Agenda and minutes

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Gavin Booth as District Councillor.

Councillor Booth stated that he spoke to Officers in February and was advised that further reports had been requested regarding provision of traveller pitches and flood risk. He added that looking at the online file these do not appear to have materialised for public viewing and therefore, the justification Officers have given to approve this site after it has been refused twice in the last 3 years, demonstrates a lack of consistency in approach.  He also requested that he was kept informed of progress on the application, sadly this did not happen. 

He stated that the policies in place since the last 2 previous refusals have not changed and he fails to understand why a third application was allowed. He added that it appears to be based on an appeal elsewhere in the District, however, planning appeals do not set precedent as in case law, instead are informative in decision making and different sites will have their own individual characteristics.

Councillor Booth expressed the view that, in his opinion, the appeal site used to bring this third application is completely different in nature to the site in Sealey’s Lane, which is in the open countryside

He stated that the officer report appears to dismiss the previous reasons for refusal even though they have not changed over the last 3 years and in his opinion the report does not make it clear enough that the site has been developed and occupied since October 2019, even though it was refused twice.

Councillor Booth stated that with regard to flood risk, the last correspondence on file from the Environment Agency is dated 3 January 2020 and objects to the proposal.  He questioned why Officers are putting such weight on the agent’s report, when in the past the Environment Agency report would determine the nature of flood risk and is also contrary to previous decisions made regarding caravans and flood risk, given their vulnerable nature.

Councillor Booth expressed the view that with regard to open countryside, it appeared that Officers have now changed their mind on why this is not a consideration citing the nursery at the end of Sealey’s lane as justification. He added that the T junction with Harrold’s Bank has been developed for a considerable number of years with farm buildings, a nursery and property, situated some distance from this proposed development and the site in question is quite visible in the open countryside and different in nature to the site referred to in the appeal at Bevis Lane. 

Councillor Booth expressed the opinion that with regard to traveller status there is no public report on file regarding the provision of traveller sites across the District, however previously it was determined there were sufficient at this time,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P80/19

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from the applicant Mr Zane Watson.

Mr Watson stated that the property has been in his family’s ownership for 78 years and was his great grandparents’ home with his parents living at the adjacent property. He added that, in his opinion, the footprint of the proposal is not more excessive than in its current form and will be higher as the property falls within flood zone 3 so the bedrooms will need to be off the ground floor level. The garage proposed conforms to Council’s policy.

Mr Watson stated that the existing bungalow is suffering from structural issues which are due to it being next to the drain and why he is proposing to move the dwelling nearer to Jillendy which will also allow for easier maintenance of the drain.

He stated that to make use of all available space it was considered to make use of the attic space rather than leave it as empty space.

Mr Watson concluded by stating that he wants to be near his parents who fully support the proposal and added that with the current situation and worldwide pandemic it has been reiterated that family is important and we need to be there to look after each other.

Members asked Mr Watson the following questions;

·         Councillor Benney ask for clarity that Mr Watson lives in his great grandparents’ home and his parent still live in his grandparent home? Mr Watson confirmed that this is correct.

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarity with regard to the track and outbuildings which are in the vicinity of the property? Mr Watson explained that the track is a roadway, which runs to farm buildings and sheds. A new roadway will be installed to the right hand side of the property to access the buildings.  Mr Watson confirmed that the land and farm buildings are owned by his parents but rented out to tenants.

Members asked officers the following questions;

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarification with regard to the replacement increase of the new dwelling which is shown in the officer’s report as 257% and asked what the normal percentage that would be expected. David Rowen stated that the policy in the Local Plan talks about it being similar. The percentage increase in the proposal is significant and the scale is considered as inappropriate in this particular case.

·         Councillor Hay asked for clarification with regards to ridge heights for 2 storey dwellings? David Rowen confirmed that a normal 2 storey ridge height would be 7.5 metres.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the proposal is for a 2 and a half storey dwelling and he is of the opinion that to utilise the loft space is a good use of space. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item P81/19

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Alan Melton the Clerk of Manea Parish Council in support of the application.

