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 Kevin Salter, the applicant, and Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Salter stated that he represents the company that owns the land, with the whole of land shown yellow and outlined in red on the displayed plan being acquired in 1998, which was a huge problem as the site was overgrown, vandalised and had anti-social behaviour. He advised that they tried to work very closely with all the authorities, the Parish Council, the local councillors, local residents and the then Tree Officer who agreed that he could not do anything until they started working closely with him.

Mr Salter stated that the site was derelict after the former rectory on the yellow site was burnt down in the mid-1990s prior to that the previous owner had got planning consents including this land for a high density residential development and the conversion of the former Chapter House, with that company going into liquidation it was brought by his company from the Anglo Irish Bank and they have tried to pursue a sensible planning application but one that works to enhance the Conservation Area, with the former development proposals, in his view, being severely detrimental to the Conservation Area. He advised that a scheme was produced with all these different authorities input for a low density five-unit scheme, which was developed and called Chapter Gardens, which, in his view, is a prime example of how to turn around a problem site.

Mr Salter stated that policy at that time was that you could only get five dwellings off a shared driveway and which is why the scheme was produced, which works very well. He advised that the other land was kept back, which he is unsure of as to why, with various suggestions of what could happen on it but over the last 20 years it has become a nightmare of a site and has become badly vandalised.

Mr Salter expressed the view that the trees are mostly Grade C trees, he has worked closely with the Tree Officer and any works have been in accordance with applications or advice received, with the Tree Officer recommending on a previous planning application removal of all the trees so although there are TPOs on some of those trees most of those trees have been supported by the Tree Officer to have them removed. He referred to Paragraph 72 of Subsection 2 of the NPPF which encourages local authorities where Conservation Areas can be enhanced and this is all they are seeking to do here, it is not about getting money from two houses, it is to bring that site to a remediated site, they have a remediation plan as part of the planning application which would deal with all the problem sites within the trees and the replanting of the boundaries with native hedgerows and species.

Mr Walford reiterated that of all the trees on site that are to be removed for the development, with the majority of them having pre-existing consent for removal, which leaves two that have not and those two have been confirmed in the Tree Officer’s report to be affected by Ash dieback and are in poor condition. He stated that the Tree Officer’s recommendation for approval in terms of trees was very much on the basis that the loss of the trees was not detrimental to the development.

Mr Walford stated that he has lived in Leverington for 24 years and his house looked onto The Glebe and he can vouch for the coming and goings on the site, with it being a run through from the sports field from The Glebe and it has always been a problem area, with antisocial behaviour, fires and the Police called. He feels the best way, like a Listed Building, is to give it families to love it and maintain the area, which he can only see as an enhancement over and above what it is there now and where it is heading, with it being well screened so they are not changing any of the perimeter and the trees there are staying.

Members asked questions of Mr Salter and Mr Walford as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he knows this area very well and he knows the Grade I Listed church itself has been under attack by vandals. He commended Mr Salter on what they did on the previous site, recognising that it is not an easy task to take on a site like that. Councillor Imafidon asked why two units and why not one as looking at other developments near the site they are quite spacious? Mr Salter responded that there is a development cost, it is going to cost an enormous amount of money to remediate that site and by the time they have got the infrastructure and the grandtrack road, which is a permeable surface and a no dig road which will not be seen from Gorefield Road, reinforced and then filled with gravel or grassed and takes up to 40 tonnes in weight, there is a significant cost to service the land so it would not be viable to build one house on this site. He added that it is primarily about remediating a problem site which has got worse over the last 20 years and has cost an enormous amount of money and problems, with a solution being found for the development that became Chapter Gardens and he wants a solution here as well. Councillor Imafidon sympathised and understood what he is trying to do.

