Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Pritchard, an objector to the proposal. Mr Pritchard explained that he was addressing the committee on behalf of some of the objectors to the proposal as well as being an adjacent landowner to the development, and he was not made aware of the planning in principle (PIP) application and was also not able or aware until afterwards to submit his objections. He stated the district plan requires new properties to be in the existing developed footprint and under LP12 and LP3 the new developed footprint is quite easily seen and defined by the draft 2022 plan which has been identified in the red line plan.

Mr Pritchard stated that the applicant has described the proposal as an infill development, and he expressed the view that an infill site is a gap between buildings in an area which is already built up and the area should no longer be larger than a gap to accommodate a maximum of two properties and, therefore, in his opinion, it is not infill development. He explained that LP3 defines Newton as a small village and in this type of settlement the Local Plan states that developments will be considered on their own merits but will normally be of limited nature and normally be limited in scale to residential infilling.

Mr Pritchard made the point that LP12 requires a community consultation if the development exceeds the growth threshold and he stated that in the Fenland Plan Clause 23, Table 9 it states that Newton is a small village type B which requires an additional 6 dwellings and that has already taken place following planning approvals. He explained that since then there have been other suitable sites including the Shrubberies, the Old Colville Site and the Woadmans Arms site, which are all potential development sites, however, no consultation has taken place.

Mr Pritchard referred to LP12 of the Local Plan which concerns the rural development policy and states that the development would be supported if it contributes to the sustainability of the settlement and also states that where a development proposal results in a loss of high-grade agricultural land, comprehensive evidence is provided to justify the loss. He explained that comments were made on the original proposal including the fact that the site falls within Flood Zone 3, which is the highest risk of flooding, and all alternative avenues should be pursued before being built on.

Mr Pritchard made the point that the site is located on a 60mph busy road and adjacent to a corner including a blind road with Rectory Cottage on Rectory Road. He added that the existing linear form of development would be continued along the road frontage and result in extended ribbon development.

Mr Pritchard expressed the opinion that the development would have an impact on the setting of the village church, which is Listed, and it would also have an adverse impact on the open countryside where a gap contributes to the rural character of the area and the village of Newton. He expressed the view that the development will result in adverse harm to the local character and sense of place as the development is substantial with very few services.

Mr Pritchard explained that the site also has limited access to services as the main drains in the village do not extend this far and there are already issues with the treatment plant in the village including periods where sewage is disposed of by tankers. He expressed the view that the proposal is incompatible with the national planning policies for managing flood risk and he made the point that as he is an adjacent land owner with a drain on his property and the site is in Flood Zone 3, he feels that his property is at a greater risk of flooding and he questioned how the water can be controlled, making reference to the sustainable urban development strategy for the site.

Mr Pritchard explained that the Flood Risk Assessment states that the site is free draining, and water can make its way through Taylors Drain to the south of the site and the main drain, however, he has lived in the village for his whole life and he has never heard of Taylors Drain. He explained that the drain at the site was full when he went to look, and the drain should always be taking the water from the highway.

Mr Pritchard explained that as you enter Newton from the south, there is a slope down to the village and the plans appear to be going to incorporate an existing drainage system to the south and he cannot understand how the water is going to be pumped up the hill, unless it can be done in a sustainable manner. He expressed the view that developing the land will change the natural drainage of the site which will affect his property and he added that he is a riparian owner of a ditch.

Mr Pritchard explained that a lottery has been undertaken in the village where 351 responses were received which equates to 56% of the population who wanted Newton to remain a small village and the proposed dwellings will require schools to be developed as the village schools in the adjacent villages are already full and that is not taking into consideration any major developments which are currently being developed in Wisbech and the surrounding areas.

