Agenda item

Demolition of existing garage and erection of a three bedroom, single storey dwelling to rear with detached carport/store.

By 8 votes to 1, the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. The Committee agreed on the following reasons for refusal:

1-    The proposal was of a siting, footprint and scale such that it would appear out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the local area and as such would appear cramped and represent an over-development of the site. As such the proposal was contrary to South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and H/16 and NPPF and NPPG guidance on good design.

2-    The proposal lies partly within an area that is susceptible to surface water flooding. The proposal has failed to justify that it would not exacerbate existing surface water flooding issues to land or property. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CC/9 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and NPPF para. 159.

The Planning Officer presented the report and offered an update regarding an informative from Anglia Water regarding the drainage system. If approved, the informative would have been attached to the report. An objector, Dr Simon Goddard, spoke on behalf of himself and a number of neighbours who objected to the application. Concerns were raised about the size of the development and the impact on privacy of neighbours, the proposed inclusion of a low-level chimney and the potential for the site to worsen flooding in the village. A drainage ditch that laid just outside of the site that was not assessed in the report was identified by the objector. Members asked questions of clarity of the objector.

The Committee was also addressed by two agents of the applicant, Rob Preston (agent) and Paul Cosford (drainage consultant). The agents supported the application and fielded questions from the Committee. Members questioned the type of soil on the site to clarify the permeability of the ground and were informed that the site laid on a clay-sand-gravel horizon so levels of permeability varied across the site. The agents also clarified that the chimney was likely to be in use and was not a purely aesthetic addition to the property. When questioned on the level of consultation with neighbours was raised, the agents clarified that they had only engaged in consultations that were a statutory requirement. The agents informed the Committee that the drainage ditch, raised by the objector, was not assessed and was not part of the proposed drainage scheme as there was no proof that the ditch had positive water outfall.

Councillor Dr Martin Cahn addressed the Committee as a Local Member in opposition to the application and raised concerns about the drainage on the site and its potential impact on the area. When questioned, the Local Member informed the Committee that drainage on the site was already an issue and the placement of a permeable hardstanding on impermeable ground would likely exacerbate this, noting that flooding in the village was already problematic and stated that he shared the concerns of residents over this application.

In the debate, Members noted that there were benefits to the application as it tried to provide housing in a village that is surrounded by green belt and had very little remaining space for infilling. It was noted that the proposal of a single storey dwelling was sensitive to the privacy of neighbours. However, the Committee stated that the single storey design required more surface area than a multi-storey building would and expressed concern over the impact of this on drainage. Members also felt that the proposed dwelling would have a negative impact on residential amenity as it would greatly reduce garden space and overdevelop the site. Subsequently, it was agreed that the siting, footprint and scale would be a reason for refusal.

The Committee expressed concern over the drainage on site, noting the comments of the objector and Local Member. The Delivery Manager informed the Committee that, due to the lack of objection from the statutory consultees over the proposed drainage scheme, a refusal based on drainage concerns would be difficult to justify. However, the Delivery Manager stated that if the application was refused and subsequently went to appeal, an overturning of the drainage reason for refusal would not invalidate any other reasons for refusal. The Senior Planning Lawyer noted that there were previous examples of refused applications going to appeal on the basis of drainage concerns without objection from statutory consultees that triggered further investigation which subsequently validated drainage concerns. The Committee felt that there was not enough evidence to satisfy Members that drainage was not an issue. The geological conditions on the site, combined with the concern of residents and the lack of investigation into the drainage ditch outside of the site, lead the Committee to agree, by affirmation, to include drainage as a reason for refusal. Members stressed the importance of respecting expert advice but felt that, if refused, the application would undergo more thorough investigation at appeal and that the Committee had a duty to protect residents from adverse flooding arising from developments.

By 8 votes to 1 (Councillor Peter Fane), the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Councillors Deborah Roberts and Dr Martin Cahn did not take part in the vote. The Committee agreed on the following reasons for refusal:

1-    The proposal was of a siting, footprint and scale such that it would appear out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the local area and as such would appear cramped and represent an over-development of the site. As such the proposal was contrary to South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 policies HQ/1 and H/16 and NPPF and NPPG guidance on good design.

2-    The proposal lies partly within an area that is susceptible to surface water flooding. The proposal has failed to justify that it would not exacerbate existing surface water flooding issues to land or property. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CC/9 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and NPPF para. 159.