Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that the Parish Council wish to support the officer’s recommendation for refusal and as with the previous objection as well they do raise local planning policies that they are objecting and using against these. She expressed the view that the applicant’s prejudicial comment that most of the objections were new to the area is not true and those that have come to the village did so for the open views and the village environment.

Councillor Johnson stated that the emerging Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire results strongly state that open spaces, big skies and the Fen landscape are all distinctive to the characteristics of the village in accordance with LP12 and LP16. She stated that supporters to the application say the village needs to attract affluence into the village and avoid poor quality social housing but she feels they do not frequent the village of Wimblington as per the Housing Needs Assessment provided for the parish the village is very affluent and does require more affordable homes.

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that Bridge Lane is an important historic landmark in the village, it is a small narrow no through rural lane exempt of pavements and with only one official constructed passing point for vehicles, which is situated at the far west end opposite 3 Bridge Lane and nowhere near the proposed site. She stated that if the site is not to be adopted by Highways and, in her view, the applicant is quite happy that it is not there will be concerns regarding refuse collection referring to LP1, LP3, DM3 and 4.

Councillor Johnson stated that the public right of way number 5 is also a very important landmark in the village, it is part of the historic Woodman’s Way and also part of the Greenwich Meridian walk as well as being promoted by the Ramblers Association. She added that the site is situated to the eastern end of Bridge Lane outside the built form of the village and it will coalesce the rural countryside character of Bridge Lane with the more established form of the village.

Councillor Johnson questioned why the applicant perceive it as acceptable that they include a large part of Wimblington’s public right of way into their access road, this would inevitably put the general public at risk from vehicle movements entering and exiting the proposed access road which at present is just an open field with no regular vehicle movements and, in her opinion, it is illegal to change a public right of way unless authorised by Cambridgeshire County Council. She expressed the view that it is visible that the applicant has moved his boundary fence to incorporate part of the public right of way and at some time in 2020 the ditch west of the public right of way was filled in, which was not authorised, and there is no indication or proof of piping, with the unauthorised change resulting in a slight widening of the access off Bridge Lane but now exasperates the water flow within the ditch causing excessive flooding of the public right of way.

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that building 9 executive dwellings in an open field that at present offers open views of the historic heritage landscape of the Fens will result in these views being extinguished and users will be subject to a built form. She made the point that the applicant states there is a need for executive homes but this is not reflected in the Housing Needs Assessment and there are already planning applications submitted for 9 dwellings south of Eastwood End, 9 dwellings north of Eastwood End, 2 dwellings south of 1 Eastwood End, 4 dwellings west of March Road and 7 dwellings south of Bridge Lane so there is no future need at present for executive homes.

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that flooding from surface and running water is a major concern and as mentioned previously it is not just the site but the adjacent areas, residential or open, that will be subject to additional excessive water having an impact on the natural habitat and environment, with NPPF 60 stating that strategic policies should be informed by strategic flood assessment and should manage flood risks from all sources and they should consider cumulative impact in or affecting local areas susceptible to flooding. She feels it is important to maintain the tranquil sanctuary of the open landscapes and public rights of way not just for today’s communities but for the future communities as a member of the public.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Joanne Waller, an objector. Ms Waller referred to her photos on the presentation screen during her presentation and stated that the plans are incorrect in relation to her boundary, with the left side running the whole length of her bungalow and garden as it is adjacent to the access road and measurements on the plans do not display the distance from her boundary fence to the access road. She stated that major concerns of hers and local residents is the increase in excess surface water possibly causing damp and damage to properties.

Ms Waller expressed the view that the access road includes the public right of way within its measurements and including the public right of way is an offence as per Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, therefore, the width of the public right of way of 1-1.4 metres taken from the 5 metres required for access makes this contrary to the local planning policies and highway requirements. She stated that in 2021 the paddock boundary was incorporated within the public right of way which then gave the additional width to the access road to the site and is now obstructed by barbed wire and wood, this was undertaken without consent and, in her view, is a criminal act.

