Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Pritchard, an objector. Mr Pritchard stated that he is representing those who object to this development, which they feels contravenes the Local Plan 2014, it is not an infill development as it has more than 2 properties and it was based on up to 6 properties being built in principle but the proposal is now for 9. He expressed the view that new development would only be supported where it demonstrates that it contributes to sustainability of the settlement, which this development does not.

Mr Pritchard expressed the opinion that the proposal will result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land and comprehensive evidence should be provided and it has not been seen. He stated that the Newton Plan also defines Newton as a small rural village and this number of properties is not required.

Mr Pritchard stated that the Fenland Local Plan defines Newton as a small village requiring only an additional 6 dwellings and these have already been accommodated with current planning approvals and since then several other multi developments have been granted planning and are in the process of being built. He feels there are other brownfield sites in the village which could be developed.

Mr Pritchard stated that without the Emerging Local Plan more high-grade agricultural land will be permanently lost and would be lost here. He expressed the view that there is a pressure on habitat species and the ecosystem, with Cambridgeshire being very flat there is significant risk of flood water as a result of intense rainfalls and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations should also be used for this development but there have been no assessments undertaken particularly those relating to Flood Zone 3 and high-grade agricultural land being lost.

Mr Pritchard referred to the Rural and Environmental Protection Act 2006 and asked if this has been considered with this application. He expressed the opinion that the initial permission in principle was for up to 6 dwellings, the subsequent planning for 9 was rejected and this is for a new development of 9 which does not have planning in principle.

Mr Pritchard referred to documents uploaded to the portal and the flood risk states that the floor levels are going to be 300mm above the adjacent areas, there is a level 3.5 in the middle of the High Road which means the floor levels are going to be 3.84 which in the worst case is nearly 1.2 metres above the existing ground, which will elevate the buildings making them much more higher than the adjacent bungalows and making this an imposing and dominant feature. He made the point that these properties may be raised and safe from flooding but what about all the surrounding properties.

Mr Pritchard reiterated that the site is in Flood Zone 3, the greatest risk of flooding and neighbouring residents say that the dyke at the front backs up and fills with water, it is not sure which way the dyke falls and on the drawing it says they are going to find and reconnect the other end of the road at Rectory Cottage, which, in his opinion, will direct more water down to the site. He stated that new road gullies are going to be installed on the highway to take surface water which has not been undertaken for some time as the grips have been infilled but they have now just been cleared and he cannot see where all the water has been considered in the assumptions and desk top Flood Risk Assessment calculations.

Mr Pritchard stated that the drawing shows the site having permeable areas and being discounted from the calculations but if it is Flood Zone 3 and liable to flooding he does not believe that deduction should have been taken into account. He questioned how all the surface water is going to be directed into a small attenuation system at the back of the site bearing in mind there are high water levels, how more water is going to go down the drain, which backs up, how is it going to be controlled and maintained and what is the plan when or if the area does flood.

Mr Pritchard referred to a path, some drawings say it is going to be built and other drawings say it is only proposed so he would like to know if it is going to be built or not. He expressed the view that the houses proposed are mainly 4 bedroomed inferring families and children but there are no amenities in the village and he feels the proposal does not benefit the village.

Members asked questions of Mr Pritchard as follows:

·         Councillor Marks asked if he lives locally to the site? Mr Pritchard responded that he lives in Rectory Road.

·         Councillor Marks asked if he has known flooding in this area before? Mr Pritchard responded that it is his photo showing the dyke filled with water and in the recent rainfalls the adjacent field was full of water for a long period of time.

·         Councillor Connor referred to Newton-in-the-Isle Parish Council supporting the application. Mr Pritchard responded that he has attended the Parish Council meetings, the majority of the village are not supportive of the proposal or further development in the village but the Parish Council supported it based on the footpath that is going to be constructed and he feels that this now appears it is not going to be built as there is not adequate space.

·         Councillor Connor read out the comments in the officer’s report from the Parish Council which noted concerns by some residents regarding surface water drainage but resolved to support the application subject to these concerns being addressed. Mr Pritchard responded that the FRA have said they have no objection but whether the drawings have been checked and the design is adequate he does not know, all he knows is that the site is in Flood Zone 3, liable to flooding and in accordance with policy it should not be developed when there are other areas available to be built on.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is on a similar site to the already approved PIP at High Road, Newton and on the previous PIP application members welcomed the community benefits which came with that application but unfortunately the follow up application failed to clarify all outstanding information but he trusts he will be able to show what they have done with this application to resolve these issues. He expressed the opinion that the main concerns were drainage, both foul and surface water disposal, and there is a manhole in the road next to the first bungalow on plot 1 so there is a foul sewer that would take all the foul water.

