Agenda item

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that outline planning permission was granted in principle for up to 30 dwellings for an affordable housing scheme, with all units falling within the relevant definition of affordable housing. She referred to photos on the screen during her presentation and feels that the new application increasing dwellings by over 50% to 48 dwellings speaks more of quantity than quality of a home and its amenities raising valid community objection.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that contrary to some of the national, local and emerging planning policies, this proposal development as per LP1 is not delivering sustainable growth in the present environment and this growth does not benefit the community or existing residents, national planning policy says that it does not take local circumstances into account, does not reflect the character or the needs and has not provided objectively assessed needs for the increasing in the housing, rural housing 78 NPPF 124. She feels the development should be restricted to the initial application of up to 30 dwellings as the proposal for 48 dwellings is contrary to LP12C as it will impact on the surrounding area, a compact estate with no open views to the surrounding landscape and referred also to LP12(d) and (e), LP16(d) and (e) and LP2 as not being of a scale in keeping with the core shape, character or appearance of the village.

 

Councillor Johnson referred to NPPF, paragraph 124 -130, expressing the view that the proposal extends only slightly the existing linear features of the village and it is not a positive contribution to the character of the area, to the local built form, scale, local street scene, settlement pattern or landscape character. She made the point that Willow Gardens is 1.7 hectares with 37 bungalows, which excludes an attenuation pond and playing field and the extension to Willow Gardens is 1.65 hectares, which also excludes the attenuation pond, for 21 bungalows, Lily Avenue is 3.6 hectares, twice the size of this proposed site, is only 80 dwellings, and Bellway is 3.7 hectares being over twice the proposed site again for only 88 dwellings, with these dwellings having much more amenities per home.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that the 1.65 hectares proposed for this development includes a large attenuation pond, a play area, an easement strip that has to go 9-10 metres along the length of the western water course, parking courts and a turning place, which, in her view, does not leave much space for the actual 48 dwellings with amenities. She referred to LP12(f), which respects natural boundaries, and, in her opinion, views to the fields to the north and to the public right of way to the east will be blocked by the density of this site and in reference to LP12(j), a risk to local residents and the public, the proposed attenuation pond incorporating a play area is definitely an identifiable danger.

 

Councillor Johnson referred to Local Plan Policies 12(k) and 14(b), which concern past and present flooding, and, in her view, with sewage and the infrastructure in the surrounding area 48 dwellings will not be served by sustainable infrastructure plus the elevation of a number of the properties on that development will increase the possibility of flooding in other areas as in Hassock Way and Eaton Estate. She added that, with reference to LP3 and LP13, whereby development in Wimblington will be appropriate provided that capacity at the sewage network has been addressed, local homes have and are still experiencing sewage problems, with Lily Avenue west of the proposed site now having regular clean ups of raw sewage and flood water.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that there is not sufficient infrastructure to support all requirements arising from increased development, the village now has a reduced bus service, an oversubscribed GP and NHS service, a constant reduction of open green spaces and increased traffic congestion on all exit routes. She referred to Local Plan Policy 2 and feels it does not positively contribute to creating a healthy, safe and equitable environment and in reference to NPPF, paragraph 110, the site access is adjacent to a popular play area on the Eaton Estate, and NPPF, paragraph 112(c), a condensed environment of 48 dwellings with little amenities per dwelling is not attractive.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that efficient delivery of goods and access by services and emergency vehicles will be difficult and there are no visitor parking areas shown and, in her view, there should be 10.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Johnson as follows:

·         Councillor Marks referred to it being stated that Anglian Water can cope and asked her to talk through the issues she mentioned in relation to sewage in the village. Councillor Johnson responded that Anglian Water have been called to Lily Avenue on more than one occasion due to rising water and sewage levels, with Middle Level also having to come out due to a pipe issue on the adjoining Bellway site.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Michael Hoy, an objector. Mr Hoy stated that he is present to represent himself, his partner and residents of Eaton Estate and Hassock Way referring to various local planning policies, the NPPF and national design code and, in his view, this new planning application for 48 dwellings is an unacceptable number that is packed into such a small space, which raises several objections from the local community. He stated that the minimal garden sizes, lack of green space, lack of visitor parking and the number of properties suggest, in his opinion, maximum profit and not the welfare of the prospective and local existing residents.

