Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation from Sally Bramley, an objector, which was read out by Member Services. Mrs Bramley stated that her presentation was supported by slides which showed:

·         Horses in the field showing wildflowers and hedgerow prior to February 2023.

·         A vehicle bogged down in the field in 2023, which required recovery.

·         Example of large pools of standing water in the field where some of the proposed properties would be.

·         Existing flooding and drainage issues in neighbouring gardens.

·         Removal of hedgerow at the proposed development entrance point in February 2023 which was prior to the planning application submission.

·         Historical media documentation of flooding and drainage issues relating to the field in surrounding residencies in 2004/2005.

·         Video of Bats seen by occupants of the properties that directly back onto the field.

She expressed the view that the lived experience of residents differs significantly to the facts and statements represented in the application.

Mrs Bramley stated that many residents on the Furrowfields estate benefit, knowingly or not, from the hedgerows, and grassland, which house many creatures, supporting numerous ecosystems, including bats, and are rich in biodiversity, with there being a decrease in bird activity since the destruction of the entirety of one side of the hedgerow in February 2023. She feels this destruction also included the non-consensual removal of trees and hedgerows from a neighbouring private property and if members visit the site they will see evidence of previous Lode Way residents ‘laying’ the hedgerow to promote regrowth.

Mrs Bramley expressed the opinion that dueto roadsideparking anddensity ofjunctions,it isalready oftena challenge tosafely pullout ofthe existingjunctions anddriveways nearthe proposedsite entrance and she feels introducinganother junctionalmost oppositeGrenadiers would be an unnecessary increased risk to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. She referred to the sustainable drainage strategy which states that “surface water would naturally drainaway, andrainwater fallingonlandscaped areasof thesite includingthe garden of each new property and the open space will infiltrate into the soil”, but expressed the view that for those that border the field it is known this will not be the case as the water tableis alreadyoverwhelmed evenwith thefield there and ultimatelythere willbe a net loss of permeable surfaces to absorb the water that the field currently holdsand increasethe riskand scaleof floodingto existingproperties.

Mrs Bramley made the point that someof theneighbours’ workshifts orfrom home and thenoise duringthe demolitionof onewell maintainedproperty, andthe constructionof the9 new properties would impact negatively on current residents. She feels there will no doubt be an increase of mud on the roads and ifplanning isagreed, propertiesin LodeWay thatback ontothe fieldwill have roads and potentially street lighting to both the front and rear of their properties.

Mrs Bramley questioned whether it is worthlosing thisvaluable pocketof wildlife spaceamongst a dense urban area forjust 8additional houseswhen thereis anabundance ofnew 2, 3and 4 bedroomed properties being built, or due to be built in more suitable developments. In her view, itwould befoolish torepeat theevents of2004/2005 inthe samearea, over the same concerns, where Fenland District Council’s lack of planning judgement,and ignoringof similarissues resultedin negativemedia interest and hefty compensation pay outs to the residents who paid the emotional pricefor decisionsmade outsideof theircontrol and asked if FenlandDistrict Councilis willing toaccept therisks, isit alsoprepared topay yetfurther compensation to current residents when history repeats itself?

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the principle of development has been accepted according to the officer’s report and the site is clearly in the built-up form of Chatteris and the dwellings around the site were constructed in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. He explained that all of the dwellings that he has shown are located in Flood Zone 1 including all of the garages and there is a small section of the access road which is located in Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Mr Hall explained that it is an outline application, but a drainage scheme has been submitted which has been undertaken by an independent consultant and that has been accepted by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and there have been no objections received from the Environment Agency. He explained that in Lode Way, there is both a foul and surface water sewer owned by Anglian Water and he has been advised that he could attenuate to this but at a restricted rate, which is what the surface water strategy states and that is what has been accepted by the LLFA.

Mr Hall stated that the Conservation Officer has raised concerns with regards to the adjacent Listed Building and on the indicative layout the nearest dwelling is 27 metres away, with the Conservation Officer suggesting that the dwellings adjacent to the Listed Building could be limited to single storey which is what the drawings that he provided to officers has shown. He advised the Grade 2 Listed Building is in separate ownership.

Mr Hall stated that an ecology report has been carried out on the site and the recommendations can be implemented and the hedges detailed in the drawings he provided demonstrate that they will remain. He stated that the proposed dwellings shown on the indicative layout all have their own private gardens shown against private neighbouring gardens which shows that no building will take place directly against neighbouring gardens as detailed at 9.13 of the officer’s report and it is not a public green space, it is private paddock land.

