Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter 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 Peter Bryant, an objector to the proposal. Mr Bryant stated that he is attending the meeting to represent the hamlet of Colletts Bridge but stressed that his comments are not nimbyism, however, the community is asking the Council to uphold the Local Plan, and care about highway and flooding safety. He added that the emerging Local Plan has no bearing, but that a small village has a target of 9% growth within it and LP65.01 is for a 37% growth in the new plan which is clearly unsuitable and disproportionate.

Mr Bryant stated that with regard to the current Local Plan the proposal fails all elements of LP3 as it is for5 properties, not a single dwelling, and it is a mini estate, not an infill, and it is not part of an otherwise built-up frontage. He made the point that over many applications and 3 appeals (most recently last November) both the Council and Planning Inspectorate officers have described the western side of Colletts Bridge Lane to be predominantly open to the surrounding countryside with a handful of sporadic dwellings, with the latest appeal ruling that development on the west side of Colletts Bridge must be in keeping with this and not cause harm and, in his view, a mini estate would do dramatic harm to both character and appearance.

Mr Bryant referred to the presentation screen and stated that it shows the level of opposition to the application from local residents, both Ward Councillors and the Parish Council. He made the point that the community wants to protect the character and appearance, and flood and highway safety and, in his view, their opinions should be heard.

Mr Bryant explained that the previous slide showed a map which covered an area that is only a few hundred metres wide, and the map highlights the 5 distant residential supporters who mostly failed to address planning policy and issued generic expressions of support. He stated that when considering flooding, the site floods all year round and local knowledge asserts the site is semi-permanently flooded and waterlogged which is supported by the Middle Level Commissioners report where it mentions high water-table and low infiltration rate.

Mr Bryant explained that the area is covered in reeds, which by definition are wetland plants and it is the natural water run off for the roads on two sides, with the closest property having flooding problems to the point where their ground floor bathroom becomes unusable, and the application would seriously worsen these conditions and the submitted drawing indicates that over half the surface of the site would be built on. He explained that when considering highway safety, the opposite highway splay is incorrect on the diagram as it goes through a hedgewhich is over 1m, and the hedge is not in the control of the applicant as far as he is aware and by correcting this it would reduce the splay distance even further from just under 40% of a standard 215 metres to just over one third.

Mr Bryant referred to the first response from the Highway Authority of 2 January which stated that both splays should be 2.4x215m in either direction for 60mph roads, or that the applicant should present a traffic speed survey to show speeds are low enough, but the applicant did neither. He added that a 69-metre splay is only good for speeds of about 40mph for light vehicles, and the road is the only approved route for HGV’s attending Fenmarc 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Mr Bryant referred to the second response from Highways on the 17 January which, in his view, rests entirely on the phrase “…would be unable to build up speed…” for it to be acceptable but feels that is incorrect and an evidence free assertion. He referred to the presentation screen which displayed the actual speeds reached in a 16-year-old car in slightly damp conditions, daylight and without taking any risks, with the vehicle being driven north on the A1101 and turning left whilst the passenger noted the speeds.

Mr Bryant added that when cars exit Colletts Bridge Lane vehicles from the left may be at or over 30mph before they become visible and drivers have less than 2 seconds of clear road which is not safe and it is only mitigated because there is ¼ mile of clear road to the right without junctions and the clear road gives the driver 15 seconds of time so that if clear drivers can completely focus on avoiding traffic from the left. He expressed the view that the proposed development would destroy that mitigation meaning that those 15 seconds would drop to 1 or 2 and the danger would now be in both directions, with all of this safe time being about narrowly avoiding a crash and there are no safety margins and no consideration of close shaves.

Mr Bryant explained that he cannot count the number of times one of them has shouted “STOP!!!” just as they move into Gosmoor Lane and it should also be remembered that the majority population of Colletts Bridge is (and has historically been) elderly, whose reaction times are slower. He made the point that HGV’s cut the A1101 corner from both directions using the full width of the road, referring to the presentation screen to show the view and the speeds of the cars when they are travelling towards vehicles when they exit Colletts Bridge.