 

Mr Hoy stated that his partner and himself brought their home four years ago, purchasing it with the knowledge of planning for up to 30 dwellings being considered and when they purchased the property they were assured that the proposed dwellings would not overlook his property or invade their privacy as was his neighbour. He made the point that a major deciding factor for the purchase was the privacy but the new layout of the site means that several properties in Eaton Estate and Hassock Way are being overlooked, with Lily Avenue on the western side having a separation of approximately 31-40 metres with mature hedgerows and there are some hedgerows on the eastern side but there is nothing protecting 25 to 30 Eaton Estate, these will be completely overlooked by plots 44 and 45.

 

Mr Hoy stated that there was no mention of rear to rear separation distance in the planning for these plots, with one layout even having 45 and 44 missing. He made the point that 44 and 45 are both 2-bedroomed properties facing directly behind the existing properties of 27 and 28 Eaton Estate and the proposed properties are to be elevated, which will further reduce screening of the 1.8 metre fence at the rear of Eaton Estate and makes the view into his home and garden extremely invasive, referring also to the garden gradient and questioned where is the water going in Hassock Way, which will surely create flooding in lower areas.

 

Mr Hoy stated that they are private people and so are his parents who visit regularly, being disabled they enjoy the open environment of his garden whilst visiting, the wildlife and birds without being overlooked and this proposal is going to have a major impact on them and their family together with their neighbours and their family health and wellbeing. He referred to a photo shown on the presentation screen which shows two large mature trees which will be removed as part of the planning application, these have been dated by a resident of being approximately 50-60 years old and is where properties 44 and 45 will be built.

 

Mr Hoy referred to another photo taken from an elevated position but is lower than the height of the bedroom window and is taken from the approximate position of where 44 and 45 is to be built, the windows of the new properties will look directly into the rear of 27 and 28 Eaton Estate, which includes the garden, downstairs utility room, toilet, kitchen, dining room and upstairs bedrooms and bathrooms, with it also affecting the privacy of 25, 26, 29 and 30 Eaton Estate, which, in his view, contravene policy LP2, the NPPF and the national design code. He stated that another concern raised by the residents is the surface water runoff and the dispersement of this water via the drains and ditches which are now at full capacity, with neighbours advising that they have not seen this level of flooding in 24 years and not a year has gone by without an issue with that drain, with several properties in recent years experiencing flooding and even worse raw sewage resurfacing through the drains and toilets.

 

Mr Hoy stated that his property houses a manhole in the back garden and on inspection this was also seeping out of the top. He referred to NPPF 60 where strategic policies should be informed by a strategic Flood Risk Assessment and should manage flood risk from all sources, they should consider cumulative impacts in or affecting local areas susceptible to flooding and explained that there are now four developments surrounding Eaton Estate and Hassock Way, with there already being a problem with the new Lily Avenue estate adjacent to the site and the Bellway site already has excessive surface water sitting stagnant in large pools, asking where is this water going to run to once the development finishes and can the infrastructure cope.

 

Mr Hoy expressed concerns about the extra traffic flowing past the play area of Eaton Estate and there are already serious concerns regarding the safety of Norfolk Street pass the Wimblington Post Office, with there being instances daily where traffic cannot pass and vehicles drive up the pathway to pass each other, whilst it is understood the study looked at crashed website data this does not consider local safety issues.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Russell, on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Russell stated that this is a housing development proposal that was submitted to the Council approximately a year ago and during this time they have worked to address a few issues that were raised. He made the point that the development location is surrounded on three sides with existing development, with the access being via the Eaton Estate which is a former development characteristic of authority housing, to the east is a high density housing association scheme of 21 dwellings that was a previous extension from Eaton Estate and more recently to the west there is a large development by Matthew Homes.

 

Mr Russell stated that this application site was given permission for 30 larger bungalow properties around a similar highway layout albeit they had very small gardens and their market research and sales team strongly advised that given the location of the site, the access route to the site and the large open space play area adjacent the access a scheme of 30 larger bungalows would not be viable and they would not be able to sell them in this location. He added that they took note of the surroundings and understood that a housing scheme with a mix of more affordable homes of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms would be much more appropriate.

