Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mark Smith, an objector. Mr Smith stated that he represents CB6 developments, and he is before the committee on behalf of Mr and Mrs Percival together with a number of their neighbours in Askham Row to voice a collective objection to the planning proposal. He added that the application is recommended for refusal by Planning Officers for three reasons and he stated that in respect of the first reason it is highly relevant to note that planning permission was refused on land to the west of Hospital Road for three dwellings by the Planning Committee in April 2023, with the proposed application being immediately to the north of the application which was refused and, therefore, it is further away from the centre of the village and in an even more sustainable location than the site which was recently refused planning permission.

 

Mr Smith expressed the view that it would be illogical and irrational to approve three dwellings on the site when considering that previous decision and whilst it may be suggested that development has been approved to the east of Hospital Road, that land relates to the hospital grounds whereas the current proposal is fully within the open countryside. He expressed the opinion that the application has no relationship at all with any other built form and it is open to agricultural fields on three sides with the mature trees and hedges of Hospital Road forming the other side and the site is clearly and fully within the open countryside for the purposes of applying planning policy.

 

Mr Smith stated that the second reason for refusal relates to highway safety and the County Council have confirmed that the development would not be safe and that accidents could take place which, in his view, provides a clear reason to refuse planning permission. He stated that the third reason for refusal also relates to highway safety and the absence of visibility splays and he made the point that it is possible that third party land would be required to ensure sufficient visibility, and it is clear that a substantial number of established trees and hedges along Hospital Road would need to be removed to accommodate the splays.

 

Mr Smith made the point that there is no refusal reason in respect of ecology which he finds surprising as the trees and hedgerows along Hospital Road are known to be used by bats and there are existing ponds nearby. He expressed the opinion that the applicant assessment in terms of ecology is flawed and incomplete and he added that he has also raised objections to the absence of any Section 106 considerations given that the application would cumulatively propose up to 12 dwellings along Hospital Road within the applicant’s ownership.

 

Mr Smith made the point that the application is also contrary to LP5, which is very relevant as the local Primary School is at capacity ahead of any new houses being built in Doddington. He added that, therefore, in his opinion, there are very clear reasons to refuse the application in order to be consistent in decision making when considering the very recent refusal of planning permission for an identical scale development immediately to the south of the proposal and he concluded by stating that the Parish Council also objects to the proposal.

 

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Smith which organisation he represents? Mr Smith explained that he is from CB6 Developments. Councillor Marks asked Mr Smith whether he is a developer? Mr Smith confirmed that he is a contractor. Councillor Marks asked him whether he is developing in the Doddington area? Mr Smith stated that he is working on one of the neighbouring properties currently.

·         Councillor Marks stated that Mr Smith had mentioned that some of the recent applications relates to the hospital land, and he asked for further clarity on that as it is his understanding that there is the hospital boundary and then there are the houses along from there. Mr Smith explained that it is the area to the east that he is referring to and the area surrounding the hospital grounds as opposed to the fields which are countryside all the way round.

·         Councillor Marks asked for further clarity, referring to the site plan where the red square is shown which is four sides of open land which Mr Smith is intimating when in fact it is not.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked Mr Smith whether or not he lives in Doddington? Mr Smith confirmed that he does not.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that Mr Smith referred to Section 106 monies and also further development and he asked for clarification as to where those contributions come into the current application? Mr Smith stated that he would need to consult with Mr and Mrs Percival with regards to that matter as it is something that they had asked him to raise.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Smith to clarify whether the presentation he gave to committee was actually as a result of third party as there does not appear to be any clear answers on questions being asked of him by members of the committee? Mr Smith stated that the presentation was a collaborative effort. Councillor Marks asked Mr Smith which part he added? Mr Smith explained that he pulled the presentation together.

·         Councillor Connor asked for clarification with regards to the work that he is carrying out with a neighbouring property and for Mr Smith to clarify whether that would be to a property on the corner as you enter Hospital Road on the left-hand side? Mr Smith confirmed that this was correct.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Cutteridge, the applicant. Mr Cutteridge stated that he is a resident of Hospital Road in Doddington, with the residents who are objecting to the application and who live on Askham Row having built their new properties on the same piece of agricultural land that he is applying for this application on. He made the point that if the schools are at capacity then he would hope that the new residents in Askham Row have no children because they are relatively new dwellings.

