Agenda item

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which 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 the Planning Officer has explained that he is perplexed about the fact that the initial outline planning application granted in June 2020 for up to 30 family homes only raised concerns about access, increased traffic and road safety but, in her view, the long-term owner had always made it known to a lot of residents that he would like the land to be used for affordable housing after his death, with his family honouring that wish, selling the land and the landowner successfully applied for planning permission for up to 30 affordable houses, and then the land was sold onto the CHS Group. She stated that the land still had a few months of validity for outline planning permissions for up to 30 affordable homes was then sold onto Seagate.

 

Councillor Johnson questioned why the officer finds it perplexing when the planning application made by Seagate in 2023 for the revised figure of 45 homes, to be crammed into a slightly larger site, has raised such strong community and parish objections. She stated that in 2020 permission was granted for 88 dwellings and then in 2021 a further 21 dwellings and the figure has continued to rise, making the point that Wimblington is a growth village and has far outstretched its threshold with the built form in 2011 being 771 and the threshold was 116.

 

Councillor Johnson explained that, as of 8 March 2024, Wimblington has 350 new dwellings and more to be added and she made reference to LP4 with regards to the capacity of the sewerage network leading to the wastewater treatment works in Doddington, which still needs to be addressed. She added that Wimblington has a planning application which has been submitted for 40 affordable dwellings and this assists the village in reaching its threshold so, in her opinion, the planning officer’s comments with regards to housing needs is not comparable.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that the Planning Committee are aware of the reason that the application has been deferred but those issues have not been addressed and have been papered over. She made the point that the Parish Council are perplexed due to the fact the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have raised no objection in principle because the surface run off water from 45 dwellings and the surrounding areas will drain through permeable paving.

 

Councillor Johnson explained that the Highway Authority will not adopt this due to maintenance issues into a dry attenuation basin which is called that because Anglian Water will not adopt blue spaces and, in her view, the water will run into the ditches to the north of the site that run adjacent to the fields which the LLFA have deemed flood plains. She made the point that the planning officers refused F/YR23/0241 because of this fact and with increased flood risks to Bridge Lane being a major concern and there still being a further 109 dwellings to be competed.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that the management and maintenance of the site is still subject to concern and there is no reference on the planning portal to show that Anglian Water are to adopt the dry attenuation basin or highways agreement to adopt roads and pathways. She added that there are statements on there from Anglian Water which say that they do not adopt blue ponds and also statements from highways which state that they do not adopt permeable areas.

 

Councillor Johnson added that a cost of £100 per dwelling to cover maintenance and management is not realistic and grass cutting and tree management alone could equate to £4,500 per year, with another concerning element being the decrease that the Planning Officer has put forward for Section 106 contributions. She stated that the initial figure was £330,000 which has been reduced to £90,000 and the increase in population will have an increase on the local amenities meaning that local residents will suffer further due to the lack of reasonable and realistic contributions from the developers.

 

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that this equates to £2,000 per dwelling and she made the point that a piece of play equipment would cost that to purchase and install and added that the new Ninja trail cost £33,000. She stated that the planning officer has stated that the grant of the proposal is flawed, and she expressed the view that Wimblington has exceeded its threshold and the increase in localised flood risks have not been diverted and the village contribution of Section 106 contributions is a sham.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that the community ask the committee to support the wishes of the local residents, the community itself and the parish. She stated that the application should only be granted if it complies with the principle of development as outlined in 2020 for up to 30 family houses and there is no requirement for further development of dwellings in the village.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Norman Johnson, an objector, who has been a local Wimblington resident for 30 years and is speaking on behalf of the local residents from the community. Mr Johnson referred to local planning policy one and stated that at the heart of the strategy for Fenland is a desire to deliver sustainable growth which brings benefit for all sectors of the community for existing residents as much as new ones. He stated that he would like to address the Planning Officer’s assessment and referred to the principle of development being established in 2020 when the outline planning application was granted and also LP12a, explaining that community support was in place for the outline planning application because the community were in support of the previous owners wishes for affordable homes to be built and, therefore, the principle of development was established for up to 30 family homes.

