Minutes of a Parish/Public Meeting of Caldecote Parish Council on 14 March 2003 to discuss the revised proposals from Ashwell Developments for Grafton Pig Farm followed by an Extraordinary Meeting of Caldecote Parish Council at 7 pm in the Village Hall
Present
: Parish Councillors; B. Drayton, O. Kember (Chairman), J. Lang, P. Phillips, F. WoltonPresent by invitation: Mr Nick Parkinson, CHBC Architects; Mr Carl Atkinson, Land Director and Mr Simon Butler-Finbow, Planning Director, both from Ashwell Developments Ltd.
Also present: S. Breeze, S. Francis, J. and D. Daly
1. Apologies for absence
Parish Cllr T. Footman, District Cll J. Stewart, County Cllr R. Martlew, Mrs LG Stoehr (clerk).
The minutes were taken by the chair.
2.0 Revised plans by Ashwell Developments for Grafton Pig Farm sites
The chair welcomed those present and invited Simon Butler-Finbow (SB-F) to address the meeting.
2.1 Southern site
2.1.1. Parish Council objections/comments
SB-F circulated an agenda for his comments and began by concentrating on the southern site. He examined the parish council’s objections in detail, separating actual objections from comments.
·
He noted the need for a turning head at the end of West Drive to be constructed in advance of building;·
he thought that any surface water problem was covered by the flood risk assessment with water draining to the southern boundary of the site(this prompted an interjection from Steve Breeze (SB) that water in fact drained north from the proposed development into his property; it was countered by an argument relating to falls which could be achieved by drainage pipes from the north west corner of the site);·
the issue was now much clearer with regard to foul drainage. Remedial work on the pumping station would start in June/July 2003;·
wheel washing was non-controversial as was no vehicular access to the site via West Drive. Rats were also thought to be no problem. SB however thought that rats would be a problem and advocated that they be dealt with now rather than later. Carl Atkinson (CA) noted this and said he would consider the matter. Cllr Jack Lang (JL) thought the parish council should write to the existing land owner and urge the immediate destruction of the rats (Agreed). SB was also concerned about contaminated soil and thought it might end up in his back garden. JL urged that such soil be taken away from the site. SB-F noted that they were obliged to decontaminate as per the reports. SF said that the neighbours were concerned to make sure that they were completely free of any contaminated soil.·
Ownership of land south of plots 1-4 could be agreed as could traffic arrangements and open space requirements. The section 106 would be dealt with as a separate issue later. Naming of the development was non-controversial.This left points 2, 3, 4, 7 and 11 of the parish council’s objections. The first four related to design and materials and point 11 was concerned with the neighbours. At this stage JL noted that the planning process was such that the parish council could only put in comments as objections. SB-F agreed but thought that the parish council might consider putting in a covering letter distinguishing comments from specific objections.
2.1.2 Design
At this point Nick Parkinson (NP) took over to explain the revised plans for the southern site. He began by noting that the revisions were substantial and covered design, density and layout. The density would be reduced from 41 to 33 dwellings. With fewer units there would be more space between them and a 5 metre buffer zone could be created on the northern and western boundaries. This would soften the edge of the development and reduce its impact on the adjoining countryside. The southern boundary would retain its link with the recreation ground and retain its hard edge with that area. The following mix for the 33 dwellings was proposed:
4 beds = 10
3 beds = 20
2 beds = 2
1 bed = 1.
With regard to the actual design of these houses, they would be of a traditional design as per the rest of the development in the village, with pitched roofing and tiles and brick and render finishes. They would be 2 storey but have varying roof lines. An 8 metre high roof line would be aimed at, and pitches might be about 40%, but these would vary.
SB was concerned about possible future conversions of loft space arising from these new pitched roofs. Cllr Brian Drayton (BD) thought that there could be a restrictive covenant on the whole site so that everybody on the site had the benefit if it. BD also suggested that Ashwells themselves might hold the covenant. CA thought this might be difficult to enforce but agreed to look at the question and see if it was practical.
NP continued by noting that there was a 5 metre buffer zone on the northern boundary and that plot 31 would be orientated so as not to affect northern neighbours. SF wanted to know the distance of the cottage range (nos 25 – 28) from her garden and NP calculated this as about 40 metres.
NP then circulated copies of a letter from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Community Safety Department (Parkside Police Station, Cambridge CB1 1JG) to the Planning Department, South Cambs District Council (dated 18 February 2003 and signed by Simon Marriot, Architectural Liaison Officer).
Erection of 41 Houses West Drive Caldecote
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the above proposed development.
