Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of up to 5 No. self-build dwellings with some matters reserved, except for access off Fox Road.

By 6 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and legal agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Chair noted that a site visit had been held on 10 January 2024. The Senior Planner (Laurence Moore) presented the report and provided an update to advise that there was an error in the report (paragraph 10.14) which stated that “the development framework extended along the southern edge of the site”. The officer confirmed that the site did not adjoin the development framework boundary but that this did not impact the assessment of the proposal nor the officer recommendation within the report, and that the development was acknowledged as outside of the development framework throughout the report. Officers responded to Member questions and clarified that:

·       The site was assessed as being an 8-minute cycle along the main road to Bourn High Street, which was deemed as close proximity and access to the services available in Bourn led officers to view the site location as sustainable.

·       The site had bus services in close proximity. Bus timetables for the nearby stops were shared with the Committee.

·       The 22% Biodiversity Net Gain would be delivered through enhancement of the currently “poor” condition woodland and that no new habitats would be introduced.

·       The site had been mapped as modified (improved) grassland, an assessment that the Senior Ecology Officer agreed with.

·       The accident history data at the staggered crossroad between the B1046 and A1198 had one serious accident in the previous 5 years, which was not considered to be significant for concern in technical terms, as advised by the Highway Development Management Engineer. The site was expected to generate an additional 25 vehicle movements per day which was not considered to be significant in the context of the typical daily vehicle movements on the stretch of road.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Ben Elvin, who responded to Member questions and clarified that:

·       There were no objections from statutory consultees other than the Conservation Officer’s comments, and that planning officers had assessed the application as having no harm to heritage assets contrary to the comments from the Conservation Officer.

·       The applicant intended for two of the plots to be occupied by his daughters, assuming it was compliant with requirements of the Self-Build register.

The Senior Planner clarified that the Conservation Officer had objected but that the case officer’s conclusion was that there was no harm to heritage assets and that they did not agree with the Conservation Officer’s consultation response.

Councillor Barbara Cooper of Longstowe Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council in objection to the proposal. Councillor Cooper responded to Member questions and clarified that:

·       The response from the Highway Development Management Engineer did not allay the Parish Council’s concerns regarding highway safety.

·       The Parish Council had concerns that horse manure was being placed around the trees subject to TPOs, which would harm the protected trees by acidifying the soil.

In response to a concern raised by Councillor Cooper regarding visibility from the access to the site and impact on highway safety, a Member question was directed towards officers regarding obstructions to the visibility splay. The Highway Development Management Engineer advised that the lamppost was not regarded as an obstruction to the visibility splay due to its width and that the BT cabinet near the access fell outside of the visibility splay, thus it was not considered an obstruction. The Committee was advised that there was a stay cable for the distribution pole adjacent to the proposed access that may prove problematic to the developer but that this was for the applicant to resolve and not the responsibility of the Highway Authority. Members enquired as to if a condition could be added to require condition to resolve the issue of the stay cable, to which the Highway Development Management Engineer advised that he could not comment on behalf of UK Power Networks, who were responsible for the distribution pole, but that if the stay cable was required in its current location within the access it would be problematic to the developer. The Highway Development Management Engineer advised that the distribution pole itself was not a visibility concern.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor Des O’Brien of Bourn Parish Council, on behalf of the Parish Council who objected to the application. In response to a Member question, Councillor O’Brien clarified that there were no footpaths that served the site, that accessing the bus stops required crossing the road and that the Parish Council felt that there were no quality public transport links serving the site, and that cycle access to Bourn required travel along a road with a 60mph speed limit that had no foot or cycle path.

Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins offered her perspective as a local Member and started the debate. Councillor Dr Hawkins raised the following points:

·       Highway safety and access- access to Bourn was viable by car but Fox Road was not viewed as safe for walking or cycling from a local perspective. However, noting the comments from the Highways Authority, the access and highway safety matters were acceptable in planning terms despite the concerns.

·       The development outside of the development framework, but the site visit had shown that there were existing dwellings surrounding the site.

·       The Conservation Officer had commented that there was less than substantial harm to Heritage assets, which she felt were mitigated improvements to the woodland. Councillor Dr Hawkins commented that, in her view, the proposed planting density was not high enough, but the mitigation through the woodland enhancement carried weight in the balance.

·       The shortage of self-build plots within the District carried significant weight as a material consideration.

Councillor Dr Hawkins acknowledged the concerns of the Parish Councils but reiterated the fact that the decision was based on material planning considerations. She described the need for self-build plots (given the local shortage), the biodiversity net gain exceeding local requirements as carrying significant weight. Further comment was made that, whilst she had concerns over highway safety, the responses from the Highway Development Management Engineer and lack of objection from the Highway Authority did not give highway safety concerns material weight and, as such, she was minded to vote for approval.

During the debate, Members asked further questions of clarity and officers advised that:

·       The Section 106 agreement would require residents who were to build on the self-build plots to be part of the self-build register and occupy the dwellings, once completed, for a minimum of three years.

·       There was a condition that removed Permitted Development Rights.

·       The S106 would secure the plots as self-build, and there were no financial contributions required as the total site footprint was not to exceed 999 square metres, and if future applications to vary led to the site exceeding 1000sqm financial contributions would be required for the site as a whole.

·       If future occupants wished to extend their property beyond 200 square metres, a separate planning application would be required and Condition 13 secured the maximum internal space (including garages) per dwelling of 200sqm.

Members acknowledged that if the application was for market housing the application would likely be refused and agreed that the decision on the application was to be made on the balance, with the need for self-build plots carrying significant weight. Highway safety was discussed, with some Members feeling that concerns over highway safety amounted to a reason for refusal, whilst others felt that, following the consultation from the Highways Authority and comments from their representative, it was not an adequate reason for refusal and that 5 additional dwellings would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the highways. Some Members felt that, given the proximity of the villages of Bourn and Longstowe, the site was in a sustainable location, whilst others felt that the public transport links were not strong enough to constitute a sustainable location. Members agreed that, given the surrounding developments, the proposal was appropriate despite being outside of the village development framework. Members also commented that the 22% biodiversity net gain held weight in the balance.

By 6 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Dr Tumi Hawkins and Eileen Wilson) votes to 1 (Councillor Heather Williams), with 1 abstention (Councillor Peter Sandford), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and legal agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.