Address:       Land to the west of Everton Road, Everton Road, Potton

SG19 2PD

Outline: A residential development with all matters reserved except access following the demolition of a detached bungalow (87 Everton Road), involving the erection of up to 30 dwellings including an access road, landscaping and associated ancillary works.

Applicant:     Blakeney Estates Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01424/OUT, an outline planning application for a residential development with all matters reserved except access following the demolition of a detached bungalow (87 Everton Road), involving the erection of up to 30 dwellings including an access road, landscaping and associated ancillary works on land to the west of Everton Road, Everton Road, Potton, SG19 2PD.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments and an additional condition as set out in the Late Sheet.  

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Ms Tina Arnold-Winch, an objector, and Mr Richard Murdock, the agent for the applicant, under the public participation scheme.

In response to a Member’s query, the agent stated that discussions had taken place with a landowner regarding a possible alternative access to the site but no agreement had been reached.

A ward Member urged the Committee to refuse the application and referred to the following matters in support:

·         The stage of preparation of the emerging Local Plan which he felt was fairly advanced.

·         The extent to which there were unresolved objections to relevant policies.

·         With regard to the Council’s 5 year land supply the Council had, at 1 July, a 5.82 year land supply.

·         That the application site was outside the settlement envelope, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and was therefore contrary to a number of Council policies including Policy DM4.

·         Approving an application on the outside edge of the development envelope would lead to further applications and creeping growth.

·         The developer’s reference to successful appeal decisions against the Council and how, in that context, the attempted application of Policy DM4 in the open countryside had been found to be ‘overly restrictive’.  The Member responded by referring to the outcome of two recent appeals in the Council’s favour which had included the role of settlement envelopes, the possible detrimental impact of the loss of undesignated land and the resulting conflict with adopted policies, including Policy DM4.

·         An ecological survey had not been possible as the site had already been cleared.  The Member stated that the land should be allowed to return to its natural state before a decision was made.

·         The site was unwanted in the Local Plan despite being submitted under the call for sites.  It was not taken forward because it was not considered suitable for development.

·         The application represented overdevelopment.  There were 830 dwellings (including those in the application before Members) under construction, approved, applied for or proposed which equated to a 40% increase in the size of the town.  That number was already beyond the identified figure of up to 500 new dwellings

in the Council’s 2011 settlement study.

·        Developers were struggling to sell the new homes already built in      Potton.

·         There would only be a single lane serving 30 homes and major parking issues already existed in the area, especially with regard to the dropping off and collection of children at the school.

·         There were objections from a range of bodies.

·         There was existing pressure on local medical facilities but there were no S106 monies for the GP practice nor for transport.  Whilst some funding would be going to schools only a small very amount would be given to sport and leisure and nothing under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

·         The perceived benefits did not outweigh the obvious harm.

·         The Committee had refused a similar planning application in 2017 for a site in Biggleswade Road.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The NHS was seeking a financial contribution towards GP services in Potton and contributions would also be given towards infrastructure.

·         The site was submitted in response to the call for sites and an early assessment of the site under Regulation 18 of the Local Plan had been published on the Council’s website.  The site had passed the assessment however, following further assessment, it had not been allocated in the local Plan.

·         The application contained more detail which enabled a further assessment.  The report recommended approval as the benefits outweighed the conflict with policy.

·         The Council’s settlement envelope policy was broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and this principle was followed in the emerging Local Plan.  However, Policy DM4 referred to superseded national policy and so could not be afforded full weight.  The emerging Policy SP7 (the new settlement envelope policy) had not yet been subject to public examination and so could only be afforded limited weight.  As such neither policy on their own would be sufficient to defend a refusal at appeal.

·         There were no objections from the landscape officer.

·         There was no wider landscape impact.  The proposal sought to retain hedgerows and limit harm to the landscape character.

·         Considering the limited impact on the character and appearance of the wider landscape and the benefits of the proposal including the proposed new dwellings there would be a positive contribution to the land supply, including affordable homes and self-build house provision.

·         There were contributions to education, leisure, children’s care and community facilities.

·         There were no objections from the highways officer and the impact on the highways network was not considered severe.

·         The relationship between the proposed access road and the existing dwelling was not unusual.  No through traffic was proposed.

·         With regard to privacy, there was limited overlooking and the development could achieve appropriate separation from the existing dwellings.  The submitted layout was indicative and the site could accommodate 30 dwellings to the standard required by the Council and maintain acceptable amenity for existing residents.

·         The report addressed objectors’ concerns although at times in broader terms.

·         With regard to any adverse impact on health, arising from the noise and disturbance generated by the building works, this issue would be temporary.

·         There could additional light pollution but it would have to be at an acceptable level with regard to residential amenity and ecological impact.

·         The Chairman referred to the ward Member’s reference to the outcome of two appeals with reference to Policy DM4 and the former commented on the difficulty in drawing an inference from one judgement and apply it to another given the difference in circumstances.  The planning officer concurred and stated that the judgement had concluded that there was the potential for the loss of undesignated countryside to cause harm but not that all loss of countryside was harmful.  It should therefore be considered on a case by case basis.

·         With regard to the cumulative impact, all consultees had stated that financial contributions would mitigate the impact of the new dwellings on the local infrastructure.

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The size of the application was below the threshold requiring a transport assessment or statement.

·         The site would generate an additional 11-12 movements at the a.m. peak and approximately the same at the p.m. peak which was in line with the requirements of the NPPF.

·         The highways issues in the area caused by parents dropping off and collecting their children at the nearby school already existed.  As the application site was close to the school, walking was an option for parents and children.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The context relating to the role of Policy DM4 and how the Government would not allow it to prevent developments, the outcome of recent planning appeal decisions, judicial reviews and the role of the Secretary of State.

·         The S106 contribution toward the local GP surgery.

·         The impact on 89 Everton Road, the nearby Munkman Close and the local area.

·         The possible installation of a wall to shield 89 Everton Road from the disturbance caused by the construction works and subsequent access by vehicles to the new homes.  It was felt that an informative note should be added to the consent notice if the application was approved.

·         Comment that the Council should decide on the application on its merits not based on the possibility that the decision could be overturned at appeal.

·         The cumulative impact of small scale development in the village and the matter of sustainability given that, at some point, the infrastructure would not be able to cope as it was not being improved.

·         The increasing traffic congestion partly caused by Sandy residents driving their children to school in Potton because the local middle school in Sandy had closed.

·         The Council’s self-build officer’s request that 10% of the proposed dwellings be serviced (self-build) plots and that this represented 10 dwellings.  The planning officer stated that 10% of this application was 3 dwellings.

·         The MANOP team’s request that, due to the loss of a single bungalow, not less than five of the proposed dwellings should be suitable for older people.  It was suggested by a Member that one of the five dwellings be an affordable home and that all the dwellings in the development be tenure blind.  It was felt that informative notes to this affect should be added to the consent notice if the application was approved.

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 1 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/18/01424/OUT relating to land to the west of Everton Road, Everton Road, Potton, SG19 2PD be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.