Whilst it is recognised that a degree of permeability is necessary for community interaction, too many footpaths and through roads in a development help to make crime easier to commit. Their use as alternative escape routes provides anonymity to the miscreant and the safety he seeks. In addition to the entry from West Drive there is access to adjoining farm land and a footpath link to adjoining public open space. It was observed during a visit that there is already access to the neighbouring sports/recreation ground in the existing part of West Drive to the east of the site.
It is noted that the two southern courtyards are fitted with gates at their entrances. Given that pedestrian access to some of the properties is within these courtyards it assumed that the gates are not lockable unless there is some means of visitors making contact with properties from the
The pedestrian gates at plots 12 and 16 appear to be between the respective front doors and the point of access, thus making it difficult to control access to the rear gardens while still allowing visitors a means of calling at the front door.
Boundaries should normally be provided with 1.8m high close boarded fencing, except that where the boundary adjoins a path or open area» further security measures such as trellis topping should be considered; Where boundaries are made of hedging steps should be taken to ensure that they are strengthened, where necessary by fencing, preferably weldmesh, to a height of 1.8m.
This concludes my comments. If I can help further with this application, then please do not hesitate to call.
NP noted that Ashwells basically accepted the conclusions of this letter. The farm gate would be locked, the courtyard gates would be dispensed with and a fence would be erected on the northern boundary. He noted the problems with the latter fence. The landscape department had advocated a 1.8/2 metre high chain link fence but the police were suggesting a close boarded fence. After discussion it was agreed that Ashwells would provide a wooden close boarded fence at least 1.8 m, high along the whole of the northern boundary of the development. The neighbours would have to negotiate with the land owner about the rest of the pig farm not covered by the development. There was some concern expressed about lighting in the courtyards and security. It was noted that the 3 garage/1 bedroom unit of plot 4 would be good for security. It was also noted that the 3 and 4 bed houses had single rather than double garages (as per LPPG3 and the desire to move away from car transport).
NP concluded by saying that the higher proportion of smaller units in the previous plans might have led to transient populations whereas the mix now was for family units of 3 or 4 beds. All present (i.e. developers, parish council and neighbours) agreed that the proposed mix was acceptable and urged that the District Council should not alter it.
2.2 Northern site
At this point SB-F said that Ashwells wanted to detach the two application sites. Sue Francis (SF) immediately objected to this approach saying that the two sites were being developed by the same people and had the same owner; you could not have one set of rules for one site and another set for the other site. SFB, however, countered by saying that government guidance was clear and that a minimum of 30 units per hectare was the government’s aim. The density of the southern site was just above the minimum.
Coming to the northern site SB-F noted that it was just under half a hectare in size. He then introduced a document from Bingham:Hall Associates (Civil and Engineering Consultants, Park House, Market Place, New Buckenham, Norwich NR16 2AN) commissioned by Ashwell Property Ltd. This was entitled "North Site, West Drive, Caldecote: Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy" and dated March 2003:
I Background
1.1 This report details the drainage strategy for proposed development of the North Site, West Drive with six residential dwellings. 1.2 The site is currently occupied with a variety of derelict buildings, previously forming part of a pig breeding unit, and a single dwelling. Existing buildings and hardstanding areas occupying the development site will be demolished. The proposed development site (extending west from highway) will occupy part of the area of the pig breeding unit, the remainder of the site will not be developed. The site topography is generally flat with the ground level approximately 450mm below road level.
1.3 The hardened area of the site is currently 0.1 2Ha resulting from existing buildings and paved areas. The hardened area (roofs, driveways and parking areas) of the proposed developed site will be 0.16Ha. Consequently there is a marginal increase in hardened area of approximately 0.04Ha. The total site area is approximately 0.5Ha with the balance of the site being gardens and landscaped areas.
2 Foul Drainage
2.1 A public foul sewer in West Drive immediately adjacent to the site has capacity for the development. However the level of the sewer is too high for a gravity connection and therefore it will be necessary to pump sewage from the site to the sewer. Anglian Water have confirmed that they will agree to a connection.
2.2 A pumping station will need to be constructed on the site, this can either be adopted by Anglian Water, or alternatively be constructed as a private packaged unit and maintained by individual property owners. AW would prefer not to adopt a pumping station for a small development of this nature.
2.3 If a private pumping station is constructed on-site sewers will also need to be private.
3 Surface Water
3.1 There are no public surface water sewers in the area. Site drainage is currently to a pond on the western (rear) boundary and a ditch on the northern boundary. The pond drains into the ditch. The northern ditch appears to have been at one time extended for the length of the site but has in the past been infilled (or possibly piped) and is silted up for a substantial part of the length adjacent to the development site.