 

Mr Russell expressed the opinion that whilst it is noted that there are some very deep gardens and wider footprints to some of the properties on Eaton Estate the built form facing the road frontage is consistent and dense in repetition, with the Eaton Estate consisting of semi-detached and terraced properties of up to 6 dwellings so, in his view, their proposal of predominantly semi-detached properties, a few detached and only two small terraces is very in keeping with regard to those dwelling types and exceeds that of the neighbouring developments of Hassock Way and Eaton Estate. He added that they additionally propose some varied dwelling designs and some detailed features on key focal buildings to add some interest to the street scene instead of repetition in design.

 

Mr Russell made the point that Wimblington is a growth village with development appropriate providing the sewage network has capacity which it has been confirmed by Anglian Water to have and notably the site is within the settlement boundary of the emerging Local Plan and becomes reallocated as a commitment to delivering the housing requirement based on its previously proposed scheme of 30 dwellings, which did not include the brownfield area at the southeast of the site which contains a range of brick and tin dilapidated outbuildings and a heavily vandalised bungalow. He stated that there are no outstanding technical objections and Highways have reviewed the access proposals and are happy along with the proposed agreement with Clarion Housing who have been consulted on the access as they are the owners of the adjacent properties.

 

Mr Russell stated that they have had to provide a biodiversity net gain assessment, which shows a gain and a significant hedgerow gain, and in addition he notes the resident’s concerns regarding the risk of flooding but stated that surface water from the site is all captured and outfalls into an IDB drain in the opposite direction and the foul sewer also connects out of the back of the site into an Anglian Water sewer so, in his view, would bypass issues from Matthew Homes or Bellway in what was mentioned by the objector. He stated that no additional drainage or water comes towards the Eaton Estate and additionally houses are only built out of the ground by 300mm so no unnecessary elevating.

 

Mr Russell stated that he notes comments about overlooking and made the point that the properties are located nearly 30 metres from the nearest Eaton Estate dwelling but generally more and this is significantly above the normal distances they experience. He added that they have proposed to retain all heavily landscaped boundaries as well as new fencing, which he feels can bring comfort to neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Russell referred to the objector’s comments regarding plots 44 and 45 and expressed the view that these are nearly 40 metres from existing dwellings and they have agreed to meet all contribution requests including policy compliant affordable housing which the previously approved scheme failed to following a viability study. He stated that the neighbouring development of Hassock Way gives a density of 34 dwellings per hectare and their proposed scheme is around 28 dwellings per hectare, with the proposal also providing a large area of green space whereas Hassock Way provides none.

 

Mr Russell hoped that members could support the proposal for this great development location which as per the CGR previously provided fits very well within its surroundings.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Russell as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if consultation had been undertaken with Middle Level? Mr Russell responded that they have consulted Middle Level and also tried to contact them a number of times for the amended schemes put forward but they have not replied to any of the more recent requests. Councillor Mrs French stated that she has been successful in contacting them and they say there is inadequate space to undertake routine maintenance operations on the maintenance strips and she understands there are riparian dykes here so who is going to look after these? Mr Russell replied that he understands there is riparian dyke to the south of the development and to the left the ditch is in Matthew Homes development and outside there is an existing very mature hedge on their site boundary but the 9 metres from the brink of that drain is well outside of where their development is so he assumes that unless Middle Level wanted to remove that hedgerow which is off site then they probably would not have their 9 metre strip. Councillor Mrs French made the point that Middle Level’s policy is a 9 metre strip and they have suggested a 6 metre but she understands that part of this is not within the ownership of this site. Mr Russell stated that they have not got any proposed hedges or fences within that 9 metres. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is proposed to place a pond in the development and there have been no discussions with Middle Level regarding this, with the statement they have made to her is that the Board does have several concerns including the pond’s installation and the future long-term maintenance and funding arrangements of both the pond and on off-site surface water and flood risk management. She expressed the view that if this application is approved the applicant needs to have some serious talks with Middle Level.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that officers have not seen the Middle Level report and asked if they could see sight of it. Councillor Mrs French passed the report to officers. David Rowen stated that these comments were dated 5 March so have only been received in the last day by Councillor Mrs French and pointed out that as part of the planning application Middle Level have been consulted several times so it is disappointing that officers receive this information through a third party on the day of committee. He stated in terms of the issues raised from a quick perusal of them there does not seem to be anything that would indicate that there are any issues with the actual application in front of members that would justify the refusal of the application but there may be elements of it that may need to be ‘fine-tuned’ to address some of the IDB concerns.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that the rest of the committee should see sight of this report. 

