Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney asked whether Ellingham Gardens is due to be surfaced as it should have been several years ago? He added that he is aware that some investigation took place a few years ago by officers concerning the same issue and he was advised at that time that it was highly unlikely that the County Council would consider the adoption of the road. Councillor Benney stated that the residents of Ellingham Gardens have contacted all of their local members over a period of time and, in his opinion, this is now the only opportunity that the residents of Ellingham Gardens will be able to get their road surface finished. He stated that when he visited the site there are still raised ironworks and he made the point that if there are no guarantees that the road will be completed, he will not be supporting the application. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he is happy with the development, but he wants to see the road surface in Ellingham Gardens finished. Nick Harding explained that condition 13 of the report states that an improvement scheme is required to be submitted to officers for approval and any scheme that is approved will have to be implemented prior to the first occupation of plots 1 and 2 of the development.

·       Councillor Mrs French made reference to the point Councillor Benney made with regards to the adoption of roads and she stated that the County Council will adopt roads, however, they do need to be up to an adoptable standard and any new roads which are adopted will now have a 20mph speed limit attached to them.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he has spoken to a senior officer at the County Council Highways team, and has been advised that, in his opinion, Ellingham Gardens will never be adopted unless works are undertaken to the drains and the binder course is removed. He stated that the road is a mess, and he does have sympathies with the residents as he is also aware of other roads within the District which are also unadopted and in poor condition. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he is disappointed the Agent or Applicant are not in attendance at the meeting today in order to allow members of the committee to be able to ask questions.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he also has concerns with regards to unadopted roads and whilst he appreciates the condition affixed to the application, he still has concerns whether it will be adhered to, and he would like to hear from the agent to ascertain what assurances they can provide prior to the application being determined.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he had managed to ascertain that the actual site of Ellingham Gardens was constructed by a company called Proctors who had also applied for some additional building works to be undertaken but were refused by the Council and, therefore, the builders chose not to compete the works to the roadway of Ellingham Gardens. He added that the road is a mess and whilst the residents could all contribute together to pay for the completion of the road, there are also residents living there who do not own their property and, therefore, there cannot be the expectation for those residents to contribute if they are only renting their home. Councillor Benney stated that the road is sub standard and whilst there is a management company associated with that piece of land that covers Ellingham Gardens, they need to address, the kerbs, paths, and weeds. He added that if more development is going to be allowed in that area then the issues surrounding the road needs to be considered. Councillor Benney stated that the proposed new dwellings will look out over Ellingham Gardens, and he agreed that it is disappointing that the Agent is not at the meeting today to answer members questions.

·       Nick Harding stated that applicant and agent cannot give any assurances to the committee that are enforceable in any way. Officers have proposed condition 13 and will also require a specification of the works that are going to be undertaken on site within a specified time frame.

·       Councillor Gerstner asked what arrangements are in place for the refuse and recycling collections? Nick Harding advised that collections are already taking place by the Council and there is a turning circle which is sufficient for the waste collection vehicles to undertake such collections.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether there was a possibility of a bond or agreement being put in place to ensure the improvement works are undertaken? Nick Harding stated that when considering the construction and subsequent adoption of roads, a series of technical drawings are submitted to the County Council for technical approval and then a legal agreement and bond is provided in order to cover the situation whereby part way through the works something untoward arises where the companies involved walk away and the County Council then have funds that they can draw on to undertake the works. Nick Harding stated that, in this case, it is an unadopted highway and planning officers are not highway engineers, however, an application which is submitted to the Council with a condition 13 is submitted to the County Council to ascertain whether those works are sufficient in order to improve the quality of the top surface of the road. He added that given that the works need to be undertaken prior to the occupation of plots 1 and 2, officers have time to undertake enforcement action if the works were not carried out. Nick Harding explained that the committee may choose to alter the wording of the condition from plots 1 and 2 so that it reads prior to the occupation of any two plots on site.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that it does not appear to be clear what the actual specification of works are, and he feels that this should be made clear, and it should be to a standard whether that be adoptable or unadoptable. He added that the developer should be outlining what works they are going to undertake to ensure that it is an acceptable level. Nick Harding stated that is the purpose of the condition and they will advise officers of a technical specification of the works that they are going to undertake then officers will pass that to the Highways Engineers for review and their input. Councillor Marks asked whether that is also the case if it is not to an adoptable standard? Nick Harding explained that in terms of the adoptable highway standard requirements in general terms it will involve digging out base course levels and the specification of materials to be used.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that developers cannot be forced to sign a Section 278 agreement.

·       Councillor Benney stated that there is already a management company set up for Ellingham Gardens, however, it appears to be impossible to contact them. He added that if the application were approved would the developer take over the management of the existing management company to ensure that the streetlights and road are kept to an acceptable standard or will a separate management company be set up for the area of the new development. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the developer should be at the meeting to answer the questions for the committee as it is important to know who is going to take responsibility for the site as the company who has the responsibility are shirking their duties.

·       Nick Harding stated that whilst he appreciates members comments, he made the point that there is an existing development which is occupied and if the management company is in place to serve the existing residents it is their responsibility to make the management company carry out their job. He added that there is now an additional development taking place but if the road is under the control of the existing management company there cannot be a replication with a new management company. Nick Harding added that the Council should not be getting involved with such matters which are beyond the control of the committee. He stated that any solicitors of those residents who are going to be using Ellingham Gardens should be advising them that it is a private road and any associated consequences with regards to the future maintenance of the road and costs and responsibilities.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that whilst he appreciates the comments made by Nick Harding, elected members are in place to deal with issues such as these which are important to the electorate. He stated that he has unanswered questions, and he would like to know which management company is responsible for the development as the one currently in place is not fit for purpose. Councillor Benney expressed the view that he cannot support the application.