Mr Hall referred to the officer’s report stating that an independent speed survey has been undertaken by a highways consultant which has been accepted by the County Council and it shows vehicles travelling at 20mph along this section of Lode Way and the road within the site would be constructed of permeable block paving or tarmac with street lighting. He explained that the layout shows adequate turning for bin lorries to enter and exit the site, there is adequate parking for the dwellings and he was asked to show a junction of 5 to 6 metres wide which has been incorporated along with radius curves on Lode Way.

Mr Hall stated that there is a planning condition on those properties which surround Lode Way, which prevents any fencing, railings or walls being built to the frontages of those properties and if any of those structures are constructed the condition will allow the Council to take enforcement action for their removal. He explained that he is aware that there is also such a condition covering properties in Stonecross Way and he is aware of an application in 2020 where an application was submitted for gates, railings and fences to the front of a property which was refused by officers, and it is his opinion that the condition could be enforced.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and stated that it is clear to see that the site is surrounded by residential development and is within the built-up form of Chatteris. He made the point that all of the houses are in Flood Zone 1, with much of the green space being left undisturbed as it is in Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney notes that the Highway Authority has concerns but there is a speed survey which has been undertaken which has demonstrated that 20mph is the average speed and he questioned whether the fact that people cannot erect fences will provide the visibility splays that would be required? Mr Hall stated that on his drawing, with the submitted speed survey and Highway Consultant’s report, they are satisfied that no fences, walls and gates could be built out the front and the space which can be seen to the right-hand side, which is not all required in order to achieve the splay, could be achieved due to the planning condition that exists and in the westerly direction there is a full splay.

·         Councillor Benney asked if the applicant would be prepared to make a voluntary donation to the George Clare Surgery, which is a privately owned practice and does not receive any NHS funding? Mr Hall made the point that the proposal is for 8 net dwellings, with a property on the site being demolished, so no contributions need to be made but he would have to speak to the applicant and providing it was reasonable he thinks the answer would be yes.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the submission from Sally Bramley which mentioned mud on the road and asked for a cast iron assurance that mud and debris will be cleared up at every opportunity for road safety purposes? Mr Hall responded that he has noticed on applications for 3/4 or more dwellings there is an automatic ask for wheel washing facilities and a construction management plan and he would be happy to comply with this as a condition to the application if approved.

David Rowen referred to the mention of contributions towards the doctor’s surgery and stated as the application is under 10 dwellings there is no policy requirement for financial contributions and there has been no information from the doctor’s surgery on what impact this development would have so there is no justification for any contributions and legally it cannot be required. He referred to the other issue around protection of the visibility splay through the removal of permitted development rights and stated that on estates like Lode Way permitted development rights are removed to protect the open character of the frontage and it is correct that no fences or gates could be put within the visibility splay, however, there is no control over shrubs being planted, paraphernalia being put within that visibility splay and the actual driveway for the property across which the visibility splay goes could have cars parked within it obstructing the visibility so the reason for refusal proposed by the Highway Authority is reasonable given that the applicant does not have any control over the visibility splay.

Councillor Connor made the point that the contribution asked for by Councillor Benney is a voluntary one.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he knows the area well and members are told building should not take place in the open countryside and brownfield sites should be filled and, in his view, this site is a brownfield space and a piece of land that is developable, with horses within the town not being an ideal site for them. He stated that Kent House was traditionally the old workhouse and it is not a house in its own right anymore having been converted into 4 flats. Councillor Benney referred to the reasons for refusal, this is Flood Zone 1 and the fact that you have to go through Flood Zones 2 and 3 to get there you would not go into Chatteris as you would be driving through Flood Zone 3 to get to Chatteris and he sees this as another development of nice homes, with homes being needed and it is a piece of land that is developable and he fails to see the special pasture land status that it seems to have been given as it is a grass field. He stated that he can support the application and whilst the access may not be ideal it is the only access into the site and it makes good use of a piece of land.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply reasonable conditions.

Members do not support refusal of planning permission as they feel that this grass land is not of special historical status, the properties are being built on Flood Zone 1 and it is only the access that is in Flood Zones 2 and 3, the speed survey undertaken and the planning condition on the properties on Lode Way makes the access to this piece of land suitable and it will bring much needed homes to Chatteris.

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant is known to him as a customer and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(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)