Members asked Mr Pritchard the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification with regards to the point that Mr Pritchard had made with regards to the 351 responses received to the lottery. Mr Pritchard explained that the Parish Council carried out a survey which was sponsored by village lottery funding and the responses identified that the majority of the village residents said they wanted the village to remain a small village and an even larger group of residents expressed the desire for there not to be any further building of any kind. He confirmed that the survey was undertaken by the Parish Council and the results have been published on the Parish Council website.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked Mr Pritchard to confirm what Flood Zone the application site falls into in his opinion as the Officers report refer to the site being in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Mr Pritchard stated that on the original proposal for the site it stated that majority of the site was located in Flood Zone 3 on the red line application submission called 4019, where land owners were able to put forward parcels of land for development in villages. He added that he recalls it was a document where lots of comments were made by officers with regards to the unsuitability of the site for development.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Pritchard to confirm who owns the other side of the riparian dyke? Mr Pritchard stated that he believes that the land was sold but was not sure who to, however, he did confirm that it was not owned by the applicant.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Pritchard to confirm that he had not been consulted on the application? Mr Pritchard clarified that was correct. Councillor Mrs French asked whether he had been consulted on the PIP application? Mr Pritchard responded that he was not consulted on that application originally. He added that when he was made aware that the PIP application had been approved, he did go to the site and saw a planning notice on a lamppost, however, there is no village noticeboard and, therefore, he was not aware of the application.

·         Councillor Hicks asked officers to confirm what flood zone the application site is located in? David Rowen stated that the majority of the site is located in Flood Zone 3, however, there is a small portion in Flood Zone 2.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Parish Council have considered the application, and the majority of the members have no objection to the proposal. He added that when he visited the site there was a yellow site notice affixed to the lamppost which he is aware is the necessary steps that the Council has to take.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the other applications including the Woadmans Arms application which Mr Pritchard had alluded to and the Parish Council always has sight of the applications in order for them to submit their comments and whilst Mr Pritchard personally has not been consulted the Parish Council will have been. Mr Pritchard stated that he owns the adjacent land to the application site and he was not consulted.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that members may recall the site from a previous application in May last year and the application was for PIP for up to 6 dwellings, which was approved by the committee. He stated that this application is for 6 executive style dwellings on the entrance to the village, with these 4-bedroomed dwellings allowing more families to move to the area, with the previous application having support from the Parish Council and this one also has its support.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that they are proposing a footpath to the site frontage to connect to the existing one and the reason it does not carry east around Rectory Road is because Highways state that it is not required and objected to extending it that way. He made the point that there are no other consultee objections and as such, in his view, the dwelling designs are considered to enhance the character and appearance of the area and would support local amenities to the benefit of the community to outweigh the officer’s recommendation.

Mr Lunn-Towler asked committee to support the application as they did the previous one.

Members asked questions of Mr Lunn-Towler as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed concern regarding the riparian dyke and asked for information on it and asked when the PIP application was submitted and approved was he aware that they were not going to be able to achieve the footpath that was promised? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that he not sure what the concern is regarding the footpath but assumes that it is where it meets the corner of Rectory Road and that is why Highways have conditioned it appropriately and a 2 metre footpath is being proposed. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the PIP was approved on the promise of a footpath.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there is 60mph limit and asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce that speed limit at their cost if the application was approved? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that he is not aware of any proposals to do this but if members find that this is a reasonable requirement it is something that can be facilitated and considered.

·         Councillor Hicks referred to the intention to create a footpath but the applicant does not own the dyke and the edge of the dyke to the road is not wide enough to put a footpath so asked where the land is going to come from to create a footpath? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that some of the land will be used that is in the applicant’s ownership to facilitate this. Councillor Hicks questioned that the footpath is going to be put on the applicant’s land behind the dyke, there is the edge of the road, a little bit of land and then the dyke so asked to be shown on a map where the footpath is going to be placed and he does feel there is enough land there? Mr Lunn-Towler stated that he has not measured the area but it can be clarified. Councillor Connor made the point that it is less than a metre. Councillor Hicks stated that this is his point that he does not think a footpath can be achieved. Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the view that as far as he is aware it can be achieved.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the comment of officers that these properties are going to look very stark and out of place for a period of time and asked if trees are being proposed and the trees being left that are already on site? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that they are keeping trees where they can and are proposing trees along the frontage.