 

Mr Cutteridge stated that when the application was submitted, he did state that he would agree to the highway improvement and will widen the road. He added that the report states that the road is single carriageway, and this will be difficult to access for the new residents, therefore, he is widening it and pedestrianising it.

 

Mr Cutteridge made the point that he did email officers to ascertain whether further drawings were required and officers advised him that this information was not required. He explained that a detailed engineers drawing of all of the work that has been carried out has been provided to the Planning Officers because the five dwellings on the opposite side have been approved with this engineer drawing.

 

Mr Cutteridge explained that the five dwellings were approved by the committee some time ago and he was told that with the addition of conditions the road could be widened and pedestrianised. He added that he has received agreement from the Highway Authority with regards to the boundary and where the works will be undertaken.

 

Mr Cutteridge stated that originally the plan was going to be to change the speed limit to 30mph along this piece of road, but the application has been in over 12 months and the rules have changed and he has now been told that he can no longer be included in the application because that is something outside of the planners control. He stated that he is still applying for this to be changed to 30mph to the other side of Megaplants which will be better for those customers going to the garden centre.

 

Mr Cutteridge explained that he cannot understand why the Parish Council did not support this as well as the District Council on the grounds of access. He explained that the Council have approved a cafeteria and shop to be added to the Megaplants site and he questioned whether the Parish Council did not believe that those additions would not have an impact on traffic volume on Hospital Road, with that application he did not offer any highways improvements but with the current application there is a guarantee that there will be widening and pedestrianising.

Mr Cutteridge explained that the access point to the previously approved nine plots is slightly further along the road and closer to the bend and the proposal is further away from that and is closer to the village which, in his view, is a better location as opposed to the others in terms of access. He expressed the opinion that the photographs are very unfair as they are very old and since that time the hedges have been cut back considerably since they were taken.

 

Mr Cutteridge stated that it has been mentioned that the three plots were refused which are located closer to the village then the current application, but made the point that they did not offer to widen the road or pedestrianise it, with him offering to spend £350,000 in order to widen the road and to make it two-way traffic and pedestrianise. He explained that it has taken a long time to sort this issue out with highways in order that all the boundaries are correct to be able to undertake the works.

 

Mr Cutteridge explained that with regards to the description to the north it is woodland and to the north east the new dwellings can be seen which, in his view, are an asset to Hospital Road, they can also be seen from the east making the point that to the east it does look upon the hospital grounds which is the same as the previous application. He referred to the points made concerning the fact that the application is not near the grounds of the hospital, however, the site is directly on the opposite side of the road to the hospital grounds and, in a southerly direction, Askham Row can be seen and to the west is the extension to Askham Care Home.

 

Mr Cutteridge made the point that it is only 0.4 miles from the centre of the village measured from the clock tower and the village spreads 1.6 miles in most directions, with the site being located in Flood Zone 1. He added that the proposed dwellings will benefit from treatment plants and will not affect the local sewerage system, with there also being a streetlight at the end of the road.

 

Members asked Mr Cutteridge the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for some further clarity with regards to the street light that he had referred to. Mr Cutteridge stated that he has walked home on many occasions throughout his life and there is a street light right at the end of the road which gives sufficient light to allow visibility to walk over the hill before you go into darkness.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and asked Mr Cutteridge to explain how out of date he believes the photograph to be? Mr Cutteridge stated that there has been further development which has taken place and has been there for at least 12-18 months. Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and asked Mr Cutteridge to identify where the most recent development is located? Councillor Marks asked Mr Cutteridge whether he would describe the areas as an elsewhere location? Mr Cutteridge confirmed that he would not.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that, although the application is in outline form, could Mr Cutteridge provide details of the types of dwellings that will be constructed. Mr Cutteridge stated that he would expect them to be 4 four bedroomed homes.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Cutteridge to provide further detail concerning the point he raised with regards to the Highway Authority stating that he did not need to submit any more plans. She added that with regards to the suggested proposed improvements for Hospital Road she agrees that the road needs improving, and she added that he should be commended if he is prepared to spend that amount of money. Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Cutteridge to confirm whether he contacted the County Council or District Council? Mr Cutteridge explained that his agent, Mr Gowler, asked whether any further drawings were required for the Highways and engineers’ reports. He added that the engineers’ reports had already been submitted for the previous approval for 5 dwellings.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the point made concerning the highway improvements including 2-way traffic on Hospital Road, along with pedestrian access and asked Mr Cutteridge to confirm that he owns the land in order to undertake those works? Councillor Imafidon further asked for clarification as to how the surface water will be dealt with? Mr Cutteridge stated that he owns 15 acres to the rear of the site so he can easily deal with surface water and sufficiently pond it if required. He added that with regards to land ownership, he owns not quite all of the land adjacent to it, however, the neighbour has granted permission should any of that land be required. Mr Cutteridge added that highways have already stated that the works can be carried out within highways owned land following very lengthy discussions. He added that a great number of conversations have taken place with regards to where the boundary meets the highway, but those discussions have taken place with the County Council over a period of months.