Mr Humphrey stated that the ditch to the front that Mr Pritchard was concerned about is going to be filled in to allow for a new footpath as members were concerned at the last meeting that there was not enough width so the design is that the ditch is filled, a new footpath will be put in and cut in new swales and surface water, with the surface water running towards the bungalows where there was a dyke which has been piped and filled in and there is a drainage strategy that shows that this is piped up to the North Level Drainage Board culvert that goes under High Road to the IDB drain. He advised that surface water will be attenuated via a crate system on site and discharged into the water course at the same rate as it would take at the moment.

Mr Humphrey made the point that a new footpath has been added to the whole site frontage and beyond to take it around the corner of Rectory Road adding a community benefit and this is what the Parish Council really wanted as they feel it is a dangerous corner and piece of road with people liking to walk the square and this part of High Road is the only part that has not got a footpath. He stated in addition it has been agreed with Highways that speed signage can be moved making it a second community benefit and whilst this does not have to be undertaken to get the proposal approved they have said they will do it in addition to the footpath because the Parish welcomed it. 

Mr Humphrey expressed the opinion that in addition to those two benefits they have added 4 semi-detached houses for first time buyers, this was discussed when the PIP application was considered with members feeling that all the houses were on the large side and it was suggested that houses for village people should be accommodated. He stated that the Environment Agency have no objection subject to the finished floor level being 300mm above ground level not 1.2 metres above road level as Mr Pritchard said, which is general building practice.

Mr Humphrey stated that the Parish Council do support the application and it is the parish not just one neighbour. He made the point that Environmental Health, North Level Drainage Board and  archaeologists have no objections and Highways confirm the visibility splays are acceptable as they are at the moment, although they have undertaken a traffic survey and that proved everything works.

Mr Humphrey advised that the size of the site has been increased to the rear to allow for them to have some biodiversity net gain land and, therefore, the site is slightly larger than the PIP that has already been approved. He stated in relation to Mr Pritchard’s concerns the PIP has already been approved, whilst there are 9 dwellings they are asking for 5 large but smaller than the original application and to include the 4 first-time buyer dwellings, there is additional land for BNG and the drainage strategy that shows all the drainage does work, with Mr Pritchard possibly setting the precedent when he built his massive house on Rectory Road.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she was not happy with this application previously but she sees a massive improvement with this proposal. She referred to flooding which is a concern of hers and she guesses that the dyke is a riparian dyke and possibly part of a County Council Highways dyke but they never take responsibility so presumes he has permission to pipe this.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if they were proposing to reduce the speed limit? Mr Humphrey responded that the proposal is to move the existing speed limit signs towards the corner so that the traffic is slowed down as it comes into the village.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if a new footpath is being installed? Mr Humphrey confirmed it would be as shown in orange on the plan on the presentation screen and there will be kerbs so the surface water from the road will go into the swale and ditch and get carried away in the same manner as water from the crates on site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that it is nice that committee is now getting answers to questions and asked if the footpath will be adopted by Highways? Mr Humphrey responded that they will be making an application for it to be adopted.

·         Councillor Marks refer to the mention of using crates to hold water on the site and asked if these would be underground crates and if this is the case would there be a management company who would look after this as they will not be on each property’s land and his concern is as seen on another development is that they need upkeep and cleaning out. Mr Humphrey responded that there will be a management company to take care of this and the joint accesses and entrances.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the previous application being a poorly put together application and the answers were not being provided that committee were looking for and he complimented Mr Humphrey on what he has come back with and the community benefits in terms of offering affordable housing for members of the local community, reducing the speed and installing the footpath.