·         Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that under the terms of the PIP there was a footpath which would have influenced the committee to approve the application but now the footpath is in question or has been removed so asked how does he think that the committee is going to be convinced to approve the proposal this time? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that the footpath is not being removed, they are proposing it be achieved to overcome concerns and follow the previous committee’s reasons for approving. He continued that the second access to the east of the property no longer extends round towards Rectory Road and Highways stated it was not needed to deliver the development so it was removed accordingly because otherwise they were going to keep their objection.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is a bit confused about Highways and she did read their comments on the Planning Portal and her understanding is that what the agent is trying to tell them is not the way she interprets it. She expressed concern being a member of 11 drainage boards and taking drainage extremely seriously that there is a riparian dyke, which is not owned fully by the applicant, and asked how they plan to get rid of the surface water, with Newton not being on main sewage and when there is private sites that have to be tankered out weekly or fortnightly or monthly basis, there is lots of questions in this application that do not have answers and she does not consider it to be a complete application and she would not be looking to support or refuse but to have it deferred to get the answers that are missing.

·         Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French as committee do not have answers about the footpath and the drainage.

·         Councillor Marks asked, in relation to the sewage, would they be individual treatment plants or would it be one combined plant? Mr Lunn-Towler responded that if required it would be individual per plot for maintenance and personal use, which would discharge to the same point. Councillor Marks made the point that 6 properties discharging in different directions may be a lot different than one big discharge into one drain at a time.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Hicks asked what weight should be given to a full planning application if a PIP is already in existence? David Rowen responded that by granting the PIP the Council has accepted the principle of having residential development on the site, however, the issue now is can a detailed scheme be designed that is acceptable and as the recommendation sets out there are a number of detailed concerns which officers have in respect of this scheme rather than it is not thought to be an acceptable site for the principle of housing and reasons for refusal need to relate to detailed matters, which they do, then that is a reasonable and proper decision to make.

·         David Rowen referred to the consultation with Mr Pritchard and clarified that with any planning application the Council is only required to notify properties which immediately adjoin the application site and Mr Pritchard’s home address is not adjacent to the application site, it is additional land which he owns and the Council is not aware of land ownership details and in those situations the Council is required to publicise the application by way of a site notice, which is what happened in this instance so the statutory requirements in terms of consultation have been carried out.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the objector referring to the village notice board and he has never seen any planning notices on these boards and questioned whether this was needed. David Rowen responded that the requirement is that the Council erect a notice as close to the application site as possible so the only circumstances that this may happen is for a very large scale proposal where the maximum number of people need to be made aware. Councillor Connor made the point that the notice is more or less on the application site when he visited it so it has adhered to the requirements.

·         Councillor Imafidon requested clarification that when it is said only properties adjacent or nearby does that mean properties that are occupied and lived in? David Rowen responded that a property would be notified if it has a postal address that can be identified and the letter is addressed to the owner or occupier.

·         Councillor Benney referred to Mr Pritchard making reference to a village poll that took place and made the point that there was a similar thing in Chatteris, with them being told by the Clerk of Chatteris Town Council that this poll carries no weight in terms of planning but the people still went ahead and ran the poll. He wondered if the same applies here that the poll has no sway and it comes down to planning matters. David Rowen confirmed this to be correct.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the application is incomplete and it would be wrong of the committee to make a determination either way until some proper answers have been received, especially in relation to flooding, sewage and discharge of surface water, which she feels have not be addressed. She referred to the situation that occurred in Westry prior to Christmas and she would hate anyone to go through what residents in Westry suffered. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that there is still no satisfactory answer on highways or the footpath and she knows highways officers are professionals and they do not get things wrong. She added that she would also like to see speed reduction as the site is in a village and, in her view, the application should be deferred.

·         Councillor Connor agreed as he feels there is not enough information to approve the application today as there is so much he is unsure of and he feels it needs to be deferred for it to come back at a later date with further information.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that the PIP was granted on the basis that there was going to be a footpath for the village and it is not in this application. He has never heard of Highways saying that something is not needed that is on offer and it was on offer before. Councillor Benney stated that if water has to go uphill a pumping station can be built, which is part of a drainage scheme that will work and there is not a drainage scheme in front of committee that says it will work and if the application is going to be deferred it should be on the basis of the footpath and drainage as the committee has already agreed that the principle of development of this land is acceptable.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that it does say that this application has to be determined by 28 June and asked if this is deferred what effect will this have on the Council? David Rowen responded that there is an extension of time in place until 28 June and the Council is in the applicant’s hands as to whether they agree a further extension, if they do not this is an application that will go out of time and will count against the authority in term of its performance figures.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the speed limit and expressed the view that this needs to be considered as to whether they would be prepared to pay towards the reduction of the speed limit from 60mph to 40mph.

