LINTON PARISH COUNCIL Interim Clerk: Mrs Marilyn Strand The Village Hall, Coles Lane, Linton, Cambridge. CB21 4JS. Tel: 01223 891001 Email: [email protected] Chairman: Mrs Enid Bald.
Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of Linton Parish Council held at the Cathodeon Centre on Thursday 10th September 2015 at 7pm.
Present: Cllr. Alison Walker (AW) (Chairman); Cllr. Nicola Miller (NM) (Vice-Chair); Cllr. Enid Bald (EB); Cllr. Jan Bumstead (JB); Cllr. David Champion (DC); Cllr. Amy Smith (AS); Cllr Beatrice Ward (Dr) (BW).
Clerk: Marilyn Strand
Members of the Public: 18 County Cllr. Roger Hickford.
The meeting was opened at 7pm.
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Cllr. Jacque Wilson (unwell) 2. COUNCILLORS’ DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DC declared a personal interest in item 6 (b) S/1963/15/OL. This had been confirmed by SCDC’s Monitoring Officer and CAPALC. 3. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Residents from Bartlow Road, Horseheath Road, Kenwood Gardens, Lonsdale, Emsons Close and Horn Lane had attended the meeting in order to express objections to planning applications S/1969/15/OL – Ely Diocese, and S/1963/15/OL – Pembroke College, University of Cambridge & G W. Balaam & Sons Ltd. Their objections are summarised as follows: The infrastructure is already at or near capacity for schools and the medical centre, as well as roads, water and sewage, making the proposed developments unsustainable. The sewage system in this area is overwhelmed which frequently causes the sewers to overflow and flood properties in Emsons Close. Almost half of the proposed development on Bartlow Road is situated within a flood plain which floods annually. There is insufficient evidence in the submission that this has been sufficiently ameliorated. An increase in the volume of traffic using the Horseheath & Bartlow road junctions onto the A1307 will increase the likelihood of serious road traffic accidents, particularly during rush hour in the mornings and evenings. Development in Haverhill also contributes to the volume of traffic on the A1307 further aggravating this issue. An increase in the volume of traffic using Horseheath Road would further impact upon existing safety concerns for children trying to cross the road when walking to school. It is already extremely dangerous due to parked cars, poor sight lines and the speed of traffic which is likely to result in a serious accident. The proposed developments are outside of the village envelope and if granted would give opportunity for further developments thus spoiling the character of the village.
Concerns over the way these applications are being handled by SCDC were also expressed: SCDC’s website had gone down and emails to planning officers expressing objections had been ignored. A telephone call had only resulted in the response that an officer would ‘be in touch in a few days’ time’. Siting of notices on trees in the area did not seem adequate for developments of this size. The siting of one planning notice was in an area where there is no footpath making it unlikely that this would have been seen or read by residents.
1
Cllr. Roger Hickford stated that if residents were having difficulties submitting comments about these applications then they could sent them directly to him to be passed onto the appropriate individuals. He also encouraged residents to be sure to submit material planning considerations. A resident expressed concern that the workload for the PC regarding these applications is excessive and that there didn’t seem to be time for the PC to gather evidence to back up its comments. EB stated that the deadline for comments is 22nd September and that the PC was doing everything possible to make a meaningful submission before this date. This includes the possibility of employing a planning consultant, and all comments made would be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). EB also encouraged residents to become involved with Linton’s Neighbourhood Plan. (Please email the Clerk if you are interested in this.) One resident had attended the meeting in support of application S/1960/15/FL (1 Rivey Way) and stated that a previous application on this site had been refused not on principle but on design. The current proposal addresses this issue as the design reflects the street pattern and visually aligns with neighbouring properties, slotting into the existing estate’s pattern. One resident had attended the meeting to express an objection to application S/1491/15/FL (16 Hollybush Way), stating that the amendment did not go far enough to alleviate concerns over the sight lines from his neighbouring property when exiting the driveway. 4. TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20TH AUGUST 2015 The minutes of the meeting held on 20th August were approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman. Proposed by DC and seconded by EB. All agreed. 5. MATTERS ARISING (FOR INFORMATION ONLY) The planned course “Writing Effective Responses to Planning Application Consultations” had been cancelled earlier in the week and will be re-scheduled as soon as practicable. 6. PLANNING MATTERS (a) Consideration of Decisions Received S/1683/15/FL Mr & Mrs Howard, 5 Keene Fields – two roof lights in rear of roof slope. Permission granted. It was noted that the PC’s comment that this should never become a dormer window had not been made a condition of permission. The Clerk will write to the Planning Officer concerning this.