 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to a drawing shown earlier which included applications which had been turned down, with it being his understanding that F/YR22/0390/F was not refused for housing, and it was refused for other properties. David Rowen confirmed that the application was to change the use from paddock land for residential purposes as domestic garden and the Planning Committee took the view that extending the residential use out into the countryside would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. Councillor Marks asked whether that particular application included a shed for chickens? David Rowen stated that it did along with a pond and some raised planting areas.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the update and the objections from residents, and she made the point that she is concerned to read that the application form indicates a relationship with a Council employee/member, and this has been identified as a reason for the application being reported to the Planning Committee. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like clarification on this matter, because whilst she knows the answer for a lay person, they would not necessarily know the answer. David Rowen stated that the relationship refers to the agent for the application being Ian Gowler, whose brother is Councillor Alan Gowler, and under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation such a relationship does not trigger any requirement for an application to come to Planning Committee which is why it is not referenced. He added that Councillor Gowler is not a member of the Planning Committee and, therefore, it is not really material to the determination of the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that when reviewing the objections it states that ‘should planning permission be granted for the application then the irrationality of the decision would be brought to the attention of the courts’. She stated that she takes offence to being threatened by an objector to the application. David Rowen stated that the statement made by the objector is not material to the determination of the application, however, when making any decision members need to be aware of the potential to be challenged and need to be aware of making decisions as robust and as rational as possible. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the way that the objector has written their comment appears to be threatening.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French and the comment is in the public domain.

 

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has sat on the committee for a number of years where applications have been approved in Hospital Road. She added that Mr Smith is an objector to the proposal but, in her view, he has a conflict of interest when he is working on another planning application yet to be seen by the committee. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she does not have any issue with the current proposal apart from concerns regarding the highway. She stated that Mr Cutteridge has stated that he is prepared to spend money in order to improve the highway and, in her view, the road is appalling, has a 60mph limit, has many potholes and has very few passing places and she explained that Mr Cutteridge has stated that he has sought approval for a new cafeteria which will bring further custom. Councillor Mrs French added that the last time she visited Megaplants it was very busy and when using the road, she has never had any issues with trying to pass other vehicles. She expressed the opinion that if the applicant is prepared to spend a substantial amount of money by introducing passing places and a pedestrian link then that should be commended. Councillor Mrs French stated that every year there are local highway improvements, and it is known fact how difficult it can be to implement footpaths, and she finds it surprising that the village have not submitted a local highway improvement request as the road is in desperate need of upgrading. She reiterated her view that the applicant should be commended for investing his own money into improving the road.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he does not believe that the application site can be classed as an elsewhere location due to the fact that there are other properties in the vicinity and, in his view, it has almost become a hamlet, and he feels he can support the application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she agrees with Councillor Mrs French and Councillor Marks, adding that she is concerned that there is nothing that she can see which would suggest a material consideration for refusal of the application based on the forthcoming highways improvements.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the applicant should be commended for his investment in the highway. He added that the difference between the other application which was refused was for three properties, but this application is different. Councillor Connor stated that the applicant is going to spend a significant amount of his own money, and he agrees with the points made by other members, and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that with regards to a local highway improvement for Doddington, Benwick Road is being upgraded in order to give it better access in and out of the village and pavements will be incorporated.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the Highway Authority are satisfied with the plans which have been submitted with regards to the widening of the road or do they still require further information? David Rowen stated that contrary to what the applicant had already indicated the highway plan which formed part of the officer’s presentation is the only plan which has been submitted. He added that the plan was submitted in September 2024, and it is on the basis of that plan that the Highway Authority have provided the comments which are detailed in the officer’s report. David Rowen explained that the Highways Authority are not satisfied that there is an adequate level of detail, and they are not satisfied that adequate visibility can be achieved from the indicated access point and, therefore, there is an objection from the Highway Authority on two grounds.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked officers whether there is the possibility that the application could be deferred on highway grounds in order that the applicant can be given the opportunity to resolve the outstanding matters and whether the deferral could be for three or six months which, in her view, is not unreasonable. David Rowen referred to the presentation screen and highlighted to Members the planning permissions and planning refusals in the vicinity and indicated to the south of the application site, closer to the village, the Council has stated that the location is not suitable in principle for residential development because of the impact on the character and deemed it as not an appropriate location. He explained that to the rear of that site, the Council has also stated that the site is not appropriate to be used for residential purposes to be used as land for domestic garden.