·         Councillor Connor stated that there does not appear to be any street lights incorporated in this development along paths, the width of the development is 100 metres and asked if they would be prepared to put some street lights on the development as he feels it is imperative. Mr Humphrey responded that there is one street light in existence already.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the mutual grassland at the front of the development and also at the back and asked who is going to be responsible for those, will this be the management company? He further asked that it was said that the ditch is going to be filled in to make way for the footpath and another one is going to be created behind it, asking what is the distance from the current ditch to the new one that is being created? Mr Humphrey responded that the existing ditch is being filled in, the footpath will be created and a new ditch will be dug behind the new footpath. Mr Walford added that with this new scheme they had to be BNG compliant so there is the strip along the back with access on the east side so everyone can get to without going through another garden and an extra buffer was required so they did the frontage again because it was a common area and those areas, if approved, will have an informative condition or some requirement for them to submit a BNG plan which will go into more detail on how that will be delivered, maintained and looked after for the next 30 years but it would be part of the same management company that has been mentioned.

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

·         Councillor Marks referred to the previous application and a lot of questions have now been answered which has given him peace of mind which he did not have before. He feels that the agent has took the comments back from last time and tried to work with everyone and whilst the proposal is for 9 houses as opposed to 6 they are smaller properties, which is known to be needed in Fenland and in the rural communities. Councillor Marks stated that he will have to go against officer’s recommendation and support the proposal.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the application has addressed the concerns of the committee and if members do not give a steer in terms of where they feel things are wrong and it comes back after those issues have been addressed he feels that it would be remiss not to support the application. He feels with the extra community benefit in terms of speed reduction and low-cost housing, it will help the village and it is always a much need part of any community and he would be very happy to support the application.

·         Gavin Taylor clarified after having another look at the site there is a street light outside the existing bungalow nearest to the site other than that there is no street lighting across the frontage. He added that if this is in Highway land then he would assume as part of that specification for the footpath they would seek to secure lighting as part of its adoption process. Gavin Taylor referred to the public benefits that have been mentioned and in terms of the speed reduction he referred members to section 10.25 of the report where the Highways Authority have said ‘the visibility splays have been prepared in accordance with the surveyed speed it is not considered necessary to relocate the change in speed limits, however, it is understood that this would be beneficial to the wider area as per the parish’s request and to be secured by the developer separately to this application’ so he feels that giving any weight to this in terms of public benefit as it is not necessary it would not meet the test of the Council securing it and it is a separate process with no confirmed outcome so if members are minded to give any weight he would be cautious. He referred to the public benefits of the footpath, making the point that the public footpath just serves the development and whilst it continues eastwards it does not actually connect up to any other existing footpath and there have been subsequent applications which confirm that it would not be able to continue northwards along Rectory Road because of land ownership issues and highway extent.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments about the County Council and speed reduction which she finds weird that they would not give any weight to this when the applicant and agent have said they would fund it. She stated that all Town and Parish Councils can apply for Local Highway Improvements (LHI) but it takes 2.5-3 years and it would cost the Parish Council a considerable amount of money so the agent and applicant have offered this so she thinks it should be accepted.

·         Councillor Connor agreed that it is imperative that there is a reduction in speed limit and it is correct that if there was a LHI bid it would be 2027/28 before a scheme was implemented.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the 30 mph speed limit could be conditioned? Gavin Taylor responded that having regard to the test of planning conditions as set out in national policy, Highways have expressly set out it is not necessary to mitigate the impact of this development so, therefore, if it is not necessary it fails the test and conditions cannot be secured on it.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the footpath might not completely circle the village but it has taken the footpath further and may be at a later date those landowners will feels that the benefit would be good if they wanted to allow the footpath to extend further and there is not a gap left so he feels there is good cause to accept this, which is not detrimental but only of benefit.

·         Councillor Mrs French suggested to the developer if the application is approved to apply for a LHI third party rights through the County Council.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it is ludicrous that the Parish Council want it and the developer is prepared to do it and it is held up by Highways saying it is not needed.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that as a Cambridgeshire County Council Councillor who sits on the Highways and Transport Committee she will be bringing this up at the next meeting.

