Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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 John Cutteridge, the applicant. Mr Cutteridge referred to the Council saying this is not a sustainable site, but expressed the view that the site is 0.3 miles from the centre of the village and the village stretches out over 1.6 miles in most directions, with 11 houses approved in Turf Fen Lane with no pedestrian footpath on a blind bend and this is 0.6 miles from the centre of the village so he considers this to be a walkable distance. He stated that many people walk Hospital Road on a daily basis, walking their dogs, with no incidents or accidents whatsoever and the Council has approved a café and shop for Mega Plants further down this road where Highways had no objection.

Mr Cutteridge expressed the opinion that 8 weeks ago Highways did not see any problem with the road improvement and then 4 weeks ago it stated it was unsure whether the improvements to the roadway could be achieved so he is obtaining an engineer’s report to show it can be achieved with the work having commenced and he is prepared to go wider. He stated that he does own the land beside quite a lot of Hospital Road and is prepared to give up some of this land to widen the road and move the ditches if required and so is his neighbour that owns a small portion.

Mr Cutteridge made the point that he only knew this application was coming to committee 7 days ago and thought they had time to have the engineer’s report submitted and thought the Council was allowing them to submit this report. He stated that he is happy to have a four-month delay on approval to allow the engineer’s report to be submitted to say that road can be widened to the degree that Highways require it and put a pedestrian footpath in, which will not just improve the road for their dwellings but also to access Mega Plants and the dog walkers that use it daily.

Mr Cutteridge referred to open countryside but made the point that the dwellings at the front have already been approved so it will not make any difference from the highway and to the opposite side is the Hospital property that cannot been seen due to a large hedgerow and also to the other side he has planted 18 acres of woodland which is 10,000 trees so it will not be seen from that direction either. He expressed the view that in relation to surface water there is plenty of space to run off into the woodland and the properties are having their own individual treatment plants so this will not affect the Doddington sewers.

Mr Cutteridge made the point that the site is within Flood Zone 1 so there is no risk of flooding and, in his opinion, there is a demand for housing, with this becoming just a piece of wasteland if not approved and it would finish their development nicely, with the 4 at the front already approved. He stated that Highways have advised what access requirements are needed to the properties and he will be undertaking everything that is suggested, which he feels this will be an improvement to the highway and area.

Mr Cutteridge stated that whilst this is not a reason for planning he will be using the funds from these 5 properties to put back into Mega Plants to develop it further for further employment, it has had 5 new employees in the last 2 weeks and they wish to build a brand new state of the art multi-span tunnel where there will be a facility for adults with learning difficulties to come and work for them. He stated that he likes the area and is truly passionate about the garden centre, with his life being the garden centre and that is where he spends 18 hours a day and the income from this proposal will put it on the map and he would like to keep moving it forward.

Members asked questions of Mr Cutteridge as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the road being widened and asked if he was also going to put passing places in? Mr Cutteridge responded that yes there is a part passing place that is being enlarged, widened and improved to a higher standard and the neighbours have had their access point approved which they are now building and includes a significant passing place.

·       Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that he is actually funding the road repairs or upgrades? Mr Cutteridge confirmed this to be the case, with them already receiving a quote of £250,000 for these improvements.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked if it could be conditioned that the road improvements have to be undertaken before any building takes place? David Rowen responded that this is probably jumping a couple of stages ahead but it would be very difficult to justify insisting that 200 metres of roadway has to be undertaken before development commences given that the roadway is then going to be used for construction traffic, etc and the purpose of the road improvements would be to mitigate the impact of the actual development itself so until there are people living in the properties using the road you do not have the impact.

·       Councillor Connor questioned whether the committee made a similar decision at Mill Hill Lane where the application was approved subject to the road being built to a certain specification before the actual development commenced. David Rowen responded that he cannot recall the exact wording or the trigger point, however, the issue at this location was more to do with an adopted right of way and the impact on this right of way and its on-going maintenance whereas with this application the issue is can the roadway physically fit within the corridor to the development.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that having viewed the site the only concern he has got is that there would be mud on the roads during construction with it being such a narrow and unevenly surfaced road and asked if it is possible this could be looked into and if it was to be approved that a management plan be entered into? David Rowen responded that for the scale of development that would be unreasonable and usually a construction management plan for a road cleaning or wheel wash facility is on a scale of development far higher than this as well as the fact that at the moment there are 4 dwellings which can be built at the site where he believes there are no such controls in place.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated that he has seen this type of application about 4 times on this road in the last 4 years and the same issues are discussed each time and it does seem to change regarding highways and what Highways are looking for. He made the point that the road is not great but with these improvements he believes it will help and also help the business, which the Council has supported via the café. Councillor Marks expressed some concern about saying before you can build these houses you have got to undertake the road improvements as money will be tight but perhaps it could be on a pro-rata basis as the money comes in but apart from this he cannot see a problem with this proposal.