·         Councillor Clark stated that as this site lies within her ward she knows there has been anti-social behaviour and she asked if The Glebe is owned by the church? Mr Salter confirmed this to be correct by the Diocese of Ely. Councillor Clark continued that she has looked through the report and cannot see any consultation with them or the church’s Parochial Council? Mr Salter responded that they first approached the Diocesan Board many years ago, probably 20 years ago, to ask if there would be any potential to get an access across The Glebe field and the answer was no and this continued for a number of years until 2016 they said yes and they have an agreement that if they get planning consent they will grant an access across that land. He stated that the Parochial Church Council have a rent on that land and do not have a right of tenure but they are not going to spend legal fees on getting the access if planning permission is not forthcoming and there is an agreement that states if they can get permission they will grant an access. Councillor Clark stated that she has had issues with that piece of land because the school is close and as everyone is aware parking outside schools is horrendous and it was suggested to the Diocese that this land could be turned into car parking but it was refused so she is questioning why they would give them access? Mr Salter responded that is because he is having to pay for it and it is a considerable amount of money, he referred to case law where you have ransom strip or no access to your land and if somebody grants you access to their land you have to pay them the 50% uplifting value between what you say it is worth now which is nothing and what it would be worth with planning consent, working out what the deductible costs are and basically they end up with 50% of the net value as a contribution for allowing an access across the land. Councillor Clark reiterated that she is aware the anti-social behaviour has been bad and there have been special meetings at the village hall with the Police due to this and vandalism and she believes there has been several fires on the land in the past. Mr Salter stated that one of the neighbours who has been keeping a watch on the site for him ever since he has lived there has filmed over his fence some instances and it is horrendous.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed concern about some of the comments made from Leverington Parish Council about the cemetery and whatever it is that is being dug out they have said there will be some damage and she understands that there are some Commonwealth War graves in the cemetery so they do not want the cemetery being disturbed unnecessarily. She asked what if any disruption there will be to the cemetery from the development? Mr Salter responded that it is a no dig road, it is a minimal scrape of the surface and the depth of the road is no more than the width of the table he is sitting at so it will not be seen. He added that there is an established hedgerow between this and the graveyard and in terms of distance it is probably 12-15 feet away from the nearest grave. Mr Salter stated that, in comparison, if you look across the road at what the Parish Council have done for their new graveyard which is going to cover all the allotment area, they have put a solid hard road into the new graveyard area behind the church which is going to have hundreds of graves in it and is 2 foot from the headstones of people’s graves with no protection so his development is going to be nowhere near anybody’s graves. He made the point that Chapter Gardens is a no dig road, although it is brick paviour as grand tracks was not about then.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough questioned that the hedgerow would remain? Mr Salter confirmed this to be correct.

·         Councillor Marks how the site is accessed now to upkeep it? Mr Salter responded that they have a longstanding agreement with Jolliffe’s, the agent for the Diocesan Board, to allow them access through an existing gateway opposite the school and when they have accessed it, it is with small machinery and they have removed anything by hand.

·         Councillor Marks referred to two homes instead of one and made the point that the trees are fairly substantial, it is quite a tight area and he is concerned about the shading from the trees. He asked would it not be better for one home in the middle as opposed to the two and also in relation to access and turning circles by the homes themselves? Mr Salter responded that economically it would not be viable for one dwelling, especially with construction costs for building a house going through the roof and there is very little profit in a four-bedroom house after all the costs have been taken into account. He referred to the trees and they already have consent from Fenland to crown a number of the trees and in further investigation there will be probably more tree removal, with there being permission already to remove a number of trees and with the remediation plan they would not be providing trees as big as what is on site currently and it will just be hedgerow. Mr Salter stated that the Conservation Officer in his report refers to an established protected hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the site but there is not one there and never has been but this development proposes one.

·         Councillor Marks stated that as a Conservation Area he is really concerned to hear that some trees are going to be crowned and that some other trees may be removed, making the point that this is Conservation Area where the street view when you see the church and the graveyard is the character of the village and whilst it might be a piece of waste ground permission may be given to put two houses on this land and he is not convinced that it will match in with the Conservation Area. Mr Walford referred to the loss of light to the gardens of these properties and stated that Chapter Gardens is a very successful development that has worked with the trees and with the character of the area. Councillor Marks made the point that there is a lot more space around these properties compared to this proposal. Mr Walford responded that there is still a lot of trees though and he feels that if you buy a plot here when you arrive you are going to see there is a lot of trees here and that it is a beautiful site that just needs a bit of love and care and you are buying a property with a lot of trees that will cause some shadowing but he does not think this is detrimental to the development, it can still be an enhanced site and a lovely place to live, with them being south facing gardens albeit with some trees on site. He referred to turning and that there is tracking on the site for emergency vehicle turning and the plan would not be to bring refuse lorries on site because there would be a roadside collection, with there being 4 spaces per house with turning clear of the parking area for emergency vehicles and the waiting on the road is also adequate for these vehicles, with the road system designed mainly for root protection and there will not be any damage to trees even if someone is driving on it and it dissipates any weight.

·         Councillor Marks expressed concern about further trees being removed. Mr Salter responded that the remediation plan that forms part of the planning application sets out what the proposal is for the existing trees that have permission to be removed, those that have permission to be crowned and what they intend to do with the boundaries, with the boundaries being a real mess and causing a lot of light not getting into the site so it is more undergrowth removal.

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy asked that when there is TPO and there is consent to remove the tree, is there a time limit? David Rowen responded that he believes it is two years. Councillor Murphy asked if this site is over those two years or not? David Rowen responded that from the planning history works to trees were deemed as exempt in 2020 and 2022 so yes the two years looks to have been exceeded. Councillor Murphy asked that the trees cannot be taken now unless the applicant applies again? David Rowen responded that would appear to be the case and made the point that works to trees that are protected by a TPO if they are deemed as exempt works can be undertaken without formal consent being granted because of the urgency of the situation but there is a requirement in the Tree Regulations that the trees are replaced on a like for like basis and as part of any approval that is granted for works to TPOs that is usually subject to a condition that replacements trees are to be provided so it is not normally the case that works to remove trees are just granted there is usually something that requires replacement.