 

Councillor Connor suspended the meeting for 15 minutes to allow the opportunity for members to read the comments of Middle Level.

 

On return, David Rowen summarised and responded to Middle Level Comments as follows:

·         The watercourse immediately to the west of the site is the Board’s Bridge Lane Drain. The channel is protected by a 9.0m wide maintenance strip but it is understood that this is not totally under the applicant’s ownership.

This is something of a common occurrence and would replicate the current situation in terms of the maintenance of that drain.

·         This section of the Board’s District Drain in well maintained and existing problems with the neighbouring Matthew Homes site are being resolved.

This is not of relevance to this proposal.

·         The amount of development within the catchment of this watercourse was not a consideration when this watercourse was designed.

A statement of the obvious given that it was designed to accommodate a field network.

·         The site is within an Acute Drainiage area with multiple or interlinked sources of flood risk.

This is a statement of fact.

·         Apart from in the most exceptional circumstances, the Board will not consent any increased volumes and/or greenfield rates of run off, where practicable.

Members were directed to the consultation response received from the Lead Local Flood Authority, who are the statutory consultee, is that the above documents demonstrate the surface water from the proposed development can be managed through use of permeable paving, attenuation basins and discharging into existing water course by a flow control restricting surface water discharge to greenfield equivalent. The drainage scheme that has been submitted as part of the application demonstrates that the site will be drained to greenfield equivalent which would address the IDB’s point.

·         The Board’s Environment Officer and Ecological Consultant has requested the retention of the existing hedge. However, subject to the Board’s approval, part of this may need to be removed to facilitate access to a section of the Board’s District Drain. A similar length of hedge will need to be planted possibly to reinforce the existing hedge.

There is a condition proposed regarding landscaping and that is something that can be picked up in this condition and one regarding drainage.

·         The attenuation basin is better located than many layouts that have recently been viewed. With some changes this could make a positive contribution to blue space in the area but it is noted that there is inadequate space to undertake routine maintenance operations.

The intention, which he is sure the applicant will confirm, is that such a drainage basin would ordinarily be adopted by a management company so it would not be for the IDB to be stipulating how that maintenance takes place.

·         As a matter of good practice, the Board would recommend the provision of a 6m wide maintenance access strip around the attenuation basin and beside the above mentioned watercourse.

Emphasis would be placed on the ‘matter of good practice’ and this issue is for those undertaking the maintenance to deal with. If the proposed layout is looked at there is a roadway which is in very close proximity to the attenuation basin which would allow for maintenance to take place and in terms of landscaping around that basin that is something that can be picked up through the condition.

·         A point of discharge into the watercourse forming the northern boundary of the site would be preferred.

The point that has been proposed is to the west and if the IDB do not want this point of discharge then it does not issue consent under a separate consenting regime.

·         The Board does have several concerns including the ponds installation and future long term maintenance and funding arrangements of both the pond and on and off site surface water and flood risk management systems.

Members attentions was drawn to the surface water management condition that is proposed and point h of this which is that full details of the maintenance and adoption of the surface water drainage system need to be submitted and carried out so there is an element as part of any planning permission that would deal with this point.

 

David Rowen reiterated that there is nothing within the response from the IDB that would substantiate or justify any refusal of planning permission.

 

