteacher has now changed so he does not know her views but he knows everybody involved was very pleased and the previous owner was pleased to help his village remediate some of the parking problems associated with schools. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that there are too many dwellings, they are squashed in and the reason for passing the 50 in the first place has been lost, it is only just a couple of months ago where in Doddington, a growth village, it was agreed that 47 was too many in terms of numbers for a growth village so to be consistent he queried how the committee can now say that 63 is acceptable for a limited growth village. He feels there are lots of elements that are beneficial but, in his view, this is outweighed by the disadvantages, ie schooling. Councillor Sutton stated that notwithstanding what the Highway Officer has said in his professional opinion members must not lose sight of the risk on that road, there has already been two fatalities at the top of this road so members need to be careful what they do here. He feels the other issue, which features in the case officer’s report, is that it does not fit in with the surrounding area and only the balance because it is an affordable housing scheme outweighs the character issues, with the other houses in the area have good size gardens and this scheme, in his view, does not fit in with the area at all. Councillor Sutton made the point, as he said to the agent, that Elm has had over the last few years 27 affordable houses and there were around 30 on The Dale site so, in his opinion, Elm village has contributed more in percentage terms in social housing than almost any other area of Fenland and whilst that is not a reason not to have some more he feels this is just not the right scheme and takes away everything that was previously agreed, with the play area in the village not been a big area and something this size should be provided on this development.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to education, reading from the report which states that the Council confirms that education contributions would not be required and expressed her disappointment with the County Council as if the school is full it is full and 63 dwellings is going to bring at least 100 children and asked where are these going to go to school. She stated that Elm is part of her County Division and she will be asking the Education Department what is going on as she does not think it is satisfactory.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that all these new potential children coming into Elm are eventually going to go to secondary school and the Thomas Clarkson in Wisbech is full also. He made the point that the County have withdrawn the funding for a new secondary school in Wisbech so it is a problem that is getting worse and will be exacerbated by schemes such as this.

·       Councillor Purser referred to the comments of Councillor Mrs French and Meekins regarding schools and thinks it is a problem that is occurring everywhere. He expressed concern about the overdevelopment of the site as he thinks there are far too many properties on the site but he is also concerned about the highways safety, with the school children’s safety going around the village to get 50 yards and he thinks there will be some avoidable fatalities here and something could be and should be looked at before this even happens and taken into consideration.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he feels the same way, the housing is needed but the infrastructure is also needed to go with it, which is a problem when you look at March with nearly 4,000 houses proposed, junior schools are not just needed but secondary schools as well and the County has got to wake up because with the extra money that it gets from the developments that are approved it gets Council Tax, which is extra Council Tax to them and they should be using that money to provide their elements of the infrastructure. He stated that as far as he is concerned the provision of the social housing and disabled units actually outweighs because members cannot do anything about the other issue so on balance he supports the proposal.

·       Nick Harding reminded members that they had heard from the Highways Officer earlier and he has got no objection to the scheme from a highway safety perspective, he has explained why the footpath is taking the particular side of the road as there is not enough space on the other side to accommodate a footway, which would have been the case with the previous application. He stated that the school was written to asking for comments and none were received, with the agent saying they had also been in touch with the school so there has been no request for a direct access between this proposed development and the school, with members needing to remember that any access that is created above existing would have to be managed by that school and go through the usual risk assessments. Nick Harding expressed the opinion that a distance of 400 metres, which he does not think is an unreasonable distance, for people to walk to school and there may have been some road accidents in the past but there is nothing that has come from the highways officer to indicate that the route to and from the school is of such a risk to users that it warrants intervention because if that was the case it would have been identified those interventions. He has highlighted the Council’s policy in terms of infrastructure with there being no requirement for on-site provision of an equipped play area and he has made a suggestion to members to ask the agent on whether or not a contribution could be made towards further upgrades to the existing play area but when it comes to the school places members need to remember that there is the strategic viability assessment that was undertaken in respect of the emerging Local Plan and from that the Council has adopted a new approach in respect of Section 106 contributions in that north of the A47 the Council will not be asking for developer contributions on anything to avoid stymieing development.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he still a little concerned about the reservoir, although it has been said it is not in a flood plain, with young children in this area he is concerned about drowning.

