Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Sutton, the agent and Will Sutton, the applicant. Adam Sutton stated that the application is a PIP application which is limited to the consideration of location, use and amount, with the amount of development not being in question and is deemed as acceptable as is the use due to the nature of the land use surrounding the proposal. He stated that with regards to location, the Planning Officer is questioning compliance with LP3 and LP12 of the Local Plan but made the point that Christchurch is categorized as a small village within the settlement hierarchy of LP3 and the policy restricts development to residential infilling.

Adam Sutton stated that the Planning Officer has indicated that the Local Plan defines residential infilling as development of a site between existing buildings, however, the proposed site falls within the constraints of LP3 and does not limit the number of dwellings which are acceptable as infill development. He made the point that LP12 allows for development where the site is in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village except for those villages listed as small or other where only infill sites will normally be considered favourably, which poses two questions, firstly is the site in or adjacent to the existing developed Christchurch, which, in his view, it is, as well as whether the site is in Christchurch, which he feels it is.

Adam Sutton added that the second reason for refusal is LP14 which requires sequential and exception tests to be completed where required and the application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and a sequential and exception test which identify that the development is acceptable compared against other sites in Christchurch. He stated that the Planning Officer has made the point that facilities in Christchurch are not under threat, however, this is incorrect as the number of pupils at the school in the village is falling and the addition of family dwellings in the village will go some way towards helping those numbers increase.

Adam Sutton made reference to the handout of a map which had been circulated and he explained that it was a 1993 development area boundary map for Christchurch, which whilst he acknowledged that the map is no longer used and has been replaced by the current Local Plan, it gives a good indication of the built area of Christchurch. He explained that the map has been highlighted to show three areas of development which have been approved adjacent to the built area and all three extend the built form of Christchurch and, in his view, none of them can be considered as infill development in accordance with the definition set out in the Local Plan.

Adam Sutton stated that the proposed development shares similarities in respect of the location of the site in relation to the built form of the village as it is also between two existing dwellings and, therefore, policy compliant. He made the point that the proposal is in accordance with the Local Plan highlighting the polices which are cited as reasons for refusal and he added that additional dwellings are supported by the Parish Council.

Will Sutton stated that the officer’s report questions the numbers of attendees at the village school and some of the objectors to the proposal have stated that the school is full, however, that is incorrect as the capacity of the school is 105 and the current number of attendees is 87. He added that the cohort that live in the area is 59 and the report that is within the emerging Local Plan states that the forecast is for that figure to fall to 21 which is really serious.

Will Sutton expressed the view that growth is needed in Christchurch as it is needed to keep the school operating and the pub, church and new community centre also needs to be supported. He made the point that there are also inaccuracies within the officer’s report, making reference to the Grade 1 comment in the officer’s report, however, he explained that he has a document which disputes that fact, which explains that a low risk of flooding from surface water which indicates that each year the area has a chance of flooding between 1 and 3.3% which is the same as the proposal site and as such the land can generally be assigned an ALC grade of no higher than 3a.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Will Sutton to advise her what the inaccuracies are within the officer’s report? Will Sutton responded that the document he had referred to concerning the Grade 1 was on the Council’s website. He added that the location of the proposal is adjacent to the built form and, therefore, he does not know how it can be considered to be in the open countryside. Will Sutton added that if members agree that the site is not in an elsewhere location then the Flood Risk Assessment and the sequential test is passed, however, if members are of the opinion that it is part of the bigger area and it is not an elsewhere location then the test cannot be passed, but, in his view, it is not in an elsewhere location. He referred to 5.6 where it details objectors’ views, it makes reference to the increase in impermeable area and that fact that it may increase surface water flooding and the drain to the east side of Padgett’s Road which is often full of water but he disputes that statement and added that it is incorrect due to the fact that on the Council’s website it reads that the drain is mostly full of water in the winter months. Will Sutton added that another comment makes reference to a loss of field access, however, there is access down the side of his property and the report also makes reference to the site between buildings and the planning portal defines this as development in a relatively small gap, questioning what can be classed as relatively small.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarity over the concerns regarding access and she asked who owns the field? Will Sutton confirmed that he is the owner of the field, and he has no problem with people objecting to the proposal to express their opinion, however, in this case their opinion is wrong. He added that the person who made the comment has communicated with him previously in order to ask whether she can use the access into the field to maintain their hedge and, therefore, he is confused as to why that person believes that there is no access.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there is the pub in the village which has received planning permission to site a caravan on its car park to assist with the rejuvenation of the business. He added that the village shop has ceased trading, and the local school has less children in attendance and a new pavilion which has been introduced so it could be said that Christchurch is an up-and-coming village without people moving into the village. Councillor Marks asked Will Sutton whether it is his view that it is because there are not the properties to move into? Will Sutton confirmed that is his opinion and the pub has started selling essential day to day groceries to help the villagers.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for the access to be pointed out to him which has formed part of an objection? Will Sutton referred to the red line on the overhead presentation and identified that there is still an access point which leads down the side of the house and a gate into the back of the field.

