Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens made the point that this site has an extant permission for up to nine dwellings approved in January 2022 and whilst the layout was not committed it showed larger detached housing on site with a roadway that will not work. He stated that given the location of the site and the adjacent Persimmon scheme his client felt this was the wrong approach, particularly as he is completing a scheme of nine two and three bedroom houses elsewhere in Chatteris for rent and these dwellings will be for rent too.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that there is a strong demand for two and three bedroom homes in Chatteris, both for rent and buy, and with recent new companies coming to Chatteris, like Aerotron, and companies, like Metalcraft, expanding a better mix of housing is required. He stated that the scheme was designed with early engagement with Highways who were helpful and satisfied with the road layout, this helped inform the layout particularly with the narrow entry section from Doddington Road.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that they have always tried to engage with officers at the earliest opportunity and be proactive to address any concerns and it has only been in the last few weeks that this has taken place. He expressed the opinion that they have addressed biodiversity concerns and this has been satisfied with credits being purchased to achieve the 10% gain, new native species trees will be planted as well as new hedgerows.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that his client has spent thousands of pounds exploring and resolving the drainage concerns, infiltration tests confirm that surface water cannot discharge via infiltration and the next step in the drainage hierarchy is to discharge surface water to an existing water course or ditch and this solution suggested taking it to the Slade End roundabout but Highways believe this is Highways owned and will not allow discharge. He stated that their consultants, MTC, have now confirmed that surface water can be discharged to an IDB ditch further along the Isle of Ely Way so, in his opinion, the drainage hierarchy has been met and they have a solution that the LLFA will accept and are happy to have a surface and foul water condition applied to the scheme.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the proposed density of the scheme is comparable with that of the adjacent Persimmon development with both schemes achieving about 37 dwellings to the hectare. He referred to the reasons for refusal and using the presentation slide showed that, in his view, plot 1 does have a prominent front elevation to the street as you enter the site but he would argue that the side elevation is not as prominent in the development, with plot 1 not having a blank wall as it has a first floor en-suite window clearly shown but the gable is alongside a driveway and a garage to the dwelling and does not face directly onto the public realm, with car parking and public green space separating the dwellings from plots 11 and 12 which are opposite some 22 metres away.

Mr Bevens showed on the presentation scheme examples in Chatteris of dwellings approved by the Council with blank gables to the public realm and whilst this is not always good design there are often mitigating factors to do so and in this case the driveway and green buffer separating the side elevation to the road. He referred to refusal reason 2, showing on a presentation slide that plots 13 and 14 are no closer to 4B Doddington Road than the two pairs of semi-detached houses in Fillenham Way, which is the Persimmon development, and there are actually three of the four facing into the garden of 4B and they are closer to the dwelling than plots 13 and 14, with plots 2 and 9 having over 12 metres between the front elevations and this is fairly typical of a dual sided development.

Mr Bevens showed on the presentation slide a photograph of a scheme in Juniper Drive, Chatteris where 4-bedroom houses are separated by 9 metres front to front and, in his view, it is not uncommon on schemes for smaller houses to have parking outside of another house, with there being numerous examples of this in Chatteris and also parking courts in developments such as Saddlers Way. He showed further slides of development in Chatteris where front elevations of executive homes overlook other private gardens with less than 8 metre distances and these distances are much worse than is being proposed on this scheme.

Mr Bevens stated that he believes that this scheme is the right one for this location, it is not overdevelopment by virtue of it being comparable to the Persimmon’s development next door, the scheme is a sustainable proposal, it will support local shops, businesses and facilities and, in his view, the benefits do outweigh the harm. He added the Town Council support the proposal and they will endeavour to propose as many trees in the landscaping scheme as possible.

Mr Bevens asked members to go against the officer’s recommendation and approve this scheme for much needed smaller dwellings.

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for further information on the drainage situation. Mr Bevens responded that they have had fairly extensive recent negotiations, backwards and forwards with their consultants who were appointed to find a drainage solution as part of the drainage strategy. He stated that they followed the hierarchy by undertaking infiltration testing on site but it is not conducive to soakaways on site and they firstly thought the ditch by Slade End roundabout was an IDB drain but it is not and is a highway drain so the next hierarchy is to take it to an IDB drain which is further up the Isle of Ely Way. Mr Bevens added that their consultants are satisfied that the LLFA would approve this drainage solution and remove its objection but this has only come to light in the last 24 hours. He stated that if a foul and surface water condition is applied to the scheme he is confident that there is a solution that will work. Councillor Imafidon asked what if the IDB come back and say they do not have capacity or they are unable to connect to the drain? Mr Bevens responded that the next stage of hierarchy is to look at taking the surface water into the foul sewer that runs in Doddington Road. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that these options have not been explored and questioned why they have not been explored. Mr Bevens responded that it has been undertaken in a logical way but the feedback from officers has been late in the process so it has been a reactory issue, with the consultants trying to follow the hierarchy and have done what they can at every stage proactively, with them relying on the consultants telling them that this is the right approach and they are satisfied with the approach.