·         David Rowen added that he has concerns as to how reasonable a decision would be for a site that is further out into the countryside which is disconnected from the built form of the settlement to then say that is acceptable. He advised members that the first two planning permissions both to the east of Hospital Road, which is the infill plot for two dwellings and then the first further development to the back of that were both in place at the time that the two other refusals were made and he made the point that he does have concerns with regards to consistency.

·         Councillor Marks referred to Planning Application F/YR/1243 and stated that had that come in and if the committee were to grant the one above that then he would accept what David Rowen was stating, however, it came in as a separate entity and stood alone at that time. He added that there are now properties across the road which match into the roadway and, therefore, the previous block that has been turned down does stand on its own, but the one above has a connection across the road with other properties and he asked officers whether they agree with his view. David Rowen stated that he wholeheartedly disagrees with the point made by Councillor Marks. He added that the Planning in Principle site was immediately adjacent to properties on Askham Row and it is opposite the built form of the hospital and he stated that if the committee took the view that the site was inappropriate for residential development in principle, he fails to see how developing a site further out beyond that would also be acceptable.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view it comes down to interpretation and he stated that the properties on Askham Row have very long gardens which means that the previous application, which was refused, stood in a block in the middle of nowhere. He added that when considering this application, at least one of the properties is almost going to be across the road from the other property. Councillor Marks explained that the application which was refused beside it, included a chicken shed and the debate included discussions concerning rats which was part of the reasoning for refusing that particular application. He expressed the opinion the application cannot be considered as an elsewhere location. Matthew Leigh explained that it is his understanding that the application was refused due to the impact on the character of the area and that was the reason that the committee determined to refuse it. He expressed the view that a chicken shed and some raised flower beds would have less of an impact on the character of the area than the provision of three dwellings.

·         Matthew Leigh referred to the point made by Councillor Mrs French with regards to seeking a deferral for a 6-month period. He explained that he would look to discourage deferring applications for that length of time and the committee should be determining applications that come before them in a timely manner, and he added that it would be very unusual to look to defer items for that long. Councillor Mrs French stated that it was only a suggestion.

·         Councillor Marks stated that with regards to the chicken shed, it was quite a sizeable property, and he added that whilst it could be said that it would have looked out of character as would the PIP application which would have stood in the middle of nowhere at that time, however, that would not be the case if permission was given to the one above. He reiterated the point that at least one of the properties is across the road from a site which has gained planning permission recently and a new build property.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has reviewed Google Maps and further out on Benwick Road there is a bungalow which has been built within the last two years which is further away from the centre of the village. He added that the objector to the application has stated that one side of the road is different to the other side, and he added that there is a dwelling which is hundred metres further down the road. Councillor Benney added that if that can be considered to be in Doddington then the principle of development has already been accepted because it is in Doddington. He made the point that whilst it maybe in a different road, members are often told that they cannot have linear development and must have depth of development because it is good use of space. Councillor Benney added that the application could be looked at in both ways and the committee need to decide whether they feel it is a good application and take the view that it is not an elsewhere location and the highway improvements bring community benefit to it and, therefore, approve it.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that it is of particular importance to note that given the PIP refusal to the south and reference to the officer’s report at 10.2 and 10.3 which layout the policy test, with members having a duty to determine applications in accordance with planning policies and at section 10.2 and 10.3 which sets out when an application site is considered to form part of the continuous built settlement and continuous built footprint. He stated that he has considered the points raised by Councillor Marks, however, when what is referenced in 10.2 and 10.3 of the officer’s report is applied there is essentially an extent of open countryside with no continuous development on that side of Hospital Road. Gavin Taylor added that whilst it maybe on the eastern side that is not how the policy is set out and it is not exactly how the policy asks the Council to consider and assess sites against.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated the application is being determined as it stands now with the highway detail as it currently stands on the plan, with his concern being that the applicant has offered to make highways improvements, but they are not on the plan which is before the committee.

