Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Donald Smithers, an objector. Mr Smithers stated that he opposes the application on two factors which are both connected to a 30-metre stretch of unadopted road that runs from Ingham Hall Gardens to the farmland at the rear. He added that the applicant seeks to join up the road to service the nine dwellings and he explained that the section of road according to Land Registry is registered to Mr Boston who was the developer of the Ingham Hall site and three months ago he offered to give that stretch of road to the Ingham Hall Residents Association, which would have been gratefully received, however, when the process commenced for the change of ownership, it was discovered that Mr Boston was not in fact the owner and it was owned by the Crown under the watchful eye of the Crown Agents.

Mr Smithers stated that he lives at 22 and along with the residents of numbers 39 and 41 Ingham Hall they have an obligation to maintain that stretch of road along with a further obligation to allow unrestricted access to farm traffic which will also include the applicant, because the applicant owns farmland at the rear. He has been advised by his legal adviser that the applicant cannot allow others to use that same right of access and, therefore, if there were people residing in the nine dwellings they would not have access to that piece of road.

Mr Smithers expressed the view that it may seem childish to deny those residents access to that piece of road but the issue which arises is that if the parish line is breached which is what would happen the number of properties on the site could significantly increase and the piece of road would become very difficult to maintain.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that there have been previous applications for housing on the site and she has worked very hard to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. She added that the most significant piece of work which has been carried out includes a community consultation exercise which was undertaken to meet the requirements of the Parson Drove Neighbourhood Plan.

Mrs Jackson explained that she is aware that the Parish Council do not support the scheme, however, as a result of the exhibition and completed forms, 68.7% of those that responded were in favour of a development for nine dwellings which shows that there is a community desire for the dwellings, despite the Parish Council documents. She made the point that the site has been recommended for housing under the emerging Local Plan under Policy LP57.01 and whilst she recognises that only limited weight can be given to the plan, it highlights the direction of travel in terms of spatial planning for the area, which is a change from the previous decisions and allows the committee to consider the application differently.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the principle of development is acceptable, and it is acknowledged within 10.11 of the officer’s report and she explained that she has demonstrated that the scheme is a comprehensive form of development to address policy LP12 and it actively seeks to avoid linear features and ribbon development. She explained that concerns have been raised with regards to the noise impact on neighbouring residents due to the additional vehicle movements, however, as there are only up to nine dwellings proposed these movements are relatively small scale given the context of the wider housing area and this issue must have been considered by officers when they proposed the allocation of the land.

Mrs Jackson stated that the road leading up to the site is a sealed surface and the noise generated by a vehicle on a sealed surface is minimal and, in her opinion, there is no harm caused in terms of existing residential amenities in accordance with policies LP2 and LP16. She stated that there has been concerns raised concerning the distance for the bins to be wheeled in order to be collected, however, she is aware of an appeal decision elsewhere in the district which states that an objection on these grounds cannot be upheld and to her knowledge such an objection no longer forms a reason for refusal.

Mrs Jackson advised members that the internal roadway will be constructed to an adoptable standard, including a turning head and future residents can benefit from roadside collections if arrangements are made and she would also be happy to accept a condition to this effect. She made the point that whilst there are concerns over access and rights of way, however, they are legal issues and do not fall under the remit of the planning application.

Mrs Jackson explained that she understands the position of the Parish Council, but she highlighted that there is overwhelming community support for the proposal, with the site being available, can be built out as soon as is practicable and will contribute to the housing numbers for the parish and the district as a whole. She asked the committee to support the application.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what details are in place for the drainage and sewage as she presumes that there are no main sewers in Parson Drove?. Mrs Jackson explained that the information would form part of the technical design.

·         Mrs French made the point that the committee gives very little weight to the emerging Local Plan.

·         Councillor Gerstner clarified with Mrs Jackson that she is aware of the comments provided by Mr Smithers with regards to the road access and the legalities. Mrs Jackson stated that she is aware that access could be denied but this is a legal matter. Councillor Gerstner asked whether access could be achieved elsewhere? Mrs Jackson explained that access could be achieved elsewhere, however, it would be a different red line and, therefore, a different application.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that there is no legal formal agreement for a contribution at the current time and Mrs Jackson stated that there is no formal contribution agreement and as Nick Harding had mentioned as it is nine dwellings it would not trigger anything in accordance with the CIL. He asked Mrs Jackson whether, in her opinion, the contribution influenced people at the consultation stage? Mrs Jackson explained that she does not know, however, in her opinion, people only respond to issues when they have concerns with them and, therefore, the fact that they are responding to something because they are happy with it would suggest that they are supportive of it.

·         Councillor Marks asked how the poll was undertaken and questioned whether it was the whole village, leaflet drop or Facebook? Mrs Jackson explained that there was an exhibition held and at that the scheme was explained and various options for the site were given. She added that the local residents were provided with leaflets who either took them away or responded at the time. Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the consultation is something where you cannot insist that people attend or send responses, but it is her understanding that the attendance was pretty good. Councillor Marks asked whether there was any other way that people got to find out about the poll, other than turning up on the day? Mrs Jackson explained that there were adverts in the press and, therefore, it was not just a singular approach. Councillor Marks asked whether there was a local free paper which is distributed? Nick Harding explained that site notices were put up along with a Village Voices magazine which gets circulated locally. Mrs Jackson added that it was also advertised in the village shop, post office and village hall.

·         Councillor Hicks asked as a result of the open day were the results signed on the day and then collated there? Mrs Jackson explained that the residents took the leaflets away with them and sent them back. She added that there are copies online which can be reviewed. Councillor Hicks made the point as to whether there was an element of pressure inflicted on the responders and Mrs Jackson stated that was not the case.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is not content with the poll which was undertaken as, in his opinion, he finds it a strange way of undertaking such things and does not seem to be a formal procedure. He added that the responses could have been photocopied or doubled up and the application does not appear to be significantly different from when it was brought before the committee previously.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what is different between the current proposal and the previous two applications? Nick Harding explained that the only difference is that the community consultation exercise has been undertaken.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated he has reviewed the Parson Drove Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan, and the proposal does not comply with it and the development encroaches on open land and he is not content with the poll that was undertaken and the contribution which is not legally binding. He made the point that he has never seen anything undertaken in that format before as it is outside of Section 106 contributions and CIL, and he cannot support the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has never seen anything undertaken in this format in the 24 years she has been an elected member.

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