 

Mr Johnson added that with regards to the point of access this was the only concern raised at the routine planning and the number of properties within the local area has increased traffic throughout the village. He expressed the view that with regards to over development, the National Planning Policy Framework has regard to achieving appropriate densities and at paragraph 128 it states’ is made to a number of dwellings per hectare of land’, with the planning officer’s equation being flawed because at 26.6 per hectare what is omitted from the equation is the land taken up by the attenuation basin, roads, parking spaces and areas which take up a large quantity of the site which increases the actual number of dwellings per hectare.

 

Mr Johnson stated that it is the Planning Officer’s professional view that it would not result in identifiable conflicting or jarring harm on the areas character and under LP3 it states that in growth villages new developments which are commensurate with the size of the settlement will be encouraged whilst at the same time will need to retain the open character of the wide countryside, but, in his view, the application will reduce the views of the open character of the wider countryside. He made the point that the Planning Officer consistently refers to the number of dwellings in Hassock Way but there is no attenuation basin, play area or parking spaces in that road and that road has wide open countryside on three sides of the single road that creates that area, adding that Eaton Estate has a large green space and play area onto which most of the dwelling’s face and open countryside to the north.

 

Mr Johnson expressed the opinion that the application does conflict with both Hassock Way and Eaton Estate as they both have been privileged to share countryside views until now and the site will be constricted into an area with built form on three sides and the fact that the officer states that the proposal meets identifiable needs in the village is, in his view, incorrect as Wimblington has already reached its required identified needs for dwellings. He made reference to LP12(J) and LP12(K) and added that the response from Anglian Water states that the excessive levels of surface water cause problems near The Avenue and, in his opinion, it will be an ever increasing problem especially when taking climate change into account, questioning what response Anglian Water will provide with regards to the recent pumping out episodes in Eaton Estate.

 

Mr Johnson referred to the point made by planning officers concerning an appeal at Upwell Road in March, which holds little reference to the surface and foul water problems in Wimblington and Wimblington has to deal with the waste water system in Doddington which, in his view, does not have capacity as it is constantly having sewerage pumped out which is a lack of communication between the authorities and whom have both stated that they have no objections to the current proposal in principle, even though there are a number of issues which have not been addressed correctly and are outstanding. He stated that the outstanding issues are with regards to flooding, density, management of the site at the end of the build and the maintenance of the grounds, with, in his view, the maintenance fee quoted will not maintain the grounds and the Section 106 contributions have been reduced from £300,000 for 30 houses and has now changed to 45 larger homes at £90,000 which is good news for the developer but bad news for the local community and services as a whole.

 

Mr Johnson made the point that the committee are at liberty to disagree with the officer’s recommendation and he asked the committee to revert back to the outline planning application, the reasons behind the original planning application and the timescales since the original outline planning application. He made the point that was up to 30 affordable family homes, and he asked the committee to refuse it with the understanding that the original outline planning application is what should still stand as well as the Section 106 contributions.

 

Members asked Mr Johnson the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Johnson what reasons Anglian Water provided on the two occasions that they had to pump water out from the Eaton Estate? Mr Johnson confirmed that they did not provide a reason.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Lee Russell, the agent. Mr Russell stated that members will recall that the application was before the committee in March and was deferred due to the last-minute comments which had been received from the Middle Level Commissioners (MLC) which had been reviewed at that meeting and did not cause a great deal of concern, adding that he was given the opportunity to address and respond to the points made and has been in communication with officers from the MLC, resulting in all points being addressed and the Chief Engineer from the MLC provided planning officers written confirmation that everything had been satisfied. He stated that the main points were that discharge rates were confirmed to be limited to greenfield runoff and the maintenance of the dry basin would be down to Anglian Water for adoption and foul and surface water discharge points were adjusted as per the MLC preference, with the maintenance of the ditch to the western boundary beyond the application site being discussed and various options were reviewed.

 

Mr Russell stated that a further precise typographical survey was carried out on the land outside of his ownership and measurements from the dyke brink to the centre line of the existing hedgerow show that it is 7 metres in some places and reduced to 4 metres at pinch points. He explained that the hedge could have been removed, if necessary, however, the MLC Ecologist, Planning Officers and the County Council Ecologist would not support that option and an alternative was to convey the hedgerow and the strip to the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) if they wanted the ownership and responsibility to do whatever they wanted, however, that option was not favoured.