S/1804/15/FL Mr & Mrs S Barrett, 11 Lonsdale – alterations & rear extension to detached garage to form granny annexe. Permission granted. It was noted that the PC’s comment that the annexe should never become a separate dwelling had been made a condition of permission.
S/1676/15/FL Mr & Mrs Jones, 63 Back Road – first floor side and rear extension, extension to front porch and alterations. Permission granted. It was noted that the first floor side window, serving the bathroom, should be fixed shut, fitted and permanently glazed with obscure glass to prevent overlooking of adjoining properties. (b) Consideration of Planning Applications Received S/1969/15/OL Mr J Green, Ely Diocesan Board of Finance, Horseheath Road – outline planning application with all matters reserved for up to 50 houses and 30 allotments. PC Decision: To NOT support The proposed development is outside of the village envelope and was rejected in the SHLAA assessments as having no development potential. Linton is classified a Minor Rural Centre which allows a maximum of 30 houses in any one development. The position of the development would affect the long views from the east out of the village, and its setting in rural landscape. Building here will neither conserve nor enhance the amenity of the village’s natural, built and historic environment and resources. It would certainly not “improve” the edge of Linton and would impact on the Conservation Area and character of the village. The housing needs of the village are predominantly for bungalows (for disabled access and for older residents wishing to downsize) and for smaller, affordable homes. The housing mix here should reflect the needs of our current population. The development offers no potential for employment within the village and will probably attract incoming commuters, adding to the burden on the infrastructure. The site is approximately three quarters of a mile, or one kilometre, from the village centre and further from recreation areas, schools and other amenities. This means that is likely that these will be accessed by car rather than on foot, adding to the current traffic and parking problems within the village. 2
The junction with the A1307 is difficult and dangerous and therefore traffic from the development would leave by the safer route through the village, adversely affecting our Conservation Area and historic buildings. The site access is onto a 50mph area, adding to safety issues. In addition, other proposed developments in the vicinity which provide insufficient parking would compound the traffic issues in the area. The infrastructure is already at or near capacity for schools and the medical centre, as well as roads, water and sewage. The piecemeal and cumulative infill developments in the village will absorb any current capacity. In particular, Linton Infants’ School has little scope for expansion. Allotments form part of the proposals however, these will be leased and therefore potentially lost in the future. Linton has already lost three or more potential allotments sites and is pursuing purchase of this land for village food production. There has been no archaeological assessment despite the potential archaeological importance of the site (a Roman Villa). We note errors in the planning statement for example: 29 shops. Water run off caused by loss of green space might affect neighbouring properties, especially due to the slope of the site. This site is not sustainable by the criteria applied in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Housing developments in Haverhill and Saffron Walden are also adding to traffic on the A1307. The 2013 police traffic survey noted 500 vehicle movements per day from Horseheath Road onto the A1307 If permission to build is granted here, LPC would ask for the following conditions to be put in place: A full historic, environmental and ecological assessment of the area should be carried out. Noise mitigation for the site and for the village. Landscape mitigation (trees and hedges). Road safety issues to be addressed. A long lease on the allotments land. Design to be in keeping with current housing needs and the wider architectural character of the area. Site traffic would have to access the development from the A1307 and not through the village.
