Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Peter Bryant, an objector. Mr Bryant explained that he is addressing the committee to represent the hamlet of Colletts Bridge who are asking the Council to uphold their Local Plan and to show it cares about highway and flooding safety by voting unanimously to refuse as they did the near identical application earlier this year. He stated that the officer’s report asserts the ELP has little impact, and he notes the huge disparity in LP65.1 (which is this plot, in LP65 which is Colletts Bridge) and, in his view, with regards to the update report, the ELP should be ignored.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that the application comprehensively fails to meet the Local Plan, and the west side of Colletts Bridge is a place that officers, the committee and Planning Inspectors have all agreed is predominantly open to the surrounding countryside with a handful of sporadic dwellings. and this application of a mini estate drives a coach and horses through. He made the point that clearly this proposal would be in total opposition to the form of the settlement and would adversely harm its character and appearance.

Mr Bryant referred to the presentation screen and stated that the red marks show a concentrated objection to development on this site from residents, the Parish Council and both District Councillors. He added that the more distant green marks show the residential support for the plan as supplied by the applicant’s agent, which he feels paints a very clear picture, adding that the Highway Authority’s first response to an application for this site required splays of 215m in either direction, or a traffic speed survey to show speeds are low enough and theapplicant has done neither.

Mr Bryant added that the application claims a 69m splay which is only safe for speeds of about 40mph for light vehicles and yet this road is the only approved route for HGV’s attending Fenmarc, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with it being immediately adjacent to both a blind junction and a dangerous crossroads. He made the point that the visibility splay is significantly reduced by the hedge in the picture and that hedge is not in the control of the applicant, with the Highway Authority having never chosen to take any action on the hedge and he explained that the Highway Authority have stated in their follow up by indicating acceptability resting entirely on the phrase “…would be unable to build up speed”.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that this statement is an evidence free assertion, and he referred to the presentation screen and explained the diagram shown on the screen, which demonstrates the actual speeds achieved safely during a test undertaken by him and he added that when cars exit Colletts Bridge Lane, vehicles from the left can be travelling at over 30mph when first seen, thus drivers have less than 2 seconds of clear, visible road. He explained that this includes HGV’s necessarily cutting the corner on entering Gosmoor Lane from the A1101 and, in his view, it is unsafe so much so that some locals will not turn right into Gosmoor Lane because they find it too dangerous.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that this is mitigated because there is ¼ mile of clear road to the right towards Elm without junctions and when clear this gives drivers 15 seconds to focus entirely on avoiding traffic from the left and, in his view, the application destroys that mitigation as 15 seconds become 1 or 2, which, in his opinion, makes the junction dangerous in both directions. He stated that following an extended email conversation to which Councillor Mrs French was included along with the FDC Planning Officer and Elm Parish Council, Highways eventually acknowledged that this junction does not comply with Highway Standards because of very poor visibility.

Mr Bryant stated that both himself along with the Parish Council, assert that the application further endangers Colletts Bridge residents by reducing visibility times to 2 seconds in both directions, with the Highway Authority stating in their professional judgement that this is safe, however, they offer no metrics or standards to support this, and they do not even have a speed survey (as originally required) to consider if this could be safe. He expressed the view that if the 2 seconds to the left is dangerous then 2 seconds to the right is equally dangerous and would create a road configuration with enormous potential for injuries, damage and death and he rejects the Highway’s judgement that it is safe and asked the committee to do so as well.

Mr Bryant referred to the presentation screen and stated that the slide tells 1000 words and he added that the quote is taken from the paragraph 5.2 of the conclusion in the applicant’s own drainage strategy where it states that the site floods all year round as it is covered with reeds and marshy flora. He stated that in the officer’s report it mentions that the remedial drainage strategy is outside the red line boundary and must be disregarded and he added that the IDB cannot even confirm if the mitigation would work.

Mr Bryant made the point that with the drainage strategy disqualified from consideration MLC's previous concerns stand and state clearly that the site is unsuitable for development, and he stated that MLC’s hydraulic modelling is not even available. He expressed the view that the County’s Principal Flood Risk Officer stated at a recent public meeting that the current system cannot cope and that there is nowhere for the water to go.

Mr Bryant concluded by stating that there is no local support, the application fails to meet numerous Local Plan policies and particularly drives a coach and horses through DM3, it severely increases highways dangers, and the existing flood and drainage issues remain and cannot be resolved.

Members asked Mr Bryant the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Bryant to clarify the point he made with regards to email correspondence. Mr Bryant stated that he had sent an email to the Highway Authority and copied Councillor Mrs French in as his County Councillor, along with Councillors Roy, Count and Summers on the Highways issue. Councillor Mrs French stated that she has declared that she has been lobbied so that is recorded.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Walford stated that the proposal is in outline form for 5 plots and is in Flood Zone 1 as well as being in an allocated site within the emerging draft Local Plan. He explained that the site abuts the built form on Colletts Bridge and extends no further down Gosmoor Lane than the existing residential development.

Mr Walford added that on the opposite side of the road there is a building plot which was approved by the committee in 2022 and at that time it was recommended for refusal by Planning Officers and contrary to policy for similar reasons. He expressed the opinion that it is a logical development which helps to sustain local amenities and contributes towards the local housing need.

Mr Walford added that the submission is accompanied by a detailed surface water drainage strategy which was commissioned following the concerns of Middle Level Commissioners (MLC) and the committee at the last meeting. He explained that he is proposing a new open channel drain on the applicant’s land to the west of the site which connects up to an existing drainage network to the north on a drain, with the strategy demonstrating that all surface water can be attenuated on the site via storage crates and then discharged into the open ditch at greenfield rate.

Mr Walford made the point that the ditch could have technically been a closed pipe underground, but it was felt that an open channel was more favourable towards ecological and environmental benefits and it also acts as a physical barrier between the site and future development due to the concerns over possible future development down Gosmoor Lane. He explained that since the resubmission, biodiversity net gain has been introduced and he has been able to use the drain as an environmental asset off site rather than in the red line.

Mr Walford made the point that MLC commented on the revised submission and have stated that the applicant has made a considerable effort in trying to resolve the drainage issues and flood risk raised previously including the formation of a new open channel to serve the proposed development and if dealt with correctly the water course may have the wider benefits in lowering the water level within the hamlet. He stated that he is aware that the hydraulic modelling checks have been referred to as to not being available to date, however, the drainage strategy shows that the attenuation will take place on site and will be discharged at greenfield rate and, therefore, regardless of what the checks identify the water can be discharged into the ditch at greenfield without consent and he is struggling to see why there is the need to wait for modelling calculations to confirm that is acceptable.

Mr Walford explained that the application has included an ecology appraisal to address any concerns with regards to wildlife and to bring it up to standard to comply with the biodiversity net gain policy. He made the point that Highways have supported the proposal, and he referenced the objector’s presentation where concerns were highlighted with regards to visibility, highlighting that it is an outline application and access is not committed, however, a single access point could be an option and as the application is only indicative, the access could be moved along away from the hedge which is causing concern.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that only a few months appear to have passed since the application was recommended for refusal and she asked officers to explain what the difference is with the current application apart from the discharge of drainage water? David Rowen stated that in terms of the indicative details submitted, nothing has changed from the previous application. He added that the only change is the introduction in the drainage ditch which does not form part of the application site.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she cannot see any difference in the application and whilst it may be in the emerging Local Plan, this is yet to be adopted. She expressed the view that she does not see how the committee can make any other decision apart from the decision which they made a few months ago.

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

(Councillors Connor and Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they have been lobbied on this application)