Mr Bryant concluded by stating that there is no local support for the proposal, it fails to meet Local Plan policies, it increases and introduces new highways danger, and it increases flooding/drainage issues. He provided copies of documentation for members to demonstrate the speeding of vehicles on the road.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent. Mr Lunn-Towler referred to the presentation screen and highlighted to members of the committee the blue areas which are identifiable as existing dwellings, yellow which is a dwelling approved by the Planning Committee in 2021 which is south of the proposed site, which is referred to in the officer’s report at 10.29, and green which identifies a recently approved barn conversion for two dwellings. He expressed the opinion that when considering the plan being presented to the committee, the application site sits within the built form of Colletts Bridge and the site is strongly related to the core built form of the settlement and the development would add positively to the street scene.

Mr Lunn-Towler added that under the draft Local Plan, the proposed development is allocated under LP65.01 and although this plan holds limited weight at the current time, policy consideration has been undertaken to warrant its allocation. He added that since the site is in a Flood Zone One area, great weight has been attached to it allocation and whilst flooding concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and neighbours the site currently experiences very small forms of localised puddles and not flooding, and this is due to the fact that the site has not been harvested since before 2010 and the applicant has cut the land where it was required in order to prevent it from overgrowing and becoming a nuisance, which has resulted in the land from becoming compacted and preventing natural drainage.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the reason for the applicant not harvesting the site is due to its small awkward shape which makes it difficult to farm and that such concerns over drainage mean that discussions with Middle Level can take place in order to promote designed drainage of the land at reserved matters stage of the application. He explained that the applicant owns the land which is west of the application site which is shown as grey on the presentation screen and then north of that and west of that are land drains which could potentially support the proposal or there could be consideration given to similar drainage designs, with an Anglian Water foul main running through the east side of the site for foul water removal.

Mr Lunn-Towler explained that the committee could add a drainage condition to any permission today if they are minded to approve the proposal and the officer’s report supports this as drainage can be added and is detailed at 10.19 where is states that officers have no concerns with regards to flooding or drainage. He made the point that he has listened to the neighbours’ concerns with regards to having an access point onto Colletts Bridge Lane and this has been removed in order to have only one access point onto Gosmoor Lane and subsequently the Highway Authority have no objection to the current proposal.

Mr Lunn-Towler made the point that the application does not commit any matters and the only issue for members to consider is the principle of development as the access can be moved and the presentation slide is only for illustrative purposes. He expressed the view that the application site can be considered within the built form of the settlement as support is evident in the allocation contained in the draft Local Plan, the site falls within the lowest flood risk zone and matters of drainage can be committed and designed at a later date and he, therefore, asked the committee to support the application.

Members asked Mr Lunn-Towler the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for confirmation as to how the sewage from the site will be managed? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that there is an Anglian Water asset that runs through the east of the site, which runs north from plot 4. Councillor Mrs French asked for details with regards to how the surface water on the site is going to be managed? Mr Lunn-

Towler explained that will be dealt with by means of a specialist design and that the illustrative drawing shows a mixture of grass land, but it can be achieved through a soak away although Middle Level have stated that may not be achievable, however, that is subject to infiltration tests and a specialist recommendation. He added that there are land drains further to the north and west in the applicant’s ownership and if need be, a SUDs design could be considered. Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the view that currently the water puddles due to the fact that there is nowhere for the water to go, and the land is compacted and the only way to resolve that issue is for something to be designed in order for the site to be able to drain properly. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is the County Councillor for that area, and explained that she does recall that area flooding in 2020/21. She added that she is also a member of drainage boards, and she will not be supporting the application as it stands in its present form until a proper flooding scheme is set out. 

·         Councillor Hicks referred to the officer’s report and stated that at 5.3 Middle Level have stated that although the site is in Flood Zone 1, this particular area of land is in a high water level which would not lend itself to SUDs and because of the nature of the soil being clay a soakaway system would not be suitable either. He added that at 5.4 it refers to the site being a marshy area and highlighted that Anglian Water have stated that connection to the local sewerage system is not achievable as the system is already overwhelmed. Councillor Hicks asked for clarity on what are the possible other options? Mr Lunn-Towler stated that he would not be able to comment on drainage design but added that it is the principle of development which is being considered. He explained that a drainage specialist would  compile a drainage scheme once the specific data is collated and that could be conditioned. Councillor Hicks stated that he cannot see what other option can be considered. Mr Lunn-Towler made the point that the Middle Level had suggested that a land drain could be an option which would continue from the most eastern end to cross the applicants land so that other land drains could be connected to the rest of the network.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation is correct and that the emerging Local Plan is not advanced far enough to be able to give any consideration to it when determining applications. She expressed the view that the drainage issues and system for the site must be resolved.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the opinion that the report speaks for itself, and he cannot support the application without more details concerning the drainage for the site.