Members continued questioning of Mr Russell as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to hedgerow gain and asked Mr Russell to elaborate on this and will this solve the issue of overlooking? Mr Russell responded that with regard to hedgerow gain in the BNG metric there is certain criteria and because they are not taking away existing hedgerow around the perimeter of the site, they are only adding hedgerow into the development and enhancing where they can, this gives them a significant gain on the overall development. Councillor Imafidon stated that it is being said that hedgerow will be added to what is already there but questioned how long it will take for the new hedgerow to grow to a certain height? Mr Russell reiterated that this is additional hedgerow and will be along the road frontage between boundaries of houses, around green spaces and are planted out of 2-3 metre pots.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked if there are any provision for fire hydrants and if so, how many? Mr Russell responded that the provision of fire hydrants is usually a planning condition as they will not go for services designs until a scheme has approval and once it has approval Anglian Water is then consulted on a water layer and electric and gas give them a layer who consult with the fire service to ask them where they want the fire hydrants, with the proposal submitted to officers to discharge the condition and they are placed in accordance with the consultation. Councillor Connor confirmed that fire hydrants form part of condition 15.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the requirement from an IDB perspective for a 9 metres maintenance access for the drains and asked what space is available? Mr Russell responded that they are not building anything within 9 metres, with, in his view, the response from Middle Level being a good response and the IDB’s ecologists asked for the hedge to be retained which is not on their site and he is actually saying that he does not want a clear 9 metre strip and it says they have problems with the adjacent Matthew Homes development. He added that there is an existing hedge their which if the IDB wanted to ask Matthew Homes to take that hedge out they would get a 9 metre clear strip but he is unable to tell an adjacent landowner to do this.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned the increase from 30 to 48 due to viability and if this is the case why the initial plan as viability must have been considered before 30 were applied for in the first place. Mr Russell responded that the scheme was designed with 30 large detached bungalows originally but not by them as they only purchased the site last year with this planning permission and when they have looked at the site they have taken into account the access and everything else and it was felt that 30 bungalows in that location is not fit for purpose and they would not sell and for what it would cost to build and their value they would not be viable. He expressed the view that this location is better for housing and more affordable type housing. Councillor Imafidon asked if it is correct that members are being told that because of the amount paid to purchase the site and in addition what is going to be paid to develop it, it is no longer viable to build 30? Mr Russell responded that he believes there was viability undertaken on the original 30 but does not think that it is an issue of viability as such but more about the viability to sell and it was not felt there would be the need for 30 bungalows in that location and there were more appropriate locations in Wimblington for bungalows.

·         Councillor Marks questioned whether it was an adopted road? Mr Russell responded that it is proposed to be an adopted road and Highways have reviewed on that basis. Councillor Marks referred to the Highways comments regarding turning vehicles, where it makes a comment that a turning circle is shown for turning in and out of the estate and not within the estate and property parking he would guess knowing these estates that there will be vehicles parked out on the road including the hammerheads where the dust cart, fire engine, ambulance has to turn around and asked what provision is being put in place to stop this? Mr Russell responded that they have allowed a minimum of two parking spaces per property, some have got driveways which will allow more parking than that, with the 4-bedroom properties having 3 parking spaces but they would not usually go into the realms of catering for 4 or 5 cars per dwelling. Councillor Marks asked if Mr Russell agrees that then forces people to park on the roadside when there is no additional visitor parking? Mr Russell made the point that the proposal is over policy compliant. Councillor Marks made the point there is policy compliant and then there is sensibility of trying to get vehicles up and down.

·         Councillor Marks referred to Anglian Water discharge to the front, IDB to the back and asked what the IDB water will be and what is going into Anglian Water’s system? Mr Russell responded that all water whether it be surface water or foul is going away from Eaton Estate, with the surface water captured on site via the dry attenuation basin and then into the IDB watercourse which runs along the west and goes north and the sewers on site will be adopted by Anglian Water, with foul connecting to the north east of the site.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the management company making the point that he turned up to a development that was supposed to have a management company but has disappeared 2 years after the development was completed. He asked what provision is there to guarantee going forward that the management company is going to exist? Mr Russell responded that it has always been the case when councils stopped wanting to take over open spaces that management companies are in the interest of the estate owners so every house will be entered into that management company and it will be down to that estate if they wish to continue that management company with all of the properties or they nominate a select few of those houses to be part of the management company. He advised that when they move into the property the owners will all pay into a management company charge, which will form part of the deeds on purchase, which is usually not above £100 per annum, which maintains and continues the maintenance of that estate so that it is down to the occupants of that estate to continue that management company. Councillor Marks requested clarification that it becomes a residential management company rather than the developer holding anything back or being part of it going forward. Mr Russell confirmed that when the last house is finished they look to hand over the responsibility to the occupants of the estate.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the statement that it was felt that bungalows will not sell, but made the point that the applicant brought the estate or a piece of land which had planning permission for 30 bungalows and developers should be working with the community and listen to what the community wants. He made the point that there was 1 letter of objection on the previous application and this seems to be steamrollered over everyone else by introducing 48 dwellings, not listening to the community, which is saying they do not want this and there are flooding issues here. Councillor Benney reiterated that the land was brought with permission for 30 bungalows and if it is decided that this is not viable then the applicant has overpaid for the land and the residents of Wimblington should not have to suffer for a developer making a bad decision. He stated that this is seen at Planning Committee regularly where promises are made but when it comes to obtaining planning permission viability becomes an issue. Councillor Benney asked Mr Russell, as a developer, he should be in tune and working with the community, and how does he feel this development has worked with the community and listened to them. Mr Russell responded that this is not about monetary viability with the previous scheme putting forward a viability assessment, they are willing to put forward full policy compliant affordable housing and all contributions and it is in relation to 30 bungalows in this location. Councillor Benney stated that this does not answer the question on how he feels they have engaged with the community, to work with the community to find out what the community wants as from what he sees the community do not want this proposal? Mr Russell responded that they have looked at the local area, they have not spoken to every resident in the area because ordinarily they would not do this and took a decision on what is best, speaking to Clarion Housing who are responsible for the majority of Eaton Estate about needs and what might be appropriate.