·         Councillor Murphy asked if the permission is out of date does the tree revert back to a TPO tree? David Rowen responded that it remains a TPO tree until such time as it has been removed and if the works have not been undertaken within the requisite period then there is no consent in place to do those works. He referred to the comments made by Mr Salter and even if there is approval or was approval in place for those trees to be removed there would be an expectation and a mechanism to have replacement trees planted so it is not the case that the Council has just accepted trees being cleared from the site there is an expectation that the trees would go back if the removal was deemed necessary.

·         Councillor Marks questioned that there could be a possibility that the TPO works has now expired as the 2 years has passed so is there a need to have another report from a Tree Officer before planning permission is granted? David Rowen responded in relation to the current application he does not think that is necessarily material to the determination of the proposal, with the Tree Officer commenting on the application and has not raised objections to the loss of the trees per se but the Council’s Conservation Officer has raised concerns in on the loss of the trees and the introduction then of the built form on the site and the overall impact. He does not feel that the issue of the loss of trees precludes the committee making a decision on this application today but in terms of the weight the committee can potentially give to the arguments being put forward by the applicant about the effect of the permissions that are in place for the removal of trees on site is diminished by the time issue that Councillor Murphy picked up on.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that the grounds for refusal are not that substantial, she thought initially there were some issues with it being in a Conservation Area and the heritage aspect but feels that all those questions have been answered in such a way as to convince her that this is a good application, being satisfied with the responses from the applicant and agent.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he personally knows the site and has been contacted by locals and residents about the problems they have on the site, not just vandalism of the Listed church but with squatters, alcohol and drugs and some other anti-social behaviour and the impacts that the near derelict site is having on the local community, with elderly people being afraid to walk around that area. He understands the conservation concerns of the site, the TPOs and the Listed Building but he feels something needs to be undertaken with this site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there is concern within the village and he has concerns over the trees and he is not sure it sits well having two properties in that small area, with the developer having put next door five dwellings in a lot larger area and he would be more comfortable with one property as opposed to two. He recognises the financial side but usually somebody who wants to build a property like this will find a way round, it may become a bit more of an expensive property. Councillor Marks stated that the site does need something doing with it but he feels two properties is one too many.

·         Councillor Clark stated that anti-social behaviour in that area is not good and she agrees that one property would be preferable, with her concern being the trees.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that when she thinks about the opportunity to build one property or two, the one property may be a substantially bigger more expensive property but two properties might be slightly cheaper and offer the opportunity for locals to purchase these properties and stay in the area.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees, however, it needs to be taken into consideration that this is a Conservation Area and the look of two properties as opposed to one is in the “eye of the beholder” and committee just turned one down at Guyhirn for 7 properties in a small space so it could be argued that committee has denied 7 families housing. He still believes that one would be better than two.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that Leverington is an area where people like to live so he thinks the developer can make it work with either one or two but there is a need to do something with the site. He acknowledged that it is a Conservation Area but from the other development of 5 houses undertaken previously it has been seen how they have been built sympathetically and it was difficult for him to find the site, even knowing the area, and unless you are actually looking for it you will not notice them as the five dwellings blend in. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that what you do notice is the Church, the vandalism, the graves and the war memorial, he is aware it is a Conservation Area and the importance of preserving Conservation Areas but something needs to be undertaken on that site otherwise it is just going to get worse, it is making people’s lives misery with anti-social behaviour, with drugs and alcohol issues next to a school which should not be taking place around children.

·         Councillor Marks agreed that something is needed on the site, however, is the solution two properties in a Conservation Area with the tree and the shading issues.

·         David Rowen referred to members talking a lot about the issue of anti-social behaviour and the officer’s report does reflect on this and members need to remember when making a decision that the committee is here to deal with the issue of appropriate land use and not to deal with relatively short-term issues of anti-social behaviour, which could be addressed through other mechanisms, such as community policing. He finds it interesting when talking about anti-social behaviour that reference has been made to vandalism at the church but the church is not this application site so is there going to be an argument put forward that there needs to be houses built in the churchyard to address the anti-social behaviour taking place here. David Rowen stated in relation to the impact of this application, the site is within a Conservation Area, it is also within the setting of the church which is a Grade 1 Listed Building so the highest standard of Listed Building and, therefore, that has a more sensitive setting and greater consideration should be given to the impact of that setting as identified by the Council’s Conservation Officer. He made the point that the verdant character of this site and the openness of The Glebe all contribute to the character of the Conservation Area, the setting of the church and the overall significance of those heritage assets and consequently substantial or signifcant harm is identified to those heritage assets, with the recommendation being to refuse the application.

Proposed by Councillor Clark, seconded by Councillor Marks to refuse planning permission as per the officer’s recommendation which was not supported by a majority on a vote.

Proposed by Councillor Sennitt Clough, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with conditions delegated to officers to apply.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they do not feel the application would be detrimental or cause harm to the Grade 1 Listed Church or the heritage features within the Conservation Area.

(Councillor Clark declared that this application lies within her ward but she will approach the application with an open-mind)