Minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 27th September 2021.
(Note that meetings are draft until approved at a subsequent meeting of the Parish Council.)
Those present were:
- Giles Scott, Chairman
- Andrew Pett, Parish Councillor
- Nick Ginn, Vice Chairman
- Vikki Murphy, Parish Councillor
- Michael Capps, Parish Councillor
- Nigel Day, Parish Councillor
- Peter King, Parish Councillor
- James Catmur Parish Councillor
- Catherine Fox, Clerk
And 6 members of the public.
- The meeting was opened at 7:30 pm with a silent prayer.
- Apologies. No apologies were received.
- Declarations of Interest. There were no declarations of interest.
- Open Forum
All members of the public present wished to speak against the proposed redevelopment involving the demolition of all site buildings forming the existing Collings Brothers depot site followed by the erection of 15 new dwellings.
Councillor West opened the open forum session by raising an issue brought to his attention in his capacity as District Councillor, stating that the proposed site had been used historically for the disposal of waste materials such as tyres, cars, mechanical parts.
Several members of the public wished to raise concerns around the proposed development, highlighting that the location was ‘strange’; placing a considerable number of houses with exits onto notoriously dangerous roads. The strain on the current infrastructure of the village was raised, with the lack of GP facilities, potential school places and the difficulties associated with accessing these amenities given the lack of footpath along Meadow Road.
One resident questioned the arrangements for maintaining the green spaces at the edge of the site and also the safety of the balancing pond which, according to the plans, will be situated adjacent to the children’s play area.
Sustainability was also questioned. This isolated development would rely heavily on car usage. Each house is likely to have multiple cars which, when added to delivery traffic, intensifies concerns around the safety and connectivity of the proposal.
Further concerns were raised around the proposed drainage and waste disposal at the site. Limited information was available suggesting that these would be addressed/included in conditions and would therefore be difficult to adequately consider.
Finally it was raised that the site, though potentially to be made redundant, could still be of benefit to the local economy. It was felt that there had not been sufficient efforts made to exhaust all other commercial use for the site before putting in a planning application for housing.
5. PLANNING
5.1 PARISH COUNCIL CONSULTATION – APPLICATION REF. 21/01988/FUL
Proposed redevelopment involving the demolition of all site buildings forming the existing Collings Brothers depot site followed by the erection of 15 new dwellings (1 x 2-bed; 5 x 3-bed; 7 x 4-bed; and 2 x 5-bed) including the provision of public open space, landscaping, vehicular accesses and associated works
Collings Brothers Of Abbotsley Ltd Potton Road Great Gransden St Neots PE19 6TZ
Parish Councillors noted the points raised during the open forum session.
Following an invitation to attend an on-site meeting with a representative for Collings Brothers, Councillor Scott informed the meeting that Collings Brothers were looking to realise the working capital from the business. The buildings on the site had fallen into disrepair and would need significant investment and regeneration to make them saleable which, given the changing needs and current position of the business, was not viable. Although councillors acknowledged the background information, it was unanimously agreed that the decisions would be made based on what was best for the village as a whole. The financial position and vulnerability of the business were not considerations for the Parish Council.
As no pre-application advice is given by HDC it was felt that this initial application was to test the levels of support for development of the site for residential dwellings. It was noted that it may be an opportunistic application made prior to the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Councillors unanimously agreed to recommend ‘refusal’ of the application (proposed Councillor Scott, seconded Councillor Catmur) on the following basis:
• Sustainability
All residents of the new development would require a car to access the village. (Against policy LP16 of the Local Plan)
There is nothing within the proposal that recognises the potential issues of accessing the village without using a car. At the very least, a footpath along Meadow Road would be required to ensure the safety of all people wishing to walk into the village from the site. No provision or suggestion has been made to address this.
• Connectivity
The plans suggest that the distance to village amenities is closer than it actually is, (Quoting distances as the crow flies) and not via suitable and accessible routes. This gives a distorted view of the distance between the development and the community. Quoting distances by road would place most amenities in the village beyond the 2km quoted.
• Lack of Affordable housing
The current plans make no provision for Social Housing. (Contravening policy LP25 of the Local Plan). The Parish Council would wish that any revision to the application to cater for Social Housing would be made on the basis of the Rural Exceptions policy, thereby giving first opportunity for this housing to local need
• Travel issues/parking
The increased number of cars coming into the village will mean that parking (particularly around the school and shop) will be affected. The infrastructure of the village will be placed under increased pressure as the roads struggle to cope with additional traffic from recently approved developments and also from this proposed development. The Parish Council would expect any revised application to consider how this impact could be alleviated, such as investment by the developers in improved local facilities and enhanced road safety measures.
• Local Environment
Councillors are concerned about the local environment. The proposed development sits on a site which was historically a large expanse of water. This was subsequently filled in with waste and will therefore require intrusive and extensive investigation not detailed in the plans to ensure that the nature of the waste is not harmful to the environment once redevelopment commences.
• Suitability
The exits of the proposed development are both onto 60mph roads. Minor collisions are relatively frequent or narrowly missed at the staggered junction which last saw a major collision in 2016 and prior to that, a cluster of accidents 12 years before. The signage on the corner of the road is regularly damaged and cars travelling at speed from Eltisley are often forced to brake hard as they approach the existing B1040/ B1046 Meadow Road junctions to allow for traffic to pull out.
• Brownfield site
Although Councillors acknowledge that the site is Brownfield, the nature of its location means that it is inappropriate for this development. HDC have a policy to redevelop Brownfield sites as part of its commitment to regenerate urban spaces. However the location of this site means that it falls far outside of those criteria. It is assumed that the Brownfield site is close to the community whereas in reality it sits in the middle of the countryside where it is detached and isolated.
• Commercial Usage
It was not felt that sufficient effort to prove exhaustively that there was no viable commercial use for the site had been adequately demonstrated. Councillors noted that agricultural barns further up the road had been successfully converted into offices; thus evidencing a local demand for this type of redevelopment.
The next ordinary meeting of the Parish Council has been arranged for Monday 4th October 2021 at 7.30 pm.
The meeting closed at 8:37pm.