·         Councillor Hicks asked that if monetary value is not important on this site why is an application for 30 smaller properties not being submitted, is it because it was not viable and there is a need to put 48 on the site? Mr Russell expressed the view that the layout is designed appropriately to the location and ticks all the boxes with regards to policy, the surroundings and what might be required in that location.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Hicks referred to the Section 106 contributions and that there are contributions for the NHS and Ambulance Service but there is nothing for schools and asked why this was not a consideration? Graham Smith responded that the County Education Authority made no request for contributions.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed confusion with regard to the road, is it going to be adopted or not and if it is going to be adopted it needs to be a self-enforcing 20mph limit and on normal roads that are adopted by the County Council there are also street lights so if the road is not going to be adopted that means the street lights are not going to be adopted. Graham Smith responded that the developer stated that the intention is the road is to be adopted and also planning condition 8 is in relation to the street management with the details of which will be provided and safeguarded by the condition.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the public right of way is going to be retained? Graham Smith drew members attention to the layout plan which shows a green line crossing the site which is the historic route of the public footpath number 5 but that was developed over by the neighbouring developments so effectively the route of the public right of way is now along the footway of Eaton Estate and then to the east of the site it joins up with the footpath and this development does not impact on the existing route of the footpath.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that for 48 dwellings she feels the development proposes a lack of open space for approximately 75-100 children that could live on this development and there is no play equipment provided and it seems this development is trying to put a ‘quart into a pint’. Graham Smith responded that the scale of development in terms of 48 dwellings often does not generate play equipment and there is an area of public open space provided as there was on the previous permission, it is a small area but it was on the previous permission. He made the point that the Council’s policy on the provision of public open space goes to off-site contributions if they cannot be provided on site, however, the off-site contributions are where they are in terms of viability and usually £2,000 per dwelling would be provided and this can only be implemented where projects exist to direct contributions towards.

·         Councillor Marks asked what guarantees have residents got that the road will be adopted by the County Council? Councillor Connor stated there is no guarantee. David Rowen confirmed this to be the case but there is a condition on any permission in the absence of adoption that management arrangements are put in place going forward. Councillor Connor added that he is always in conversation with the regional highways officer at the County Council and he has stated that there are dozens going forward that he is chasing but nothing happens.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the £2,000 per property which equates to £96,000 that could be used anywhere across Fenland and she knows there is play equipment that does need upgrading so she does disagree with the assessment that there is not a need. Councillor Connor agreed with there being a programme of upgrading play equipment.

 

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he takes on board Mr Hoy’s point of view under LP16(e) about overlooking into his back garden but also there are 48 dwellings with 2 parking spaces so that is a potential of 96 cars plus the ones parking on the side of the road so there could be over 100 cars using the road, coming out of the top of the entrance onto the small ring road of Eaton Estate, which is a very narrow road and puts a strain on Eaton Estate so he feels the proposal is over development.