S/1963/15/OL Pembroke College, University of Cambridge & G.W. Balaam & Sons Ltd, land to north and south of, and immediate, Linton – residential development for up to 78 dwellings with landscape buffer and new vehicular accesses from Bartlow Road. PC Decision: To NOT support This site has been submitted for development for at least 30 years and has been rejected. The impact of this application on Linton would be significant and damaging due to its size, location and the effect on the water region and river valley. This site is outside of the village envelope and was rejected in the SHLAA assessments as having no development potential. Linton is classified as a Minor Rural Centre which allows a maximum of 30 house in any one development. Development here would merge the village and the A1307 and also give potential for further spread of the village across the bypass. The position of the development would adversely affect the views and setting of Linton in the open landscape, being very visible in the rising ground and from the east. Building here will neither conserve nor enhance the amenity of the village’s natural, built and historic environment and resources. It certainly would not create “an attractive sense of arrival” but would impact adversely on the Conservation Area, listed buildings and character of the village. The development would involve almost total destruction of archaeology; this is not a designated site because its existence was expected, but not known. This is hardly mentioned in the submission. The housing needs of the village are predominantly for bungalows and smaller, affordable homes. The housing mix here should reflect the needs, and budgets, of our current population. The development offers no potential for employment within the village and will probably attract incoming commuters, adding to the burden on the infrastructure. The site is approximately three quarters of a mile, or one kilometre, from the village centre and further from recreation areas, schools and other amenities. This means that is likely that these will
3
be accessed by car rather than on foot, adding to the current traffic and parking problems within the village. The junction with the A1307 is difficult and dangerous and therefore traffic from the development would leave by the safer route through the village, adversely affecting our Conservation Area and historic buildings. The site access is onto a 50mph area, adding to safety issues. Bartlow Road already has parking issues which would be worsened. The 2013 police traffic survey on the Bartlow Road/A1307 junction shows 500 vehicle movements per day leaving and 600 vehicle movements per day coming in via this junction. The site access is onto a 50mph area, adding to safety issues. Only accidents involving personal injury are recorded meaning that fewer accidents are reported than actually occur. Fatalities on the A1307 have not been reported upon. Data from as far back as 2005 is being used to compile the traffic reports in the submission. The infrastructure is already at or near capacity for schools and the medical centre, as well as roads, water and sewage. The piecemeal and cumulative infill developments in the village will absorb any current capacity. In particular, Linton Infants’ School has little scope for expansion. The site is part of the floodplain. The loss of land for soakaway would result in more flow into the river which can flood rapidly and with great volume. The centre of the village would be under greater and ever increasing threat of flooding. The ‘balance ponds’ are not a suitable way to cope with this and could be a hazard to residents and unpleasant when they dry out. Obtaining buildings’ insurance will be a problem. A thesis written after the 2001 floods confirm there is more flooding on this site than is indicated in the submission. Water pressure on Bartlow Road is significantly reduced in the mornings and evenings and further pressure on the water system caused by this development will add to this problem. Noise from the A1307 is significant throughout the village and noise amelioration is essential for the site and to reduce the impact of further traffic movement on the A1307. Proposed trees may not be sufficient and will take time to become established to sufficient density. This site is not sustainable by the criteria applied in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This development would bring significant harm to the character of the landscape, the Conservation Area and the environment which far outweighs any benefit the housing would bring. There are more suitable sites for this type of development elsewhere in the district. If permission to build is granted here, LPC would ask for the following conditions to be put in place: A river-long analysis of river flow and flood prevention measures must be put into place (Ashdon to Abington and beyond.) Noise mitigation for the site and for the village. A full survey of drainage capacity. In addition to these comments LPC notes that there are inconsistencies in the application which are worrying and need further investigation: There is no reference to Highways considerations and the Highways Department has provided objection to all the sites at Linton. Having had objections previously to all SHLAA sites, it has been reported that the worst of the sites, Bartlow Road, is being supported by planning officers at SCDC. It has been reported that the Highways Department has changed its view and no longer has a strong objection to the proposed development, despite worsening of highways conditions since the original SHLAA assessments were carried out. It was agreed to request copies of the minutes of meetings and pre-application advice provided by SCDC and Highways on these applications so that we can comment on the principles.
S/2109/15/OL J. Loveday, 1 Horseheath Road – demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 9 dwellings. PC Decision: To NOT support. A sensitively designed development meeting the needs of the village would be welcome in this location. However the housing needs of the village are predominantly for bungalows (for disabled access and for older residents to downsize) and smaller affordable houses. The housing mix should reflect the current need allowing larger houses to become available from movement of downsizers; therefore larger houses are not part of Linton’s current housing needs. The PC is disturbed by statement 5.11 on the character of the area. This has changed with this proposal being the third large house to be demolished to be replaced by several smaller houses. The area is now of modern houses which would be concentrated in three adjacent sites, which is cumulative and piecemeal development of what was once an open and green area. 4
This cumulative effect impacts on the access to, and safety of, Horseheath Road. All three sites contribute to on-road parking and congestion issues. Safety aspects of the closeness of junctions and access to the library and other housing. This is part of a “Safer Route to School” and more traffic and parking here would impact on the safety of pedestrians. The effects on the water supply, sewage and other infrastructure are concerning. The schools, medical centre and other services are at or near capacity even before completion of the Newdigate House development next door. The loss of attractive, mature trees is also a concern. The replacement of an open, grassed area with hard surfacing and buildings means another loss of rain soak-away space and causes the potential for flooding off the site. The development would impact on the setting of Linton’s Conservation area and nearby listed buildings. The development is not sustainable when viewed in conjunction with current neighbouring developments. If permission to build is granted here, LPC would ask for the following conditions to be put in place: The PC would need to be convinced of an appropriate housing mix and a solution for traffic issues. Discussion with the PC is needed before full plans are submitted. Hedges and trees under TPO must be retained to reduce the visual impact of the development. Archaeological investigation of the site is needed before work commences. Careful design is needed to preserve the biodiversity and character of the landscaped area. Noise mitigation for the neighbouring library and community building. Site traffic would have to access the development from the A1307 and not through the village.