3.2 This northern boundary watercourse drains in a westerly direction before turning South to join Bourn Brook.
3.3 A ground investigation report for the site identified soil strata as glacial Till overlain by approximately 300mm of made ground. The glacial till is described as being in three layers
• A weathered firm slightly sandy clay with occasional chalk gravel between 0.6m and 0.95m deep
• A firm mottled brown sandy gravelly clay becoming stiff sandy very gravelly clay with abundant chalk fragments and scattered cobbles of chalk and flint.
• A stiff dark clay with scattered chalk fragments.
The report notes that the Till is of variable permeability, but that overall the ground is unsuitable for soakaways. However I would expect some moderate degree of soakage in the upper layers of the Till.
3.4 Surface water runoff from development on the site will need to discharge to the ditches on the north and west boundaries. The depth of the on-site drainage will be dictated by the depth of the off-site ditch, this generally being a maximum of lm below ground level. There is little scope for increasing the depth of these ditches as the watercourse to the west has very little fall. The developers do not have control over the off-site watercourse and are therefore unable to regrade and deepen the watercourse downstream.
3.5 The site provides an opportunity for the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) for the drainage of both the roofs and hardstanding areas. This can be achieved by utilising the grass swales to route runoff through to the boundary ditches. Roof water drains will discharge either directly to these swales or via relatively short lengths of below ground pipework. Swales can be designed to restrict the flow of water and to allow percolation to the ground thus reducing the volume of water discharged to the watercourse. Attenuation achieved in the swales will reduce the discharge rate into the on-site ditch.
3.6 The access road, all shared drives and parking areas are to remain in private ownership and will not be adopted. Drainage of these areas will need to be by runoff directly to adjacent swales. As any piped drainage would need to be very shallow a positive system would not be suitable in this instance. 3.7 The proposed site development area is slightly greater than the previous hardened area of the site and consequently there is potentially a small increase in runoff from the site. To ensure that there is no increased flood risk downstream on-site attenuation is required by provision of on-site balancing storage and flow control to limit the site runoff.
3.8 Balancing storage will need to be provided in the boundary ditches and swales within the site. Flow control can be provided by a gravel 'plug' in the northern boundary watercourse on the downstream side of the site.
3.9 The site can be adequately drained by the methods described above, however any further significant increase in developed area on the site above that currently proposed stands the risk of causing flooding on the site due to the increased surface water runoff and increased volume of balancing storage required. I therefore advise that no significant additional areas of the site are hardened.
3.10 The gravel plug and on-site ditch storage will be an integral part of the drainage system. It will be necessary to ensure that proper legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that this system is properly maintained in perpetuity.
4 Summary
4.1 Foul drainage can be adequately discharged to the public foul sewer in West Drive via an on-site pumping station.
4.2 Surface water runoff will need to drain to the northern boundary watercourse via swales and shallow pipes. To ensure that there is no increased flood risk downstream the site runoff must be attenuated using a gravel plug to restrict the flow, and on site ditches and swales to provide balancing storage.
4.3 1 recommend that the developed area of the site should not be significantly increased above that currently proposed. Any further significant increase will heighten the risk of on-site flooding from ditchers and swales surcharging.
A V Bingham C.Eng. MCIWEM MIHT
BD noted that the proposed A428 dualling would in fact cut across the north-south ditch feeding surface water from the northern development and that subsequent ditches transporting this water west to east would also be affected by the new road proposed from the existing roundabout on the A428 to the engineering works on Bourn Airfield. There was a need to maintain the integrity of these ditches. Ashwells agreed to look into this problem.
SB-F then followed the same procedure as with the southern site, examining the parish council’s objections in detail. He noted that the question of foul drainage had been dealt with by the Bingham: Hall report and that the flood risk had been similarly dealt with by the flood risk assessment. This left two major items: (1) design and materials and (2) noise from Bourn airfield.
2.2.1 Design and materials
NP stated that Ashwells were not content to reproducing replicas of the past on this particular site. They wanted something which would be high quality but contemporary (JL noted that there were other striking examples of modern style in the village, e.g. Meunier House).They had however taken on board the objections with regard to the stainless steel materials and proposed to increase the roof pitches slightly in order to accommodate a more traditional roof/tile finish. This might increase the roof height slightly by 1 or 2 feet. The actual layout of the 6 units would be the same as previously proposed. Members of the parish council were still concerned about balconies on the units. NP explained that the objection by a neighbour regarding frightening his horses had been dealt with.