·         Councillor Marks referred to comments that the plot 1 property has a bland wall and Mr Bevens has shown development elsewhere in Chatteris which shows a very bland wall and questioned whether this bland wall could be enhanced by putting in a false window surround on this wall? Mr Bevens responded that this could be a possibility, subject to officers they are happy to look at this, adding something on the ground floor level and looking at the floor plan to see if they can put some passive surveillance on here if needed.

·         Councillor Marks referred to overlooking on other properties and some of the properties around here have higher fences than others and asked if this is something they would look to do? Mr Bevens responded that as part of the planning conditions they can look at increasing the height of boundary fences by trellis, etc., so it is not a solid fence it has got some privacy but also lets some daylight through it.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the main reasons for refusal being poor design and asked at what stage he was notified that it was poor design and what timescales did he have to design something better as the architect to come up with a scheme that would be more aesthetically pleasing to Chatteris and officers. Mr Bevens responded that they are proactive architects, they try to and engage with officers at an early opportunity and they had their first real feedback from the officer about 9½ weeks into the planning process having asked on numerous occasions for feedback on all items. He continued that they met the officer on site after 9½ weeks where it was identified that the biodiversity net gain and the drainage were a concern which almost superseded the design element but it was felt that it was quite late in the day. Councillor Benney asked how far back from today is 9½ weeks and it does not appear that they have a satisfactory drainage scheme that is ready to go today and what was the issues and timescales with getting an approved drainage scheme? Mr Bevens responded that the last 1½-2 weeks is when the majority of the backwards and forwards on the drainage has taken place and every time they have had something from the officer to say there is an issue it has gone straight back to the consultant to find a solution and follow the hierarchy. He feels that they have not had the support at officer level on this application. Councillor Benney asked if an extension of time has been requested to resolve the issues? Mr Bevens responded that they have not asked for an extension of time given the lateness of what has been happening with the drainage, he has spoken with Gavin this morning and it is something they would consider if the drainage is the overarching issue that members have to get the LLFA to remove its objection.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that this application is “putting the cart before the horse” as with the issues of flooding and potential issues with drainage the application should probably be withdrawn as it is not a complete application and he is unable to approve this application as it is with no confirmation of where the foul water is going to go. Mr Bevens stated that the foul water is going into Doddington Road and it is the surface water that is the issue. Councillor Connor made the point that the drainage system as a whole is not conclusive.

·         Councillor Connor asked what kind of road surface is it going to be, tarmac or block paving? Mr Bevens responded that the road is designed to adoptable standards but it will be a private road which will be block paved in a similar way to the scheme that is being undertaken currently in Black Horse Lane. Councillor Connor referred to the mention of up to adoptable standard and questioned whether it was going to be adopted? Mr Bevens confirmed it would not be adopted. Councillor Connor continued that there will be a management company then if this is approved? Mr Bevens confirmed this was correct. Councillor Connor stated that if he was to support this application on this aspect he would want two houses being built but unoccupied until such time as the road was brought up to standard and asked if this could be considered? Mr Bevens responded that this is a private road that is designed to adoptable standards but will be in a management company run by the applicant but if it is felt appropriate that 2 dwellings need to be held back prior to it being finished off he does not see a problem with this. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he would insist upon it.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to a couple of references within the report to soil contamination and asked what this is or what it might be? Mr Bevens responded that he is not aware of any significant soil contamination on the site, it has been up until this point a back garden.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked if they agreed that putting surface water down a foul water system is not conducive in normal operations? Mr Bevens agreed but that is following the stages of hierarchy and is the last resort with Anglian Water but it is hoping that it can be taken into an IDB drain and will form part of a condition on the permission. Councillor Gerstner stated it is his understanding that Anglian Water and other water authorities would normally only allow surface water when flooding is an issue in a place for them to go down this route and it is not a normal part of a building programme.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with Councillor Gerstner as there is the same problem in Manea where there is standing water going in with dirty water and it causes all sorts of flooding issues. He feels that this application is being considered prematurely and asked would it not be better to be deferred for a period of time to come back to committee with a full drainage package as opposed to what there is currently, which is ifs, buts and maybe, and it can be conditioned but he feels it would be better to be deferred. Mr Bevens stated that if it is the drainage side of the application that is the issue he believes the next committee is on 13 November and if it was bringing it back to that committee he would hope they would be able to deal with the drainage and have an approval in place from the LLFA by that time as negotiations have already commenced. He added that if it is felt within those two weeks that other amendments might be needed to the design they could be included. Councillor Connor made the point that he does not think it is realistic to be referred back to 13 November meeting. Matthew Leigh stated that irrespective of this any additional information received will need to be consulted upon and they have to give the statutory consultees 21 days to respond and they have no ability to ensure it is received before this and members will want a fully robust report drafted once the consultation responses have been received, with it being Tuesday that reports are due for the next committee. Mr Bevens asked if it would be able to go to the December committee? Councillor Mrs French made the point that it does say on the report that the application has to be determined by 1 November. Councillor Connor expressed the view that if the applicant gives an extension of time that would not affect the figures. Matthew Leigh stated that when an extension of time is agreed that provides a new determination date but there will not be one in place in time if the application is deferred.

