Agenda item

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.

David Rowen presented the report and update to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Parish Councillor Graham Stokes in objection to the application.

Councillor Stokes stated that he is aware that Fenland District Council now has the necessary 5% in the ‘land bank’ and the Parish Council now hope that planning applications will be dealt with in line with Section 12 of the Local Plan.  He stated the village of Elm is classed as a village of limited growth and is over 200% in excess of the target threshold, with this application having no community support and the Parish Council has consistently raised objections to applications on the proposed site.

Councillor Stokes referred to the original 2003 Section 106 Agreement, where one acre of land was gifted to the community, and a quarter of that land has now been taken by the developer, with there being no offer of compensation and whilst the Parish Council is aware of the legal position in relation to the community land, local residents will not be aware of the background history.  He expressed the view that there is no community facility for the residents of Elm, since the closure of the village hall 10 years ago and, therefore, proposed that if the committee grant approval for the application the developer may wish to consider a contribution towards a community centre.

Members asked Councillor Stokes the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarification in that the Parish Council want the application to be refused, however, they would also wish for the developer to gift a community facility.  Councillor Stokes stated that ideally they would like the application to be refused, but if Members were minded to grant the proposal then they would request a condition be added that the developer kindly donates a sum towards a community centre as a gesture of goodwill.

·         Councillor Connor asked Councillor Stokes whether any dialogue had taken place between Elm Parish Council and the developer concerning the parcel of land.  Councillor Stokes confirmed that there had been no conversation.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from James Griffiths, the Agent.

Mr Griffiths explained that Kier has owned the land concerned with this application site for a number of years. He stated that, in order to make better use of the land, and to take into consideration the housing market, smaller dwellings, without garages, are proposed in order to be able to house an additional 7 dwellings, to incorporate a 9 metre easement which was requested by the Internal Drainage Board and provide a larger open space.

Mr Griffiths explained, with regard to access, consideration has been given to the existing residents and, therefore, this has been included in the original development’s Section 106 Contributions, which shows an access turning into the site to serve any future development.  He advised that the road will be a private road and it will be the intention to set up a Management Company to ensure future maintenance of the road in perpetuity, with all of the 2 and 3 bedroomed houses having 2 off road parking spaces and there will be the provision for 5 visitor spaces.

Mr Griffiths stated that should the application be approved, Planning Officers have suggested a construction management condition be added as well as a considerate contractors approach between residents and Kier, with the Site Warden ensuring that minimal disruption will be caused during the construction period.  He referred to the proposed Section 106 Agreement, with a contribution of £42,569 being agreed and the developer is happy for it all to go to the village of Elm for their community enhancements.  He made the point this amount is more than they would normally be obliged to pay and if the Community Hall does not have open space then consideration may be given with regard to the use of some of the open space which is to the south of the site.

Mr Griffiths mentioned that, with regard to the open space which was referred to earlier by Parish Councillor Stokes, Kier have been trying to transfer the land since 2009, however, all of the open space in the earlier development phase is linked to the transfer and there have been issues with regard to the contamination of the existing ponds, which have had to be drained and restocked with fish, but has now been resolved.  He stated that the scheme does provide an amount of amenity land on the western boundary.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Davis said she has concerns over the application and stated that if you consider the wording as stated in LP12 where it mentions Parish Council support, there is no support connected with the application being considered today.  David Rowen stated that although that is what Policy LP12 states Members will recall the appeal decision concerning a site at Manea where an application was solely refused on Policy LP12 and the Inspector allowed the appeal stating that it was not a substantive reason for refusal in its own right without any identified planning harm alongside it.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he has the upmost respect for all Parish Councils, but after reviewing the Local Plan and the NPPF he cannot find a material planning reason to refuse the application other than Policy LP12.  Councillor Sutton asked whether the developer could increase the Section 106 contributions to £50,000.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that contained within the update report it mentions that a contribution of £17,600 for public open space has been identified; however he would ask that the other amount of £24,969 go to the Elm Community Hall Project.  David Rowen stated that it is Members decision if the whole sum of money goes towards the village hall, with a caveat to include a period of time as to when the monies need to be spent and if the monies are not spent on the village hall then they will need to be spent elsewhere within the Parish.  Councillor Sutton agreed that there needs to be appropriate wording added with a realistic timescale.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that the developer has the skills and professionalism and as an additional contribution for the community may wish to assist with plans and architectural drawings for the hall.

·         Councillor Sutton mentioned that Elm Parish Council purchased land from the County Council, which has a covenant attached to it, and discussions are underway to get the covenant lifted and once this has been overcome, discussions can commence with Kier.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that community engagement is important and it brings life to a village.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regard to Kier assisting the community that goes above and beyond what can be included within the Section 106 Agreement and would need to be a private arrangement between the Parish Council and Kier.

Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Mrs Laws and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Sutton registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters that he had been lobbied on this application)