·         Councillor Benney stated that drainage is not cited as a reason for refusal and made the point that officers have listed LP3, building in the open countryside, LP12 and LP16(d) which, in his view, are subjective. He stated that applications have been passed before with conditions for a drainage scheme coming forward and this proposal would have to have a approved drainage scheme to prove that there was a scheme that would work. Councillor Benney reiterated that drainage is not a reason for refusal, and he stated that building in the open countryside is very subjective and specific to the site and consideration need to be given as to whether it give a positive or negative outlook interpretation of the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has to disagree with the comments of Councillor Benney as, in her view, flooding is an issue, and it is only going to get worse due to the number of developments across Fenland. She added that she will not support the application and if it comes back to the committee with the emerging plan and all the drainage schemes being properly in place. Councillor Mrs French made the point that she does not think that the applicant would be able to introduce SUDs through the County Council.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French with regards to concerns over flooding especially as it has been so prevalent over the last few weeks. He stated that if the application came back with a proper drainage plan in the future then it could be considered but he cannot support it in its current form. 

·         Councillor Benney stated that the point that he was trying to make is that flooding is not listed as one of the reasons listed for refusal and should the application come back again with a drainage scheme that members do find acceptable should members choose to refuse the application today on what reasons would the proposal be refused and would it be on all three reasons. He added that to refuse an application on reasons which are not within the report, in his view, means that policies are not being considered appropriately.

·         Councillor Marks stated that like most villages flooding is such a major issue at present and when you look at the other reasons, in his view, it is not in an elsewhere location as he has visited the site. He made the point that the application will come back before the committee and as there is a large field beside the application site, this may also be considered for future development. Councillor Marks added that consideration does need to be given with regards to members views concerning the three reasons listed for refusal.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application cannot be turned down on flooding grounds as it does not state that in the report although it highlights the potential risk of flooding, however, a drainage scheme which is a technical solution could be brought forward to solve the issue. He added that if the committee are going to refuse the application, flooding is not one of the reasons for refusal, it is LP3, LP12 and LP16(d). Councillor Benney made the point that there have been times where the committee have gone against those reasons and members need to be consistent with their decision making. He questioned whether the application should be refused on all cited reasons listed and, in his opinion, he could support a refusal of the application but more from a policy perspective as he is sure the application will come before the committee again.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Middle Level have provided an in-depth response to the application and she asked whether a condition can be added to show that there are concerns with regards to flooding in this area.

·         Nick Harding stated that officers are not saying that it is an elsewhere location, but there are a set of rules which need to be followed in order to determine whether a development is acceptable or not and for this settlement the development proposed has to be an infill proposal which it is evidently not and, therefore, it is a clear failure against the policy test. He added that it is quite an expansive area and there is the appeal decision which was referred to in the officer’s presentation and nothing has changed since the appeal decision and, therefore, it is logical to arrive at the same conclusion as the appeal Inspector did in respect to the nature of character of this particular location. Nick Harding made the point that the application does not fill the criteria for infill development and as determined by an independent person the location has a countryside character to it. He made reference to the point made by Councillor Mrs French and should the application be approved then a drainage scheme could be conditioned to any consent and if members wished to add their concerns with regards to drainage to the reasons for refusal that is also an option. Nick Harding explained that he would suggest that members refer to the comments made by the IDB in respect of drainage as they have advised that draining the site is not without its challenges, would be costly and there is the possibility that third party land maybe involved.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is Middle Level who have actually made comments and its opinion to be taken into high consideration as it would normally be an engineer or Chairman or an Internal Drainage Board. She expressed the view that she would hope that the application is refused, and she would like the condition added as a matter of refusal.

·         Councillor Connor asked for the date of the appeal to be provided to the committee and it was confirmed that the date was 28 November 2023.

·         Councillor Marks referred to F/YR21/1494/F and asked what drainage mitigation that application had in place.

·         David Rowen explained that the two application sites are distinctly different and the site to the south of Gosmoor Lane was that it was essentially domestic garden rather than uncultivated land to the north.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments listed at 10.17, 10.18 and 10.19 of the report and explained that those points are to be included along with the reason for refusal.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation, with an additional reason to include concerns over drainage.