·         Councillor Benney stated that when the Bellway development came before committee, members were promised by Anglian Water, the Lead Local Flood Authority and IDB who attended the meeting that they could cope with the amount of water at this site and at that time they all said they could cope and as local people it is known that this field is wet and there is a lake in the middle of the site. He added that it is also known that tankers are taking sewage away every day from Doddington to March to treat the sewage, which is not a solution and Anglian Water is not investing enough in the sewage treatment for Doddington. Councillor Benney continued that members heard from the residents in Bridge Lane on the Bellway application that they had sewage coming up through their toilets and they had concerns that this would make it worse with the extra sewage demand and surface water. He asked Councillor Connor as local councillor for the area whether he had heard of any sewage problems that have arisen since then because this proposal is a site which is going to contribute and make worse the situation, with the Belllway site still be built and it is not yet known what damage this is going to do to the local community and if there are already problems when Anglian Water have assured that they can cope he feels they are wrong and as non-experts members cannot contest this but councillors do know what is going on in their areas. Councillor Connor responded that he is right that there is a lake where there should not be one on the Bellway site and he has had people come to him in Doddington and Wimblington and Bridge Lane saying it is extremely wet and there is sewage that needs cleaning up. He stated that he has spoken to the regional manager for Anglian Water and he is very apologetic. Councillor Benney asked if this development would add to this? Councillor Connor stated that it certainly will. Troy Healy made the point that the site at Bellway is currently being worked on and, therefore, does not have its drainage completed. Councillor Benney responded that if they are not discharging into the sewage system and it is still overloaded and not functioning without a completed development what is it going to be like when it is completed? Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that was the point he was being asked that although the site is not completed had he heard anything from residents and he has, with there being another 88 houses joining on the system so if it cannot cope now what chance has it got for other development. 

·         Councillor Marks stated that there are various issues he feels with this proposal, he has real concerns about the management company especially on this little scale where there are dykes that need cleaning, roadways where it is not clear if they are going to be adopted and he can see this being a muddle and within 2-3 years the management company will go and these residents will be left in the same way that residents were at Charlemont Drive having to spend £80,000 to try and get the road adopted thereafter. He added that another concern is the drainage of the whole site, expressing the view that the Middle Level report is of real concern and if he had seen this previously he would have been getting a lot more information. Councillor Marks stated that he can see this becoming a chicane, cars parked on the roadside and that 30 bungalows in Manea were deemed viable so questioned why is 30 bungalows less than 5 miles away not viable, if the applicant has paid over the odds for the site that is not a committee issue. He feels that the existing residents’ lives will be worse and going forward there is a likelihood, if the management company fails, that the residents of the development lives will be made worse also.

·         Councillor Connor referred to Mr Russell stating that there would be a fee of £100 per dwelling towards the management company, which for 48 dwellings equates to £4,800 and asked how is a management company going to succeed on this amount of money and it will fail within a couple of years.

·         Councillor Marks stated that Charlemont Drive, with less houses, took the best part of £85,000 to get adopted 8 years later for roadways, lighting, sewers and so on and it was built as a semi-industrial estate. He agreed that the maths does not stack up at £4,800 and this will be causing problems. Councillor Connor added that £4,800 per year would hardly maintain the attenuation pond and the little bit of open space.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she can see this being a major parking issue with people parking on the road and on the update it says if on street parking becomes a material issue the Parish Council has the opportunity to apply to Cambridgeshire County Council for local highway improvements for double yellow lines restriction but, in her view, the Parish Council should not have to do that and local highway improvements take over 2 years with the Parish Council having to contribute towards it so if the development is causing the problem if this application is approved the applicant should put the double yellow lines in before it is completed. Councillor Marks made the point who is going to enforce the double yellow lines on a housing estate.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point that the original submission was for 54 dwellings, it was revised to 48, with the original permission being for 30 which he feels shows that the developer is not taking into account the concerns of existing residents whose lives should not be made worse. He questioned whether the £100 for the management company is per annum or per month. Councillor Connor clarified that it was per annum.