·         Will Sutton explained that within the officer’s report it refers to a ditch which runs the length of Padgett Road and that is incorrect as it only stretches for half of the length of the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what steps are in place to deal with sewage and surface water? Will Sutton stated that surface water will be dealt with by soakaways and two of the properties can be run off of the main sewer which has improved matters considerable when they were installed.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that the proposal is in a village which is dying, and the school is undersubscribed. He added that it has been said many times that small villages need to be supported or otherwise they disappear, adding that when you approach a town or a village what you first see leaves you with an impression of how you view a town or a village. Councillor Benney added that the proposal is on the entrance to the village, and it will fit and set a tone on entry into the village rather than seeing falling down barns and waste ground which can be seen in other places. He expressed the view that it is a good application with good use of land albeit agricultural, but many hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural land are taken out of food production every year. Councillor Benney stated that he considers the proposal to be infill and is part of Christchurch and the sequential test does not apply to the District and, therefore, in his opinion it shows need and a good solid development, and he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that it is a good application and he stated that he is an advocate of seeing nice properties when you enter a village as first impressions do count when you enter a settlement. He added that although it is only a PIP application and everything else has still to be decided, in his opinion, it is a plot of land that can be supported and will be good for the village of Christchurch. Councillor Connor stated that the school is in need of pupils, or it could be in the danger of closing and the pub has integrated a basic shop into its day-to-day function. He stated that there is the need for small villages to be supported otherwise they will die, and he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he drove past the application site earlier and the site is dry with no water retention and, in his opinion, the proposal will fit into the street scene, and it is a known fact that there are no houses to rent or to buy. He made reference to Aerotron who have recently moved their business into the area and are struggling to find properties for their employees to live and he added that not everybody wants to live in a town and would prefer to live in a Fenland village. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion the proposal is a good development and added that local people are finding it difficult to find properties for their families in order to try and keep families in the same local area all together. He added that the committee approved an application some months ago in the village which was in  conjunction with the pub and the proposal appears to be a bolt on to that and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French added that it is very sad that the shop in the village has closed and if Christchurch lost a school, it would be a disaster. She added that it is a good application, and she assumes it would be executive homes that would be built rather than small dwellings and she will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he will be supporting the proposal due to the impact that it will have on the village. He added that the pub has invested into their business and the village needs additional residents to support it. Councillor Imafidon referred to LP12 of the Local Plan and although the proposal will be in Flood Zone 3, most of the Fens are in that flood zone anyway and he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is aware that over the last 48 hours, the Manea and Welney IDB have pumped away thousands of tonnes of water. He added that most of the areas looked at in planning appear to be dry and are not under water and unless there is a major event like the one in 1950s, he does not focus too highly on flooding issues. Councillor Marks stated that last year the Manea IDB recorded 550ml of rain and to date this year there has been 850ml of rain recorded.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officers’ recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal cannot be considered to be located in an elsewhere location, the community benefits in terms of bringing development to Christchurch to support the local community are good and as the proposal is part of Christchurch then it does not need an area wide sequential test and the land is suitable for development.

(Councillors Benney, Connor and Mrs French declared that they know the applicant from when he was an elected member of the District Council, however, they are not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)