 

Mr Russell explained that it was agreed that a proposed boundary fence would be no closer than 6 metres from the dyke brink and these would fall on the opposite side of the existing mature hedge and there would be no issues at a later date should the IDB need access to go and fell part of the hedge. He made the point that Graham Moore from the MLC had confirmed that the ditch was dug from the western side of the hedge a few years ago and other than a good cut back the IDB should be able to access the area in order to carry out work.

 

Mr Russell added that other comments have been made with regards to density and originally the application was submitted for a scheme of 54 dwellings which was on a plan was very similar scheme and road pattern layout to the previously approved scheme, however, following comments from planning officers the number of dwellings was reduced to 48. He made the point that the number of dwellings has now been further reduced to 45 which has been due to concerns raised by neighbours as following the last meeting he had discussed the concerns raised by a neighbouring objector with regards to overlooking, having been asked to remove overlooking windows and as a result of this issue a pair of bungalows have been proposed behind numbers 27 and 28 Eaton Estate and along the boundary of Hassock Way.

 

Mr Russell explained that he has replaced the semi-detached two storey dwellings with bungalows and these will sit behind the dense hedge and remove any former impact of concerns of overlooking and the bungalows will be M42 compliant, with no boundary hedges or trees being proposed to be removed. He explained that a number of concerns were also raised following the resubmission of the amended scheme after the deferral and all of these concerns have been proactively responded to and addressed positively.

 

Mr Russell stated that there was a question raised with regards to ownership of the small dry ditch to the south which belongs to Clarion Housing Association and those residents with concerns are able to contact the Housing Association to discuss their concerns over the maintenance of the ditch. He added that the point had been made with regards to the field remining as arable, however, with a previous planning permission, the surrounding over development and the further permissions beyond the site of the village and the small hedgerow enclosure, it is not suited to modern farming methods and the previous use as a caravan park with the derelict buildings, small trees and access through a residential area, the site is no longer purposeful as arable.

 

Mr Russell stated that the County Council Ecologist requested the biodiversity net gain matrix which they had not received previously, and they were happy with the proposals and confirmed that they have no objection. He explained that the comments relating to flooding were resurrected with Anglian Water who have confirmed that they have no issues, and the proposed scheme will have no effects and the previous issues related to faults or surface water overload and the application site sewers are connected to the north and do not go towards the village and, therefore, will not cause any issue.

 

Mr Russell made reference to a comment that was raised as to the parking provision and he explained that whilst he had adhered to the parking policy, he has added even more visitor parking spaces to the scheme. He made the point that the previously approved scheme which was submitted by another agent for a previous landowner which was for 30 dwellings on part of the same site had a viability assessment undertaken and it was determined and approved with no affordable housing provision and just a cash contribution.

 

Mr Russell added that there had been some confusion that the previous approved scheme was an affordable housing scheme but in fact it was the opposite with large, detached dwellings and small amenity areas and no affordable housing. He explained that he reviewed the house type needs for the locality, and this proposal is for two and three bedroomed houses and, therefore, in his view, his scheme is a more suitable proposal.

 

Mr Russell stated that with regards to the previous comments on the right of way crossing the site he has spoken to the Right of Way Officer who has confirmed that they have no objections.

 

Members asked Mr Russell the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for details concerning the ownership of the dyke. Mr Russell confirmed that the dyke to the west is owned by Matthew Homes. Councillor Mrs French stated that she assumes that there will be 9 metre clearance for maintenance by the IDB. Mr Russell stated that he believes it is March East IDB and Councillor Mrs French asked whether the owners are also going to maintain the dyke. Mr Russell stated that Matthew Homes have built quite closely to the drain and also erected fences which appear to be very close to the drain which has caused the IDB some issues. He added that in some places they have only provided four metres clearance and explained that on his side of the drain there is between four and seven metres before the centre line of the hedge of which Matthew Homes go beyond the western brink and own a further three metres. Mr Russell added that there is a ransom strip by whoever owned the land before it gets to the boundary of existing mature hedge and into his site. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is aware of the problems caused by Matthew Homes and has been on site to inspect it as it does appear to be four metres when it should have been nine metres. She added that there are issues being caused when trying to maintain the strip as the equipment is large that is used. Councillor Mrs French made the point that she does have concerns with regards to the dyke and the IDB policy is nine metres and if that is not achievable, she does not know how the development can proceed.