·         The Legal Officer acknowledged what committee is saying but made the point that officers have recommended approval of the application as they are saying there are excellent reasons for doing so but if committee feel it is appropriate to make another decision they can do so but he would provide the following advice, if members wished to propose refusal there needs to be cogent planning defensible reasons that can be evidenced at appeal. He  referred to the document that has been produced, which was created yesterday, and if it was felt that any of the content of that material would form any part of the reason for refusal the strong advice is to defer the application to allow the applicant to address those issues, which is felt more appropriate from a fairness position. The Legal Officer added if committee come to advancing reasons for refusal he would advise that there is a right of appeal and in addition the Secretary of State can be asked to award costs against any appeal if seen to be responsible for unreasonable decision making. He urged committee to think long and hard before any decision is made and if they wished to include anything from the Middle Level Commissioner document he would recommend deferral but if committee wanted to advance other reasons they needed to be cogent, defensible reasons that can be evidenced on appeal.

·         Councillor Mrs French suggested deferral of the application to see how the surface water issues can be overcome with Middle Level as they are expressing extreme concern and she does not want another repeat of the issues that occurred on the Matthew Homes site.

·         Councillor Marks agreed and stated that if it came back to committee that Middle Level attend to give their view and also clarity on whether the road is going to be adopted or not as it is not clear at this time.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that if the application is being deferred to resolve the Middle Level issues then are members saying they are happy with the other aspects of the development so a list is needed of all the other issues that need addressing.

·         Troy Healy stated that Middle Level is not a statutory consultee. Councillor Mrs French responded that members are aware of this but they are a consultee and there are problems across the district because they are not being listened to. Troy Healy made the point that Middle Level have had 3 attempts to respond and this is the first response received from them in relation to the application.

·         Councillor Connor suggested that the application be deferred on flooding, not enough open space, adoption or non-adoption of the road and parking. Councillor Hicks referred to LP16(e) in terms of noise, light and pollution, loss of privacy and light and LP12 relating to overdevelopment of the site, the layout being poor due to overlooking of residents. Councillor Mrs French added the request for £2,000 per dwelling towards play equipment. Councillor Marks asked for clarification on the footpath/public right of way.

·         David Rowen responded that there are comments from the Rights of Way Officer expressing no concerns about the application, it is not possible to require adoption of the road as it cannot be asked for through the planning system, it has been indicated that the parking arrangements are Local Plan compliant and there may be projects where contributions towards play equipment may be required but it has to be lawful and in the local area. He made the point that officers will be unsuccessful in addressing some of the issues being raised.

·         Graham Smith added that in relation to overlooking, the development complies with the standards of the Council as it has rear to rear separation of 20 metres or more but officers could have a discussion with the developer about retaining the trees on the boundary.

·         David Rowen referred to the management company issue and stated that every application that committee has approved for more than 15-20 dwellings for the past 10 years would have had this arrangement and if it is unacceptable on this application why has it not been in other instances.

·         Councillor Marks stated that an issue with a management company came to light a couple of weeks ago when he was standing in some unsavoury stuff and there were problems on site because the management company had disappeared and he feels the committee needs to be a lot tighter on this. He is amazed that the footpath officer has said this is acceptable as when they tried to move a couple of footpaths in his village they had to go through hoops and he needs more assurances. Graham Smith responded that the existing developments that are there, not this proposal, severed the line of the footpath. Councillor Marks stated he accepts this, however, somebody has some legal right to that access to walk across that land and it needs to be clear the footpath has been moved as residents could find someone trying to walk across their property. Graham Smith stated that he does not think an application could be successfully refused on the lack of a historic footpath.

·         Councillor Connor stated he does have concerns over the management company and £100 per property is not going to be sufficient to keep maintenance of this site and is, in his view, a flaw.

·         Troy Healy stated that the management company is going to be made up of the owners of the properties and is a private arrangement and civil matter that has no bearing on the committee and the £100 proposed may be increased by the property owners themselves. Councillor Connor stated that he has seen a lot of management companies fall by the wayside for these reasons.

·         The Legal Officer reiterated the list of issues that committee wished to defer the application on and where clarification had been provided.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like to see the retention of the trees to assist with overlooking.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view that a lot of issues this proposal is going to be deferred on are not going to be resolved when the application comes back before committee and feels there are adequate reasons to possibly look at refusal when this is considered again.

 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to resolve drainage, highways, residential amenity, future management of the site and provision of play equipment issues, with officers from Highways and Middle Level asked to be present when the application is brought back before committee.

 

(All members present declared that they are members of various Internal Drainage Boards)

 

(Councillor Connor declared, in accordance with the Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is the District Councillor representing Doddington and Wimblington and does attend Wimblington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in Planning)