·       Councillor Purser referred to a previous committee meeting whereby members refused an application on the other side of this road for reasons he cannot recollect and queried whether it was similar to this application at all.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that if members were minded to approve this application a condition could be placed on it to state that after the first, second, third or fourth house occupation that something has to be undertaken with roadway.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point would this be reasonable after one house is built bearing in mind there would be construction traffic which may churn it up. Councillor Connor stated that it was just a point he made and it is up to the committee to decide.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he wants to see the road improvements come out of this application and if the applicant owns the land either side then he is sure that it can be achieved if agreed by Highways. He stated that he can see the benefits of having a footpath in this area for the residents of Doddington and beyond, with there being public benefit to upgrade the road and he wants to make sure this is delivered and something more than an assurance. Councillor Benney expressed the view that he does not want to see this opportunity lost or the opportunity for further investment into Mega Plants as the committee should be helping this business.

·       David Rowen referred to the impact of the development and the road on the business but made the point that the issue of the business is not relevant to the determination of this application, this is purely an application for 5 dwellings and a road improvement package that is required to mitigate the impact of those 5 dwellings. He stated that in relation to trigger points for the delivery of the road there is a more fundamental issue in terms of delivery referring members back to the comments of the Highway Officer who concludes that the construction is unfeasible so it is not a case of whether you are going to get a road and a footpath link after 1 or 2 houses but can that be delivered at all.

·       Councillor Marks stated that on a private build you can put up a bond if people want to take it to the County to adopt and is this something that the Council can do to put a bond on this development until the road is undertaken? David Rowen responded that he does not think this would be an appropriate issue in this case, when you are talking about a bond there is a road that is shown on the plans that it is known can be delivered and then it is a question of who delivers it but on this proposal the Highway Authority is saying the width of the defined highway is not wide enough to accommodate the necessary highway work and therefore, those highway works cannot be delivered.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he understands this but surely any work is better than no work if this application is approved regarding footpaths and the safety for people walking dogs and the committee would want a guarantee that the work would be undertaken so then would a bond be able to be undertaken. David Rowen responded that he does not think this is an issue of a bond and whether the works are going to be practically delivered, it is a fundamental issue of can the necessary highway improvement works actually be accommodated within the public highway and if members are minded of going down the route of saying it can be conditioned there are all sorts of questions about the Highway Authority having to potentially adopt land that is outside the public highway and a number of issues that led to the Highway Officer coming to their conclusion that the construction is unfeasible.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the applicant stating that they are undertaking a survey at the present time with engineers so is it being said that if this came back and it could work the scheme would be acceptable at that point and would it be better to defer it to see what this survey says? David Rowen responded that he would advise against deferral as there is a scheme in front of committee that is deemed not acceptable by the Highway Authority, there may will be a report or a survey that has been produced, however, there is no guarantee that the Highway Authority will be satisfied with this. He made the point that the issues of adoption of land outside the highway boundary is a separate legal process as to whether the Highway Authority would even be willing to adopt further land outside the highway boundary as well as the implications on the need to move ditches, reprofile ditches and move hedgerows so if members have got a concern over this element the application should be refused and the applicant could come back several months down the line when that work has been undertaken and has a better idea on whether those works are deliverable.