·         Councillor Marks referred to Mr Russell mentioning six metres, and he asked him whether that was measured from the centre of the dyke to the boundary edge? Mr Russell stated that the existing hedge is not parallel to the brink and, therefore, the six metres would incorporate the existing hedge to full length of the site. He added that he spoke to officers at the IDB and asked them whether they would prefer that the hedge and maintenance strip was transferred to their ownership because the existing hedge is the main issue for them, but they do not want to have the burden of that and, therefore, any of the applications fences and boundary treatments will be conditioned as to types. Mr Russell added that he proposed to go up to the hedge with a chain link fence, but it would be a minimum of six metres away with any fence which MLC said that they will require but the application has no buildings within 16 to 25 metres.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the six metres could be extended to nine metres by still leaving the hedge? Mr Russell stated that was achievable.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like to see that conditioned and she added that she is aware that the IDB are having great problems with riparian dykes and there is a duty to keep the dykes cleared to keep on top of the flooding issues.

·         Councillor Connor explained that he has just seen a statement form the MLC which David Rowen read out to the committee. He explained that Nicola Oldfield from MLC has indicated that in this instance they would accept a minimum of six metres rather than the usual nine metres. Councillor Mrs French stated that she finds that most interesting and she is most concerned with regards to the statement and will follow it up further.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the agent has indicated that he could do nine metres if required and, therefore, he is content with that proposal.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification as to whose ownership would the hedge be in? Mr Russell stated that at the current time the hedge is in his ownership and the IDB are reluctant to take ownership of it due to the maintenance of it, even though it is their main restriction and he is happy to transfer the hedge to the IDB. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would raise the issue with the IDB.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he would like to accept the offer of 9 metres that Mr Russell has agreed to which can be conditioned.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Russell whether there is an agreement in principle or one which has been signed with regards to the adoption of the attenuation basin by Anglian Water? He added that Anglian Water could change their mind and if they do so is there another option. Mr Russell stated that his civil engineer has designed the scheme and with the parameters and the basin being online, water depths and freeboard it has been designed in accordance with Anglian Water’s requirements for it to be adoptable. He added that because a Section 104 or Section 38 submission is not undertaken until after planning because Anglian Water or Highways would not review such submissions until planning approval is obtained then should they decide not to adopt it would be included as part of the management company’s responsibility.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he feels that the management company fees of £100 do not seem realistic especially if that will then have to include the upkeep and maintenance of the attenuation pond and he asked Mr Russell how that figure was calculated? Mr Russell stated that the majority of the other sites have between 40 and 70 dwellings, and he explained that he has never had a management company where the fee goes above £200 per dwelling. He explained that the £200 figure included a site where there were many private drives and a large area of attenuation and vegetation areas. Mr Russell added that the application site only has a piece of open space and a private drive which are the only areas due to be put into the management company and, therefore, apart from some grass cutting there is not a great deal for the management company to do. He added that he does not foresee the fee to be any more than £120 and if Anglian Water decide not to adopt the attenuation pond as it is a dry basin they will only need to cut the grass.

·         Councillor Marks asked who the management company will be? Mr Russell explained that Seagate will start the operation of the management company and then every property gets to buy into the management company, and it will be run by a committee of residents.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Russell whether the developer adds any money to commence the management company? Mr Russell stated that the developer looks after the site until every property is occupied.

·         Councillor Connor added that he is delighted that Mr Russell has agreed to the £25,000 contribution for play equipment.

 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that Councillor Johnson had stated in her presentation that the Highway Authority would not adopt areas of permeable surfaces and he asked the Highway Officer, Lewis Ward, whether that was correct. Mr Ward stated that from the Local Highways Authority’s perspective they do not adopt permeable paving areas due to the issues surrounding the maintenance of it and its functionality when it is built. He added that if they were to adopt it, it would have to be that the layout as shown is suitable and is designed to their general principles and guidance. Mr Ward made the point that it if it was put forward it would still be subject to a Section 38 application and be subject to being built to highways construction specification which would not be permeable paving. He made the point that Highways do not see permeable paving as an adoptable material.