Ms Waller expressed the opinion that the boundary of 2B Bridge Lane to the original boundary of the public footpath is 3.9 metres and the narrow entrance will have a personal impact on her property and that of her neighbours, the amenities and privacy, especially 2-storey dwellings overlooking her rear garden, rear windows to a bedroom, bathroom and conservatory contrary to LP12 and LP16(e). She feels the proximity to her property’s boundary and worry of a vehicle colliding into the side of her property would affect the health and well-being of herself and her daughter.

Ms Waller expressed the view that the extremely narrow entrance including the public right of way will present an issue when two standard vehicles are trying to exit and enter at the same time and larger concern will be HGVs, delivery vehicles and emergency services, with residents front gardens and drives being used to make the turn safely. She feels the proposal would result as a development in an area of land divorced from Bridge Lane in effectively an open countryside location contrary to LP12 and LP16 and there will be dispersed intermittent buildings that are clearly detached from Bridge Lane having an adverse impact on the character and appearance contrary to LP12(d).

Ms Waller stated that Bridge Lane is a historical right of way, part of a very popular circular walk promoted by Cambridgeshire County Council and is used regularly by the public, dog walkers, horse riders and cyclists. She added there are no footpaths to either side and limited lighting, with increased traffic in a rural lane approximately 3.65 metres wide is placing local residents and the community at risk as well as vehicles trying to pass.

Ms Waller expressed the view that the development site is located at the narrowest part of Bridge Lane, with the nearest passing bay being approximately over 100 metres west and although a passing bay has been mentioned by the developer there is no confirmed agreement by Highways to be built or maintained. She made the point that a previous planning application has been refused, F/YR17/1201/F, due to the proposal eroding an important visual gap, which went to appeal and was dismissed.

Ms Waller stated that the paddock and dyke regularly flood, the dyke runs along Woodman’s Way and joins Bridge Lane and surface water from Bridge Lane drains into the dyke and once full the water then finds its way into the sewage system, with sewage pipes backing up and residents are unable to use their utilities. She added that regular ongoing concerns have been raised with Anglian Water regarding this matter with no solution and as mentioned in previous applications by Councillor Johnson, Lily Avenue are also experiencing flooding and sewage backing up. 

Members asked questions of Ms Waller as follows:

·         Councillor Marks asked when the photo showing the flooding of the footway taken? Ms Waller stated approximately 2020. Councillor Marks asked if this is due to the dykes being filled in? Ms Waller responded that no, the dykes fill up, all the surface water drains into the dyke and once it is filled it has nowhere else to go.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to it being said that it floods regularly and asked what residents have undertaken about this issue? Ms Waller responded that they have contacted authorities, especially when one of the flooding episodes that took place the day before Christmas Eve and she phoned up the Council, Anglian Water and Cambridgeshire County Council asking for help but nobody wanted to know or took responsibility. She added that she did also contact the landowner as she was concerned about the horses in the field.

·         Councillor Marks asked where she believes this blockage is with the dykes filling up? Ms Waller responded that she does not know if there is a blockage but she could not get down that footpath to take any further photos as it went over her boots and that dyke runs all the way down to Eaton Estate and then into Lily Avenue. Councillor Marks asked if the dyke was on her property? Ms Waller stated that it runs alongside her property. Councillor Marks asked if she had a 50% stake in cleaning it out? Ms Waller responded no, it is not a riparian dyke and just runs alongside her boundary.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he was there when Ms Waller says it flooded in 2020 and he knocked on a few doors and spoke to some residents and the water was very high, going over one threshold, and there were extremely worried residents.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent, and Ben Love, the applicant. Mrs Jackson stated that the application is for up to 9 dwellings positioned within a growth village and is within Flood Zone 1 land. She referred committee to the photo showing other consented development in the area and, in her view, the map clearly shows that this part of Wimblington is within a built-up residential area, with it being discussed many times in the past whether Bridge Lane forms part of Wimblignton village and, in her view, the map clearly shows that it does.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the site would effectively constitute an infill form of development of housing within an established residential area and it makes sense in policy terms. She reiterated that Wimblington is a growth village, with Policy LP3 allowing for village extensions in such locations, and this proposal would comply with this policy given that it would extend the existing built form in this area.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the proposal is in outline only so the specific design and layout details are currently unconfirmed, however, it is likely that the scheme will take the form of a comprehensive layout in much the same way as other developments in the area. She would argue that the scheme is entirely reflective of the surroundings contrary to the assertions and refusal reason one.