S/0259/15/FL Linton Infant School, revised plans and playground parking risk assessment. Amendment. Correspondence item 21 refers. PC Decision: To NOT support. The PC’s previous comments on this application remain applicable. In addition: The PC was not able to comment on this amendment in the proper manner due to a lack of notice given by the planning officer. The Clerk has been in contact with the officer regarding this issue. LPC had requested that the application be deferred to a later Planning Committee meeting but it would seem that this request had been denied. Parking arrangements appear to be ‘tandem’ which is not ideal and may cause problems for traffic and those using the car park.
S/2092/15/FL Mr & Mrs P. Blackburn, 26 Hillway – two-storey side extension to form kitchen dining room with bedroom and en-suite. PC Decision: To support. Materials used should be in keeping with the surrounding area. Overlooking and overshadowing causing a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.
S/1960/15/FL Mr E Wilson & Miss L Timothy, land to the south of 1 Rivey Way – demolition of existing extension and erection of 4-bed terrace dwelling with parking for existing house. PC Decision: To support. The site plan was misleading as it showed the proposed site to be at a major T-junction which is not accurate. Materials used should be in keeping with the surrounding area. Parking should be on-site only to avoid causing a highway hazard.
S/1491/15/FL Mrs K. Barker, 16 Hollybush Way – erection of fence. Amendment – repositioned fence away from footpath. PC Decision: To NOT support. The amendment does not go far enough to improve the sight line from the neighbouring property’s driveway causing a hazard to pedestrians and road users when cars are exiting the driveway. The height of the fence at 1.9 metres also contributes to the poor sight line. The proposed fence will adversely affect the visual amenity of the street.
S/1573/15/FL Mrs B. Smith, 39 Back Road – change of use from C3 (residential) to mixed C3 and A1 (retail) to allow siting of market stalls at entrance to property on Back Road. 5
PC Decision: To support. This is a very popular fruit and vegetable stall within the village. The stall should always be situated in the curtilage of the property and must not obstruct the highway.
All decisions were unanimous. Decisions on applications S/1969/15/OL S/1963/15/OL and S/2109/15/OL will be put forward as recommendations to Full Council when it meets on 17th September. 7. TREE WORKS (a) Mr & Mrs Pechey, 6 Church Lane – C1 reduce by 50% to match conifer reduction already agreed; Wild Plum: fell, would like to open area directly beside house to give more light and room for remaining trees. Consent granted – for information only. Noted. (b) Deemed consent (C11/40/059) for 100 High Street: lower branches to be removed as necessary to make the tree safe and the upper branches to be pollarded as necessary to balance the tree. For Information only. Noted. EB thanked BW for an excellent report on this. (c) Dr Edmund Gardener, 3 The Grip – To remove 3 cedars which take up more than half of the garden of this small property and extend over the fence of the next property (3a) taking away the evening sun from the garden. Consent granted – for information only. Noted. (d) Y. Xue & C Tyler-Smith, 14 High Street – application one to prune Leylandii hedge; application two to prune one central branch of Walnut tree; application three removal of one Leylandii and one Cherry tree. Consent granted – for information only. Noted. (e) Mrs L. Robinson, 89 High Street – Lime: pollard to reduce tree by one third and shape. Consent granted – for information only. Noted. 8. CORRESPONDENCE TO CONSIDER (a) Item 10: EIA screening opinion, land adjacent to Bartlow Road ref: S/2007/15/E1. For information only. Noted. (b) Item 13: SCDC re: Invitation to speak at the Planning Committee meeting on 2nd September in regard to Linton C of E Infants’ School – installation of multi-use games area, perimeter school railings/gate realignment and extend parking area. No councillor had been available to attend the meeting. The PC was not able to comment on this amendment in the proper manner due to a lack of notice given by the planning officer. (c) Item 14: SCDC re: invitation to speak at the Planning Committee meeting on 2nd September in regard to Linton Village College – erection of membrane bubble cover over tennis courts & shed for tennis equipment. No councillor had been available to attend the meeting. Notice that permission has been granted for this application had been received since the publication of this meeting’s agenda. The facility should remain available to the wider village community and conditions placed on the permission will be discussed at the next meeting.
The meeting was closed at 8:50pm.
Signed……………………………………………
Dated…………………………………………….
6