·         David Rowen added that the Highway Authority would only be looking at adopting certain elements of the road network and there a couple of areas of private driveways which could be permeable surfaces as well as the possibility that areas within the individual dwellings would also be permeable surfaces such as the driveways for the individual properties and the Highways Officer response is only in relation to the main road through the estate.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has looked at application sites which have been passed and the road surfaces have had the binder course put on them and nothing further has taken place. He made the point that the Section 38 may or may not have been applied for and added that some roads within the district are still not complete and some cases the iron works are raised from the binder course which could mean damage could be caused to vehicles. Councillor Connor requested some reassurance that the same thing will not happen at this site and added that he would like to see a condition added to dictate that after the 39^th dwelling has been built, the remaining 6 dwellings cannot be occupied until the road surface is constructed to a highway’s adoptable standard. David Rowen stated that a planning condition cannot be added to any planning consent stipulating that a road is adopted because that falls under the jurisdiction of the Highway Authority and is not within the applicant’s control. He referred to condition 15 as listed in the officer’s report which states before the occupation of any dwelling roads and footways required to access that dwelling shall be constructed to at least a binder course and, therefore, that does ensure that there is a degree of hard surface there to allow cars to travel over to access the individual dwellings. David Rowen added that if the committee wished then they could add to that condition and state that prior to the occupation of the 40^th dwelling, the roads and footways need to made up to a better level so that the top dressing would be added and, therefore, be more of an adoptable standard, however, it cannot stipulate that the road has to be adopted by the Highway Authority.

·         Councillor Connor asked the Highways Officer, Lewis Ward, if he can provide any assurances concerning the road surface? Mr Ward stated that as part of the application process it cannot be conditioned that the road will be adopted as it is the Highway Authority’s prerogative. He added that should the applicant submit a Section 38 application it would be reviewed as a normal process, and it would have to be to the Highways specification and standards, but it cannot be conditioned prior to approval.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it does not give him as much comfort as he would like, and he asked David Rowen whether condition 15 could be amended to reflect what he had explained earlier with regards to the road surface. David Rowen stated that the condition could be amended to reflect that the roads and footways need to made up to a better level so that the top dressing would be added and, therefore, be more of an adoptable standard, however, if ultimately the last five dwellings do not get built then the road will only be made up to binder course level. He explained that within the planning system there is no mechanism which can ensure that a road is categorically 100% delivered and adopted by the Highway Authority and all that can be done is to make sure that there are measures in place to try and give comfort that it does occur to a level.

·         Councillor Connor stated that in the past Section 38 applications have been sought but they have never been completed and he confirmed that the Highways Authority have no jurisdiction on whether they are or they are not completed.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is also aware of a number of roads which have never been competed with a top surface and have been left in that state for many years. She added that under the new County Council policy the road will also be limited to a 20mph speed limit.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would like the condition to state that it should be to a full adoptable standard and not just the road because there are other elements around it.

·         David Rowen made the point that when stipulating in the condition that the road needs to be made up to an adoptable standard, it is his understanding that as part of the adoption process it would need to include street lighting and, therefore, there would be some control through the kind of condition which the committee are trying to aim for.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there is any other way where the Council take a bond away from the Section 38 monies in case the developer should cease trading? Lewis Ward, the Highways Officer, explained that the Highways Authority take a bond as part of the Section 38 as it is signed. He added that it equates to £2025 per linear metre which is the total cost of adoption, with an 8.5% vetting fee, taking 50% of that initially and a further 50% on signing and sealing the agreement as well. Councillor Marks asked what mechanism is in place to make sure that actually happens? Lewis Ward stated that you cannot force the developer to sign and seal it at the end and the only aspect that the Highway Authority has control over is to ensure that the first 8.5% of the payment is made and then as it is signed and sealed that the other payments are made later. He made the point that there are no enforcement procedures in place that they have to do that to get the roads adopted.