·         Councillor Benney questioned that if this application needs determining by 28 June could the drainage and path be conditioned?

·         Councillor Connor stated it is a poor application.

·         Councillor Benney asked if the agent could be brought back to see if he would accept the condition of an extension of time? The Chairman agreed to this. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that they would be happy to agree an extension of time to resolve the concerns if committee were looking to a deferment.

·         David Rowen stated that the issue of whether extensions of time are to be given or not is not a material planning consideration, it is an informative issue for members to be aware of but is not material to the determination of the application and should not be used to overcome members concerns.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he wants to know how much land is suitable for a footpath and whether it is achievable and wants this information to come back if the application is deferred.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has been on Planning Committee for 25 years on and off and she has never seen such a poor application. She is concerned that when these applications are not determined in time it is the Planning Authority that gets the blame but it is not always the authority and she is surprised over such a poor application knowing who the agent is. Councillor Mrs French stated she has changed her mind and she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as she feels it has been rushed through.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough made the point that Highways recommended a condition over its concerns about drainage and the footway should be constructed before the start of the development so this is not new news and it appears to her to have been overlooked in the application.

·         Councillor Marks acknowledged the comments of Councillor Mrs French and this application is probably the worst one he has seen but he does not recall seeing the agent here today before and questioned whether there was naivety on behalf of the agent but committee has given benefit of the doubt on previous occasions to allow deferrals and he feels that a deferral on this occasion may be better than just a no.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French, there is too much wrong with the application and he cannot see how all these issues can be resolved.

·         David Rowen stated that the key point for members to consider is that this is a full planning application so the details that are on the plan are what is being applied for and if members are not happy with that plan they are entitled to refuse the application as recommended. He referred to highways and the issue of the reduction of the speed limit and stated that there is nothing from Highways expressing any concerns in terms of vehicles manoeuvring out onto the road with a 60mph speed limit and it would be unreasonable for the committee to require the applicant to enter into a highway regulation order to lower the speed limit. David Rowen stated that the Highway comments in the report do not indicate that they are saying that the footway only needs to serve the site and does not need to go around the corner and as long as the footway serves the application site Highways are going to be happy because they are looking at the highway impacts of the development. He advised that the Internal Drainage Board have commented on the application and talk about the board requiring formal land drainage consent for access culverts and note that soakaways are the preferred method of surface water disposal but the applicant has to show that surface water soakaway drainage would be effective and as part of the application form it is indicated that foul sewage is to be dealt with by the main sewer.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that she is a member of numerous drainage boards and one of the big issues is the amount of rain that has occurred over the last 12 months, it is a concern and if you contact the Environmental Team at the Council they can inform members of the times they have had to go out to private sewage systems to try to sort them out. She expressed the view that the answers for the sewage do not exist as well as surface water and she feels that this is an application that is not ready for determination.

·         Councillor Marks requested clarification that sewage will be dealt with via the main sewers. David Rowen stated that he can only comment on what is on the application form which states that it is to be dealt with by main sewers. Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of Mr Pritchard who said there is no main sewer here. Councillor Marks agreed that he said it did not run up to the site. Councillor Connor stated that this makes it worst as there is contradiction. Councillor Marks asked that as the applicant has put that on the application this could be conditioned? Councillor Mrs French responded how can something be conditioned if there is not a main sewer in the village.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that Westry, where she lives and is part of March, is not on main sewers so the chances of this village getting on main sewers is zero.

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

(Councillors Benney, Connor, Mrs French, Imafidon, Marks and Sennitt Clough declared that the applicant for the application is a close relative of an elected member, Councillor Sam Clark. They declared that the extent of their relationship with Councillor Clark is limited to being political and Council member colleague and they will approach the application with an open mind and will make their decision based only on the planning merits)

(Councillor Hicks declared that the applicant for the application is a close relative of an elected member, Councillor Sam Clark. He declared that the extent of his relationship with Councillor Clark is limited to being a Council member colleague and he will approach the application with an open mind and will make his decision based only on the planning merits. He further declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)