·       Councillor Purser asked if it could be, whichever authority is responsible, that a lollipop patrol is employed to make sure the children do cross the road safely. Councillor Mrs French responded that the days of the lollipop patrols are gone and attempts are being made to get rid of the ones that are already in place. Councillor Marks stated that Manea has just got one but had to fight for it and it is paying for it as well as a contribution.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the £38,000 based on 50 houses and feels that committee should be asking for more money because there are now 63 houses. Nick Harding reiterated that this is a fully affordable housing scheme, which it was not previously. Councillor Marks made the point that more houses mean more profit for the developer from building and selling them so feels that a little more money could be obtained.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that it is all very well asking for a play area and a contribution towards it but who is going to maintain it moving forward? Nick Harding responded that if the applicant were to agree to contribute then that money would be held by the Council and distributed to whoever manages that existing play area to facilitate improvements to it and if there was no desire to do that the money would be eventually returned to the applicant in the normal way.

·       Councillor Murphy made the point that the Council does not want any more play areas to look after as they cost a fortune to upkeep and if that play area goes on the development it should be looked after by a management company. Nick Harding reiterated that there would not be an equipped play area on this development site, it would be a sum of money that would be made available to the Parish Council that operates the play area at Abington Grove.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that committee is worrying about children running and falling into a pit but he has seen these areas, they are dry and it would take a deluge for it to fill up and children can play in these areas safely. He expressed the opinion that children are being ‘molly coddled’ too much and referred to having to travel 300 metres to a play area or the school making the point that where he lives in Chatteris they walk about a mile to the school from one end of the town to the other with no problems so these children need to be entrusted with common sense.

·       Councillor Connor read out 10.12 of the officer’s report in relation to landscaping and the attenuation area and asked where the money is going to come from if the occupiers do not upkeep these areas, is there going to be a management company as someone is going to have to look after the attenuation pond. Nick Harding responded that the public spaces will be maintained by the Longhurst Group.

·       Councillor Marks made the point on Charlemont Drive there is a pumping station which is contributed to by all households so it has a management company but this has a pumping station as well so who will be looking after this? Nick Harding reiterated the Longhurst Group. Councillor Marks asked if Longhurst can look after any play area? Nick Harding responded that Council policy does not require an on-site play area to be provided.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Councillor Murphy’s comments where Fenland do not want to take on any more open space, which is fine but this then comes into a two-tier system whereby one group pays their Council Tax and they get open space and another group pays their Council Tax and they do not get any or it looked after, which he does not agree with. He further referred to Councillor Murphy mention of a deluge and it will never happen but informed members that on three occasions 12 Birch Grove has been flooded, which is a bungalow only a stone’s throw away from this site and there have been terrible issues with flooding on Birch Grove. Nick Harding responded that in terms of the surface water this development has a specifically designed system that directs the water in a certain way into a contained and managed system, with the surface water pond area being used and designed in the event of an extreme flood event as well as the pumps failing so there is everything that is humanly possible to do to prevent the properties getting wet in an extreme flood event. Councillor Sutton queried whether he had got that right as, in his opinion, an attenuation pond only comes in in the event of pump failure. Nick Harding responded that the pond area is designed to store water and is of sufficient volume in the event of the pump failure.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is very interested in flooding and remembers the floods of 2014 and 2020 but since 2020 Cambridgeshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority have worked very hard on this issue recognising a lot of errors in the past so she is pleased that they are happy with this as there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes regarding flooding and believes the flooding issue will be fine on this site.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the area does get these peculiar downpours/deluges so this pond is needed and suggested to make the area safe that thorned plants be placed in it.

·       Councillor Connor asked the agent if they were willing to provide the £38,000 contribution for play equipment. Mr Hourigan responded in the affirmative.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Meekins to REFUSE the application against the officer’s recommendation as they feel that the development is too big and it does not comply with Policies LP3 and LP12 whereby small extensions to villages will be allowed as this development could not be described as small and it does not comply with Policy LP16 and will cause harm to the character of the area, which is acknowledged at 10.10 of the officer’s report.  This was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation with the request for the £38,000 contribution.

(All members present, registered in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)