·         David Rowen referred members to the proposed condition 8 which states that prior to the first occupation of the first dwelling/use hereby approved, full details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established. He explained that when considering the aforementioned amendment of the condition concerning the road surface being made up to an adoptable standard by a certain point, should the road be made up to that standard and then not transferred to the Highway Authority as part of a Section 38 Agreement under the Highway Act there would then be the requirement for a management company to also incorporate the management and maintenance of the road. David Rowen pointed out that there is a fallback position in terms of the ongoing maintenance and management of the road if it is not adopted.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if a management company is set up halfway through the development, when it looked previously as though it was going to be adopted, then the management company can increase their fees. David Rowen stated that he would assume that the more responsibility that a management company takes on will also mean that their charges will increase which will be passed onto the residents.

·         Councillor Connor asked for the amended condition to be added to the application if the scheme is approved by the committee. David Rowen stated that should the committee resolve to grant the application and give delegated authority to officers to apply appropriate wording to condition 15 then that will be possible.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point that officers have stated that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that developers complete and finish the road surfaces in order that they are made to an adoptable standard. He expressed the opinion that it should not be permitted for roads to left in an unfinished condition and he would be very concerned about the safety of his family if he lived in such a road. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that he does not see the point of a Planning Committee if developers are allowed to leave their developments in such a poor state. He added that developers and management companies will pass charges onto residents and, in his view, he finds it totally unacceptable.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he echoes the sentiments of Councillor Imafidon, but the committee are trying to do the best they can to help residents by working with officers to amend the condition with regards to the road surface.

 

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that he still has concerns over the hedge and the issue of the 9 metres and he would still like further clarification.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she will be raising the issue at an Internal Drainage Board as in her view 6 metres is not acceptable and the policy does state 9 metres. She expressed the opinion that she is happy to see the application approved but on the condition that the drainage board response is considered.

·         Councillor Marks asked, that if it is 9 metres, are the committee able to specify it must be 9 metres and also that the hedge is reinstated on the boundary of 9 metres. David Rowen made the point that the advice which has been given by the Internal Drainage Board is that in this case they would accept 6 metres as in their opinion it is a pragmatic issue as to whether they can access the area or not. He stated that in the context of six metres in comparison to an estate road which is 5 metres you could fit machinery into the allocated space and the IDB have also indicated that it is a matter which can be resolved through the land drainage consent which is outside of the planning system. David Rowen made the point that within the existing proposed conditions, the conditions around landscaping and location of hedges would give some control around that in conjunction with also the drainage scheme condition. He expressed the view that between the planning system and the conditions that are proposed along with the land drainage consent it is a matter that will be resolved through those controls.

·         David Rowen stated that the officer’s report, in his view, sets out the material planning considerations comprehensively for the application.

·         David Rowen asked for confirmation that the proposal for the application includes the changes to condition 15 that had been discussed as well as the additional monies which had been agreed for the play facilities. Councillor Marks confirmed that is correct and he added that he would still like clarification from the IDB.

·         David Rowen stated that he will prepare the wording for the Condition 15 to ensure that it is robust and contains all the elements that members discussed, and he will share that wording with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councillor Mrs French.

·         Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, made reference to the enhanced contribution for the play area and stated that it is his understanding from officers that there is no necessity caused by the development to require this expenditure and, therefore, the committee cannot take it into account as a reason for granting planning permission. He added that as far as wishing to grant planning permission based on the enhanced contribution, the committee cannot rely on it as a reason for granting planning permission and that is a matter of law. Stephen Turnbull explained that would also be the same as not requiring the need to enter into a Section 106 agreement to pay that contribution. He added that the way the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations work means that a planning authority cannot require more financial contributions than are necessary caused by the development.

·         Councillor Connor stated that Mr Russell has stated that he is willing to provide £25,000 as a voluntary payment. Stephen Turnbull explained that whilst that may be the case it cannot be taken into account as a reason for granting planning permission. He added that there may be other reasons for wanting to grant permission and it cannot be enforced by Section 106 obligations.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the explanation from the Legal Officer, Stephen Turnbull, and added that there are 45 homes which may equate to 150 extra residents who are going to require healthcare professionals and she finds it shameful with regards to the lack of contribution towards the doctor’s surgery.

 

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation, including the agreed changes to Condition 15 and the additional financial contributions towards play facilities.

 

(Councillor Mrs French stated that she is a member of eleven Internal Drainage Boards, but she does not discuss planning applications at any drainage board meetings)