·         Councillor Mrs French suggested that the application be approved subject to the Highway Authority being satisfied.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the proposal is subject to the highway being made safe and the works undertaken in order that the road will be brought up to standard.

·         The Legal Officer stated that you cannot resolve to approve the application, subject to the Highway Authority approving some scheme in the future and the only course of action which could be taken is to approve the application subject to a condition that the layout as proposed is constructed prior to occupation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like to recommend the application for approval subject to the conditions and obviously if the conditions cannot be met then the scheme will not be built.

·         David Rowen stated that he would like to remind the committee that as it stands currently, there is an objection from the Highway Authority on the basis of a lack of detail over the road and also concerns about the visibility that is achievable from the proposed or indicated access points. He added that as a consequence he would have some concerns over the approach that Councillor Mrs French is recommending being flawed in the sense that a condition is being imposed where there is no certainty over whether that is actually deliverable and achievable.

·         The Legal Officer stated that if there is evidence that the Highway Officer has already stated that they are unhappy with the application as there is insufficient information then there are no guarantees that the Highway Officer may approve the further details submitted for the application in the future.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated then surely that is a reason why the application could be deferred.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that members are aware that there are six tests required for conditions which sit alongside case law and as decision makers there needs to be some level of comfort when imposing conditions that there is likelihood that the conditions can be met. He added that in this case it would need to be a Grampian worded condition, a negatively worded condition which requires information to be provided to the Council although there has to be some level of comfort that it can be achieved. Matthew Leigh made the point that as it stands there is an objection from the Highway Authority which is of a significant concern and, therefore, would very much undermine the Council’s position that a condition can safely within the eyes of the law be imposed. He added that another factor to consider is that it would be a very dangerous precedent to look to say that the Council should just be approving highways works with a condition if somebody such as highways is objecting as that could then translate to other statutory consultees and that is not how the planning system is set up to work. Matthew Leigh explained that if a condition is added to an application which is not lawful and fails the tests then the applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State to say that the condition is not lawful and if that is proven then the condition falls away and disappears which would then mean that as submitted the application would be approved without the need for that condition. He added that the reality is that the only option is for the committee to defer the application is if they are very reluctant to refuse it but his advice to the committee is that the application should be determined as it is. Matthew Leigh explained that if the committee do not find an issue with the location, then that is within their gift, however, the committee should then look to refuse it on highways grounds only, but the application should be determined as it is. He added that the application has been with the authority for over a year, there are significant concerns, Highways Authority have objected, and the planning system is designed to reflect that the application before the committee should be refused.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there has been a previous application which has shown this scheme which Highways confirmed was OK and now the current position is that Highways are not comfortable, and the committee are being advised that the application should be refused or deferred for further highways details. He added that information seems to conflict from Highways having already passed an application along the road.

·         Councillor Connor referred to another planning application in Chatteris which was approved on a similar issue and a precedent has been set. He added that officers have given planning permission for a cafeteria at the current site which will have an impact on the number of vehicles using Hospital Road and the applicant is only proposing an additional 3 dwellings which might only mean an additional eight or nine vehicles.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the application is totally separate, and it is his understanding that the application contained a greater amount of detail upon submission. He added that when considering the current application that level of detail has not been submitted with the application before members. Matthew Leigh made the point that as advised by the Legal Officer the committee would be guessing that the Highway Authorities requirements have not changed since the previous approval. He reiterated that the information has not been submitted and as an authority there needs to be confidence in the decisions being made and not guessing or making assumptions. Matthew Leigh stated that planning does not really set a precedent and when referring to the application highlighted by the Chairman, officers were very reluctant in the use of the condition applied to the application and by taking an approach once, which is not robust, should not be a reason to do that again and again as it would only extrapolate the likelihood of the Council being found to have acted incorrectly.

 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to formulate and apply conditions in conjunction with the Chairman, proposer and seconder.

 

(Councillor Connor registered that he knows the applicant, agent and is a customer of Mega Plants but is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillors Mrs French and Marks registered that they use Mega Plants as customers but are not

pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)