2.2.2 Noise from Bourn airfield
NP stated that Ashwell accepted that noise would have an impact on the northern site. The screen was in the process of being installed by Tallent and it was difficult to intervene. It was, however, accepted that it was up to the District Council Environmental Health Officer to tackle the problem, Members of the parish council noted that it would be useful if Ashwell could pressure the Environmental Health Officer to take more positive action and NP agreed to look into this. It was also agreed that Ashwell would look into the possibility of constructing an earth bund around the north western part of the site and/or acoustic fencing.
2.2.3 West Drive not a thoroughfare
OK mentioned the concern of Mr Bell (14 West Drive) re West Drive becoming a thoroughfare. It was stressed that this would not be so, except for emergency vehicles (probably via lockable bollards, since there were existing bollards at the southern end).
The parish councillors were specifically asked for their comments on this site and all agreed that Ashwell’s revised plans should be supported.
3.0 Section 106
3.1 Pavilion contribution
SFB rehearsed the background to the problem with designating the pavilion for the £160,000. It was eventually agreed that a form of wording incorporating the phrase "tangible community facility" might be acceptable. OK raised the question of using some or all of the money for a lottery grant. This would be (so he had been advised by Jane Thompson from the District Council) difficult if the word "pavilion" remained in the section 106 agreement. Ms Thompson lives in the village and e-mailed Cllr Owen Kember (OK) as follows on 14 March 2003:
Just a quick follow up to my comment at last night's meeting regarding use of Section 106 funds for Sports Lottery Fund Projects. I have spoken to Jane Lampshire, Sports Development Officer, and she recommends that you speak to Sport Englands East Region Lottery Officer, Liz Behnke, for further advice and information on this matter. Out of interest I did speak briefly to Liz this morning and she confirmed that it actually depends on the wording within the Section 106 agreement. If it refers to the S 106 money being used for a specific facility ie for a pavilion to serve the new recreation ground then it is not eligible. If it refers to more general sports provision to meet local need, without being specific, then it can be used as a local contribution towards a Lottery bid. It all sounds a bit daft but Liz will be able to offer further advice and have the S 106 agreement checked for eligibility. Liz Behnke's contact details are: Tel 01234 333613 Liz.Behnke@sportengland.org I hope that helps.
3.2 Education contribution
It was also noted by Ashwells that making such a contribution would enhance their sales and promotional activities. OK also raised the question of a secondary education contribution specific to Comberton Village College, noting that pupils from the village were not certain of gaining admission to that school even though it was the catchment area secondary school. Ashwells agreed that this would be seriously looked into especially since it would be a good selling feature for the development sites.
3.3 Other issues
There was no disagreement about the public open spaces and the parish councillors agreed that they would take over the hedge and maintain it as it is. The Landscape Officer would ensure that it was in good condition when it was taken over. Subject to the section 106. Plots 1 and 4 would have ownership of the triangle of land immediately south of them. The strip of land south of the access road from Highfields Road would be transferred to the ownership of the parish council. The access road itself would have a single footway and be lit by the developers. It would be made up prior to construction beginning on the southern site.
3.4 SB-F stated that Ashwells would seek to attribute the section 106 to the southern site only, for administrative reasons.
4.0 Timetable
4.1 SB-F stated that the plan was to issue the parish council with amended plans before the parish council meeting on 3 April 2003. He wished the item to be on the agenda for that meeting. This was agreed. The revised plans would be with the clerk/chairman by Thursday, 27 March 2003. The idea was to get the matter before the May Planning Committee.
4.2 SB wished to know when the northern boundary fence on the southern site would be erected, since the neighbours would like it erected prior to the development of the site. CA did not think this might be practical (given foundations etc.) but would look into the matter). SF said that she was nervous about encroachment and was looking to be protected at an early stage. SB-F mentioned the party wall act, a recent act which might give some protection here. It was possible that there could be a written agreement under this act.
5.0 Closure of meeting
There being no further business the chairman declared the meeting closed at 8.50 p.m.
Signed……………………Chairman……………….Date
Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of Caldecote Parish Council held
at the village hall on 14 March 2003 at 8.50 p.m.
Present: O. Kember (chair), J. Lang, P. Phillips, F. Wolton and 3 members of the Developer’s team for Grafton Pig Farm
1. Apologies for absence
B. Drayton, J. Stewart (District Cllr), R. Martlew (county Cllr), LG Stoehr (clerk)
2. Ashwell Development, Grafton Pig Farm
On the proposal of Cllr Kember, seconded by Cllr Wolton it was unanimously agreed that the parish council adopt such action as had been agreed at the Public/Open meeting earlier in the evening.
3. Closure of meeting
There being no further business the chairman declared the meeting closed at 8.55 p.m.
Signed……………………….Chairman…………………Date