Mr Melton stated that Manea Parish Council, recommend approval of the application. He stated that the Parish Council do not agree with the aesthetic impact information which is detailed in the officer’s report. He added that the information with regard to flooding is disputed as that part of Manea does not flood and the reasoning behind the applicant not carrying out a sequential test is understandable and the applicant has agreed to raise the property by a metre and Mr Melton stated that there have already been two dwellings approved which has set a precedent and the fact that the property will be a metre higher will have little impact and the adjacent building or the aesthetic appearance of the area.

David Rowen read out a written representation received from Mr Ian Gowler, the Agent for the Application.

Mr Gowler highlighted that the committees main comments in relation to the previous application F/YR18/0899/F for 3 dwellings were; too many dwellings, cramped development with little parking, don’t disagree with development although site is in a flood zone and that two dwellings would seriously be considered.

He further stated that in relation to application F/YR19/0459/F, the comments of members were taken into account and the application resubmitted with just two dwellings but this application was refused by Officers.

Mr Gowler stated that the current application is for 2 dwellings with the size

reduced to further to further improve the reduction in impermeable areas and additional detailing has been added to the house designs to match the recently constructed dwelling on the adjacent site. He made the point that the development of the site will also include formal road widening and a new footpath.

Mr Gowler indicated that in relation to flood Risk policy LP14d, the proposed development would now after changes, reduce the impermeable area by 65%, which will be a huge benefit to flood risk in the area passes the exception tests as with the benefit above, the site being previously developed and with the Flood Risk Assessment demonstrating the dwelling is safe.

Mr Gowler expressed the view that this proposal would remove the eyesore building on the approach to Manea which would be a benefit to the community as an exception to the requirement under paragraph 160a of the NPPF. He stated that the the buildings are let on a short term tenancy and the site is no longer appropriate for industrial businesses to be located close to the dwellings.

Mr Gowler expressed the opinion that the proposed houses are proposed to be a link in hierarchy from the new property of 1 and half storey and the large agricultural building that is around 2 and half storeys high which provides a balance to the street scene. He made the point that the bungalows opposite  ...  view the full minutes text for item P82/19

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Alan Melton the Clerk of Manea Parish Council in support of the application.

Mr Melton stated that members have always sought to encourage well designed and well thought out properties in settlements and on the edge of settlements. He stated that whilst he appreciates what officers have said with regard to the proposal being outside of the development area, under the new proposal, this dwelling will fall within the development area. He expressed the opinion, that as you approach Manea, this dwelling is exactly the type of property that they would like to see. He added that in 10.4 of the officers report it makes reference to the business use, commercial premises and security cameras and that is a subjective view and should be down to the applicant as to whether he wishes to live adjacent to his business.

Mr Melton drew member’s attention to a previous application where approval was given against officer’s recommendation which was classed as an agricultural dwelling. He expressed the opinion that there is no such thing as an agricultural business, they are all business dwellings, it is no longer a vocation, and it is a business. He expressed the view that members need to be consistent when determining planning applications.

Mr Melton added that earlier in the year there was a month of torrential rain and there was no sign of flooding at the proposed site. He stated that he agrees it is a large house, but it is a well-designed house and will enhance the entrance to Manea and it will not mitigate any of the aesthetic appearance of Westfield, Road and it is the sort of house that should be on the outskirts to the village of Manea. He concluded that the Parish Council welcome this type of development and this executive home will support the business and enhance the entrance to the village

David Rowen read out a written representation received from Lee Bevens , the Agent for the application.

Mr Bevens reminded members  that a similar scheme was presented at Planning Committee in August 2019, and this application attempts  to address the reasons for refusal. With reference to refusal reasons 1 and 2 the sequential test argument is not relevant to this scheme as the whole point of the dwelling is to serve the immediate business use at the site, there is little point in putting the dwelling off the site and hopefully members understand this. The dwelling has been raised above ground level to meet all the necessary requirements contained within the supporting flood risk assessment and No objections have been raised by the Environment Agency.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that reason 3 of the previous refusal is slightly ambiguous as the development will make a positive contribution to the local character of the area offering a positive feature to the entrance to the village and help screen  ...  view the full minutes text for item P83/19