Mrs Jackson referred to concerns being raised by officers in respect of biodiversity but these concerns have not been backed up by the Ecology Officer and at no point during the course of application were they made aware of these concerns or asked to address them. She reiterated the scheme is in outline so there is ample opportunity to position the dwellings well clear of the hedgerow in question and they would also be happy to accept a condition to this effect but given the site is heavily used by horses as paddock and grazing land she feels that any biodiversity interest would be extremely limited.

Mrs Jackson referred to concerns about surface water drainage but these concerns have not been backed up by any technical consultees or professionals in this field and she assured on behalf of the applicant that there is a comprehensive drainage system in place and this was put in after the neighbour’s photos were taken. She advised that the scheme would encompass rainwater harvesting and permeable paving, which will improve any current situation as it will result in rainwater from roofs being held in tanks rather than falling straight to the ground as per the current situation and that as with all applications of this nature she would expect a foul and surface water drainage strategy condition as part of any consent.

Mrs Jackson stated that, in relation to the public footpath issue, from the drawings it can be seen the footpath will remain unobstructed and that the Definitive Map Team has no objection, therefore, in her view, an objection on these grounds cannot be sustained. She highlighted that the scheme brings the opportunity to provide high quality housing within a growth village which meets the aspirations of the Local Plan and complies with Policy LP3, there are no issues arising as a result of biodiversity and surface water drainage which cannot be addressed by a planning condition and requested that permission be granted.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson and Mr Love as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to mention of rainwater harvesting but from the photos members have just seen from the objector on the volume of water seen and the fact that Bridge Lane is lower than the surrounding area it is not from Bridge Lane alone so how is this going to be mitigated against. Mr Love responded that the photographs were taken in 2020, the objector did call him Christmas morning very upset and that Summer he installed a land drain across the back of her and the neighbours garden and he is convinced this problem has been solved as it has been the wettest Winter in living memory and if that had flooded this year there would be current photos. He expressed the opinion that the drain does work and not only did he put a land drain in there but to the dyke that has been backfilled by a previous owner there is a pipe in the bottom of this, they do not drain into that pipe but the aggregate that surrounds that pipe so there is capacity to get the water away better than he has with an ad-hoc £2,000 worth of stones. Mr Love stated that it is an historic problem that is being seen which, in his view, no longer exists and he has been monitoring it as he is well aware that the committee and Planning Authority are concerned about flooding. He stated that if he is granted permission, every householder of those properties would have his telephone number and the last thing he wants is to be called regularly due to flooding. Mr Love stated that the next step if they achieve permission would be to have an engineer to check the water levels in the site and then design an attenuation scheme to enable the water to be held even further on site so, in his view, it is achievable to drain that site when it is developed.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if Middle Level have been contacted and if so what have they said? Mrs Jackson responded that they have not contacted Middle Level but her understanding is that as part of the planning application process they are consulted and she has checked with the office and nothing has been received from them but there is confidence in the system that has been put in place currently.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that the plan is indicative so the site layout may change and he sees there is a neat roadway that leads into the paddock and asked if that was also the applicant’s land. Mr Love responded in the affirmative. Councillor Marks asked if the idea is to develop this area in future? Mr Love stated that there are no plans to develop any further.