·       Councillor Benney asked that if this was proposed for approval and delivering the road was part of a condition if that could not be achieved the application could not go ahead anyway so that would be approving it subject to a technical solution. David Rowen responded that there should always be an assumption when a Local Planning Authority is making an application that the works or the development it is granting permission for is deliverable and that should be demonstrated to the Council as part of the application process rather than post-application as if permission is granted and something is found to be undeliverable this does not revoke the grant of planning permission. Stephen Turnbull added that normally it would be a condition where further details are required on something that the Local Planning Authority considers is likely to be achieved and in this case the Highway Authority is saying the opposite saying construction is unfeasible so it would not be right or appropriate to put a condition on to say that it is subject to those details coming forward in the face of the clear advice received from the Highway Authority and the Council cannot overturn that expert advice as it does not have the expertise.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that as far as Highways are concerned there is no possibility of the County Council purchasing any land as they have not got the money and she feels if this application is refused it is a missed opportunity to get this public highway upgraded as the County do not look after the roads in Fenland and Mr Cutteridge is prepared to undertake the necessary work, which will also be for this proposal and to enhance his business which has planning permission for a café resulting in the road getting busier and this is the ideal time, if the applicant is prepared to improve the road, to do it.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that Mr Cutteridge has been before the committee several times in the past year or two and everything he has promised he has delivered. He stated that he would like some assurance about the road improvements but if not this business has been supported and sometimes you have to have faith in people and accept that he has delivered before and he trusts him to do it again. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that in relation to LP3 this is behind Doddington Hospital that was the centre of the community, with buildings further out on Benwick Road and in relation to LP12 having to bring good character to the area it just changes the character but does not mean it is right, it is open to perception and interpretation. He referred to the comments of David earlier where the delivery of houses does not supersede any policies in the Local Plan which he accepts but to refuse it on LP3 when it is adjacent to land that is part of Doddington he cannot see the justification but that is a difference of opinion and he feels the scheme has merit.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that it is not often that you see an applicant wanting to invest in a public highway and make improvements so on that basis he can support the proposal.

·       David Rowen stated the highway improvement works have been discussed in great detail but made the point that if members are minded to approve the application with a condition saying that the highway works need to be carried out there are potential implications in terms of the red line boundary submitted with the application from a legal perspective because if the works required take up land outside the red line boundary and which are in the ownership of a third party then is does post question marks over the validity of the application.

·       Councillor Benney stated that this red line in the wrong place has been mentioned right at the end of the debate and he was also under the assumption that ownership of land is not a planning consideration as you do not need to prove ownership to submit an application so he is not sure how this is relevant. David Rowen apologised for raising it at the last minute as it was only something that had come to mind and Councillor Benney is right that land ownership is not a material planning issue, however, as part of a planning application there is the requirement for accurate certificates of ownership to be submitted and it is also potentially permitting development which may stray outside the bounds of the red line boundary so there are legal issue that it would be remiss not to flag. Councillor Benney made the point that he submitted a planning application once which was approved and then it was found the red line was in the wrong place and he had to resubmit but it did not affect the outcome of the application so if this is the case is this an incomplete application and should not be before committee today. Stephen Turnbull responded that in a way the application is incomplete as the Highways Authority is informing the Council that they do not think the construction of the highway is feasible without further information but Councillor Benney is right that if extra land is needed then the applicant could come back with a new application.

·       Councillor Hicks asked in the interest of fair play should the applicant be allowed to come back as he has had such a short time to prepare and bring forward the road improvement report? David Rowen responded that as indicated earlier a deferral brings up a lot of questions which potentially need resolving outside of the planning application process and if members are concerned with regards to this issue he would advise that the application is refused on the basis of the highway recommendation and that issue is pursued separately outside of the application process by the applicant possibly directly with the Highway Authority.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that there have been several applications down Hospital Road and she does not remember Highways objecting before and asked if they did and why has it objected on this one. David Rowen responded that in the past Highways have expressed concerns about the status of Hospital Road and indicated that they have felt the two extra houses may in themselves not have an adverse impact but now there are 2 houses plus 2 plus the 5 on this application and it has reached a point where the Highway Authority have effectively said this is where a line needs to be drawn and state the road in its current state is not suitable to accommodate further development, therefore, there needs to be some improvement. Councillor Mrs French made the point that Mega Plants is down this road and there could be a 100 cars a day so what is the difference between this and 5 houses?

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate conditions in consultation with the Chairman.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that it is not in an elsewhere location as it is surrounded by the Hospital and other properties, it would not be harmful or detrimental to the character of the area feeling it makes a positive contribution, the proposed improvements to road and addition of a footpath would bring community benefit, with Fenland being a rural area where there is the reliance on cars and it is not believed compliance with Policy 5 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2021 is relevant or necessary. 

(Councillor Connor registered that he knows the applicant, agent and is a customer of Mega Plants but is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Connor declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a District Councillor for Doddington and attends Doddington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in planning)

(Councillors Mrs French and Marks registered that they use Mega Plants as customers but are not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)