Matthew Leigh made the point that the applicant did not enter into pre-application discussion prior to the submission of the application, either with the Council or the LLFA, both of which offer a pre-application service and the NPPF encourages engagement in pre-application so that it does not end up in situations where applications are being submitted that are stumbling on relatively minor issues as if they had gone to the County Council early on it would have been highlighted that there were issues with their delivery of mitigation and how they would have had to go through the hierarchy. He referred to the agent mentioning late interaction and limited engagement and stated there is no requirement for a council to engage during a planning application process, the system is set up to an extent for an application to be submitted, consulted, reviewed and determined, they try to do this but the opportunity is limited in relation to time and consultation responses. Matthew Leigh added that in relation to the matter of the County Council and flooding, three weeks in the process officers received their consultation response that would have been available on the website soon after this. He stated the fact the applicant has not entered into a pre-application service and the fact that officers have been willing to meet the applicant on site to discuss issues means the Council has provided a good level of customer service for this application rather than the criticism that was implied.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Benney made the point that there is a drainage scheme that has been submitted but has not had the opportunity to be looked at and if members could agree on the other reasons for refusal in terms of design and overlooking, could the drainage be conditioned so that it could be something that officers deal with later? Matthew Leigh responded that there are 6 tests for imposing a condition and one of the issues that officers have in relation to this matter is a lack of clarity, they have to be confident that a condition that is imposed can legally be discharged and the issue on this site is a lack of knowledge so his advice would be no to a condition as it would not meet the test in this instance.

·         Councillor Marks requested clarity that what is being said is because officers believe there is a lack of information regarding the drainage, although there is already another plan in place, officers are unhappy for the application to be approved. Matthew Leigh responded that two strategies have already been brought forward that have failed so there is clear lack of confidence there is going to be a strategy coming forward because normally there would be some level of submission that gives you some level of confidence. Councillor Marks queried it being conditioned? Matthew Leigh reiterated that officers are not confident that the condition would meet the test so it would not be within their gift legally to do this.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that this is a bad application and the thought of even considering putting water into Anglian Water’s drain is absolutely appalling, which is why the area is flooding everywhere and raw sewerage is coming up all over across the town and she is sure this happens in Chatteris as well as March. She feels that officer’s have got the recommendation correct on this application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he does not personally have a problem with the design, referring to two houses that were approved at the top of Eastwood that he drives past every day that have got just as bland a wall as this development does and there are examples down Juniper Drive that are equally as bland and as close so he would not want to refuse it on the design aspect because he feels this can be overcome. He agreed that the drainage has to be right and there is not a drainage scheme in front of members that is right for this application.

·         Councillor Marks stated he agrees with Councillor Mrs French as currently it is a poor design but feels it can be made better. He made the point that it is drainage that is the issue and he wonders if it would be better to defer the application for 31 days and let the agent bring it back.

·         Matthew Leigh made the point that the application in front of committee does not have a different design so his advice would be to refuse it on this.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant is known to him on a professional basis but he does not socialise with him and is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(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)