·         Councillor Marks referred to a management scheme for the development. Mr Love responded that on their last development they had a management scheme and heard the comments on the previous application but would argue that a management scheme accommodating 9 owners of £¾million pound properties is not quite the same as a management scheme that is divided up by 48 separate dwellings. He added that the road would be to adoptable standard and it is in his interest to supply infrastructure that has longevity because someone who is going to spend £700,000-£800,000 on a house is going to be mindful of their costs going forward and he will be building high quality houses meaning that they exceed drainage and parking requirements.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Love if he was saying he was going to do the road up to an adoptable standard from the top of Bridge Lane? Mr Love stated the first 5 metres from Bridge Lane and into the site. He referred to a development at Leverington where he resurfaced a section of the highway with Highways permission at his own expense as they felt that the lack of maintenance on that road was holding back his development and he is quite happy to accept anything conditional. Mrs Jackson added that access is a reserved matter so it is something that can be conditioned or dealt with at that stage along with layout of the internal road. Mr Love stated that he does own the entire width of that access apart from about 400-500mm adjacent to the neighbouring bungalow so there is enough room to get a footpath in and the roadway.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he appreciates that work has been undertaken since photos were taken but asked, once the properties are built and there is paving, will this work be able to cope with the additional run off from paved areas and from rooftops? Mr Love responded that what he has undertaken so far is not on the application site, it is just before the application site and the issue Councillor Imafidon mentions is attenuation, making the point that no more rain falls out of the sky whether you build on the land or not and he uses a lot of impermeable surfaces because they drain better, however, whatever water run off there is will be calculated by an engineer and inform him exactly what size attenuation tank is required. He expressed the view that if it is done properly, which it will be, it can alleviate the flooding in the surrounding area and he is well aware of the drainage issues in the Fens.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to mention that on a previous development he resurfaced a certain part of the highway and asked where this development was? Mr Love responded that this was in Gull Lane, Leverington.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the applicant has already submitted drainage plans to officers? David Rowen responded that an assessment of the flood risk has been completed on the application form, which states under details that surface water will be disposed of via  a soakaway. He made the point that the site is designated on the Environment Agency flood maps at being at risk of surface water flooding and as a result there is a requirement for a sequential approach in accordance with the NPPF.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the site would be connected to main sewers or is it whatever tanks are installed? David Rowen responded that officers do not have those details at present due to the outline nature of the application, but the expectation would be that the site would use the Anglian Water sewage system.

·         Councillor Benney asked if the third reason for refusal can be resolved on the conversation on what can or cannot be undertaken? David Rowen responded no as the surface water flood risk that is evident means in accordance with the NPPF that a sequential approach should be undertaken to state that there are no sites in Wimblington that are at a lower risk of flooding.

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

·         Councillor Hicks asked Councillor Connor, from the photos provided by the objector showing it flooding in 2020 and she is saying that it has flooded ever since but Mr Love is saying that he has resolved the issue, as this is his ward does he know if it has flooded since Mr Love has undertaken the work? Councillor Connor responded that it has not flooded to that degree but he has had residents say they cannot flush their toilets or worried about having showers so there is an imminent risk of this but to say has it flooded no.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the comments from residents about not being able to flush their toilets recent? Councillor Connor responded that it has been in the last few months and he has also spoken to the Regional Manager at Anglian Water. Councillor Mrs French stated that this is an Anglian Water problem not a dyke problem. Councillor Connor stated that is correct but it is still a problem when residents cannot or are worried to flush their toilets but he does not have all the facts as he is not an officer but residents are worried about the flooding in this location and about flushing their toilets.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that it is unfortunate that this is an outline planning application as all the questions being asked would have been answered in a full application.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that all the conversations about what can or cannot be achieved does not overcome policy and if there was a full application that may have given different information that committee could have looked at but there is an application in front of members that does not bring all the information and is non-compliant so he thinks the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it is at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency maps for surface water and if it is a soakaway it is going to go into the water again and it is not going to alleviate flooding but make it more prevalent. He expressed the view that if it was a full application more details could be considered but he cannot support it.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned whether it was going to be a soakaway or an attenuation tank? Councillor Connor responded that the applicant did mention a soakaway but acknowledged that an attenuation pond is different.

·         Councillor Benney asked if this makes any difference either way? David Rowen responded no as the issue about flood risk is one of principle rather than detail of attenuation or amelioration.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Connor and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(All members present declared that they are members of various Internal Drainage Boards)

(Councillor Connor declared, in accordance with the Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is the District Councillor representing Doddington and Wimblington and does attend Wimblington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in Planning)