·         David Rowen made the point that there has been much discussions around the highway issue, drainage and the benefits that may or may not arise in terms of footpath and speed limits, but the recommended reasons for refusal do talk about the two-storey nature of development, visual dominance, appearance, incongruous appearance in the street scene and the impacts on the neighbouring property and those reasons for refusal are consistent with the ones that the committee agreed with previously in refusing the application and these issues do need addressing if members are minded to approve.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that a lot of LP16 is subjective, the village does have two-storey houses within a distance of this site so he does not think this will affect any street scene. He referred to visual dominance and made the point that the dwellings are quite a long way back on the plot, they have a driveway in front of them so they do stand further back so he believes they will have less impact into the area itself.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that members have discussed how when this application was brought before committee previously there were a lot of questions that went unanswered and now all of the questions have been resolved, there is going to be a lot of investment in terms of pedestrian safety, the flooding issues have been discussed at length and adequately addressed by the agent talking about the infrastructure that is going into the ground. She feels there is a difference between when it was brought to committee before and now as the committee’s views have changed as there is far greater information.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that there are overlooking relationships to other buildings in every application and there are very few places that do not have any overlooking and when someone lives next to an open field anything is going to encroach into their view but nobody is entitled to a view. He expressed the opinion that this application has changed and with every application it is not just one specific thing that is looked at and it is not about policy, with it being said when committee received training that planning is where you put ideas in a bowl, you mix it up and take the overall picture of what comes out so you can give different weight to different aspects of the application, with this application falling into this category and whilst it might not have been addressed last time he has previously questioned whether an application should be refused for all the reasons if members are happy with various aspects and it is then resubmitted. Councillor Benney stated that he is happy with mix of benefits and community benefits and even the extra houses which bring affordable housing, which is much needed for the community.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is more than confident that this current application will bring a community benefit, it will bring much needed smaller houses and more affordable houses for village people to remain in the village. He does feel that the path is adequate, it will bring a community benefit to the village and should include the correct lighting as well. Councillor Connor expressed the view that it is a different application to the previous one and he can support it.

·         Matthew Leigh made the point that the Council had looked at a scheme for 6 units on the site, they were two-storey, five were in the same position and this application now increases the quantum of development from 6 to 9 and none of the matters spoken about refer to that actual increase in volume. He stated that this previous reason for refusal still stand and whilst it has been mentioned about the community benefits and when an application is looked at freshly there is some level of subjectivity but what members now need to consider is as a committee, as a decision maker and as an authority it was decided that there was harm for 6 dwellings on that site with 5 of them being broadly identical to this application and the other one while it has been set back slightly has now grown to 4 units to provide 2 lots of semi-detached and members need to challenge the issue that why did the Council find 6 smaller dwellings unacceptable previously and now with a greater level of built form and greater impact on character why is it now acceptable.  

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that quite simply the reason committee refused the previous scheme was because it was a bad application, the number of dwellings were irrelevant and now it is a quality application and totally different.

·         Councillor Marks stated that whilst the application has gone from 6 to 9 it brings more benefit to the local village and smaller properties which are needed in Fenland so he feels it is almost a new application.

·         The Legal Officer reminded members that if they want to approve the application the Constitution requires that committee explain why a change of circumstances now exists to warrant an approval.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what the reasons for refusal were on the previous application? David Rowen read the reasons “Policy LP16 (d) of the Fenland Local Plan (2014) requires development to deliver high quality environments that make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of an area, enhancing their setting and responding to and improving the character of the local built environment whilst not adversely impacting on the street scene, settlement pattern or landscape character of the surrounding area. The proposal is for the construction of 6x two-storey dwellings on land currently used for agricultural farming on the edge of the village alongside existing single storey bungalows. The proposal would introduce large detached, two-storey dwellings which would appear, visually dominant, overly prominent and incongruous in the street scene to the significant detriment of the visual amenity of the area. If permitted, the development would consequently be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and contrary to the above policy of the Local Plan.”

·         Councillor Benney made the point that it was refused on scale and there are now smaller houses which has addressed this issue. He continued that the 6 that were in the previous application were much bigger and this proposal introduces 4 smaller houses which are needed. Councillor Connor stated it is more acceptable to the committee to have smaller houses to overcome the previous refusal.

·         Councillor Marks added the proposal is in keeping with the village as they are everyday houses and give more benefit.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he does not view the impact as a negative but a positive as it will complete the street scene.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that on the previous application there was not clarity on the drainage and the footpath and the agent has come back having listened to what the committee has said and submitted a proposal that, in his view, works.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that they have interpreted policies LP16, LP2 and LP14 different to officers, the proposal does not have a negative but a positive impact on the character of the area, the properties have been reduced in scale and include affordable housing, the proposal will bring benefits in relation to the reduction of speed limit and provision of footpath negating the need for the exception test and drainage issues have been addressed.

(All members declared that one of the applicants is the brother of Councillor Sam Clark, but they only know her as a fellow councillor and not socially, and would remain open minded)