·       Councillor Connor stated that it is a good development and an excellent officer report but he can see the dilemma, which has been discussed but he would not like to see the application refused as it is 9 much needed homes. He stated that once the issues are resolved he can see the development being a very nice cul de sac. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he would rather the committee consider deferring the proposal rather than refusing it. He added that he is very disappointed that the agent and applicant have not come before the committee.

·       Nick Harding reiterated to members that there is an existing development at Ellingham Gardens with a management company in place already which although is not working as well as it should be should not be to the detriment of the application being determined. He stated that if members were to consider refusing the proposal then serious consideration needs to be given on the refusal reasons.

·       Councillor Connor reiterated that he would prefer to see the application deferred rather than refused.

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

·       Councillor Hicks asked Councillor Benney whether he would consider the road to be adequate and useable in its current state? Councillor Benney explained that you can drive down the road, but consideration does need to be given to the raised ironworks and whilst the bin lorry can access the road, it is a mess as there are many weeds. He made the point that he does not wish to see the development refused but it does need to bring some benefit with it and that, in his opinion, means ensuring that the area is tided up. Councillor Benney stated that if the area is left for the management company to sort out then it will just be a situation which continues. He made the point that if there can be some discussion with the Agent to obtain assurances from them then he would feel in a better position to consider the application.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to 5.6 of the officer’s report where the Highways Officer states that officers may wish to consider including a condition that the applicant remedy the existing defects along Ellingham Gardens in response to the proposed intensification.

·       Councillor Marks stated that the proposal will add more residents to an existing problem and, in his view, that is no clear direction on what the remedy will be with regards to the top surfacing of the road. He expressed the view that the members do need to be able to raise their issues and concerns with the Agent in order to ascertain a guarantee albeit a verbal one.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that if the application is deferred in order to give the committee the opportunity to address the Agent and the Agent states that they will undertake the necessary works, is there any legal agreement which can be put in place to ensure the works take place. Councillor Connor stated that that if the Agent comes before the committee and gives assurances then members are then in a position where they have done all they can do and advise the residents of Chatteris that they did their best.

·       Councillor Connor stated that it appears that the committee are looking to defer the application and there does not appear to be any reasons for refusal.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he is aware that the management company that runs Ellingham Gardens are based at Station Road in St Ives.

·       Nick Harding stated that the specification of a highway is never requested as part of a  planning application, and that there is no justification to request that level of detail for this particular application. He added that there is a condition in place which asks for the details of what improvements are going to be implemented to Ellingham Gardens. Nick Harding added that an adjustment to condition 13 could be made to ask for the details concerning how the road is going to be improved but also the details of its ongoing maintenance. He added that if the application is deferred for the agent to come to address the committee and they give assurances that as and when the houses get build they will be signed up to a management company that will not be included within the planning permission and, therefore, the adjustment to the condition should give the committee assurance on the issue of not only what works are going to be undertaken on the road improvements but also the details of how the road is going to be maintained in the future.

·       Councillor Gerstner made reference to the highways section within the officer report  which considers including a condition that the applicant remedy the existing defects along Ellingham Gardens in response to the proposed intensification. Nick Harding explained that aspect is already covered in condition 13.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there are still concerns with regards to what is required going forward and maybe the committee should focus on road adoptions more going forwards. He added that it will cause the Council issues going forwards as, in his opinion, there are going to be obstacles with the road in the future.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the County Council have many issues of unadopted roads that they are dealing with.

·       Nick Harding stated that, when planning permission is granted for a brand-new development site, officers cannot require the roads to be built to an adoptable standard and the decision on whether the road is going to be private or whether or not they are going to be adopted is totally in the developers remit. He explained that members need to be aware that it is not within the gift of the committee to be able to get a road adopted. Nick Harding stated that when planning permission is granted for new developments now, a condition is added which requires the details of ongoing maintenance and management of those roads and that is so that Council can tolerate the situation that the County Council have found themselves in previously, where developments have been built and the roads have remained private. Nick Harding explained that a change to the condition which adds in the requirement for the maintenance arrangements to be submitted and approved by officers is no different to the condition that is in place for brand new developments. He stated that the option he has proposed to the committee is just as good as what is placed on brand new developments and if the application is deferred for the applicant and agent to come before the committee, they can give members assurances, however, what actually matters is the detail that is submitted and what details are approved by the authority in relation to how the road is going to improved and the ongoing maintenance arrangements for the road. Nick Harding stated that if the agent states that a management company is going to be set up and associated with all the properties that will be using Ellingham Gardens, in theory there is nothing to stop that management company going bankrupt and the same situation will arise, and the Council can never resolve that situation.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Hicks that the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation, which did not receive support from the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERED in order to invite the agent and developer to address the committee and answer their concerns with regards to the management company.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of approval as they feel that they do not have adequate information from the Agent and Developer to be able to determine the application.

Nick Harding stated that as the committee have voted in favour of a deferment in terms of any other element of the application the assumption is that they are happy with all other parts of the scheme and the only the issue is with the ongoing maintenance of the highway that is of concern to members. He added that when the application is brought back to the committee that will be the only aspect of the scheme that will be discussed.

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, but takes no part in planning)