Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Savage, an objector. Mr Savage circulated a handout to members of the committee and explained that his property backs onto the land associated with the application, and he has been in business for over 40 years and lived behind the property for 30 years. He explained that his main work is groundwork and drainage, and, in his view, he believes that the application should not be passed.

Mr Savage stated that as a joint landowner with the Fox family, the applicant has not sought his permission for any drainage or surface water to cross his land to connect into the pipe in the middle of the field which is shown on the handout provided to the committee. He explained that the applicant has not obtained any permission from the dyke owner of the Darcy Lode which the pipe from the field discharges into and which he maintains, but agrees that the applicant may have permission from the local drainage board but to get the surface water to the drainage board system, they have to pass over three landowners’ properties and the IDB drain only starts two large fields away which is half a mile from the applicant’s site.

Mr Savage explained that apart from himself and Mr Fox, the only other right of way is for the use of the public footpath and there is no mention of any third-party owner, making the point that permission needs to be sought from himself and up to the present time, no contact from the applicant has ever been made. He expressed the view that his concern is that without any robust drainage strategy this could result in flooding issues not only in the local area but also elsewhere in Manea causing flooding not only to his property but to neighbouring ones too, including Cox Way which borders the site and was developed five years ago.

Mr Savage explained that ,when the site was developed, a dyke which runs adjacent to the applicant’s site was filled in and not piped which resulted in surface water being retained not only on the site but also filling the local network to the dyke on the road beside his property causing flooding. He added that his further concern is that further to the recent application on his own land, he was asked to introduce a holding pond by officers to alleviate any flooding and by allowing the seven properties in the application before the committee it could have an impact on his site by causing flooding to his own properties, with the agent for that application, Mr Hall, also being the Agent for his application two years ago.

Mr Savage state that at that time particular attention was given with regards to issues concerning potential flooding to both his and surrounding sites. He added that he would strongly request that the committee do not grant planning permission and take into consideration that he has not given any permission as a landowner.

Mr Savage expressed the opinion that the application fails to demonstrate a robust drainage strategy and if permission is granted to the application there is the likelihood of further flooding issues, not only to his property but also to the surrounding area. He added that Manea Parish Council are also not content with the application with the main reason for their concern being flooding.

Members asked Mr Savage the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the owner has made any contact with him at all asking if they can access his dyke as the officer’s report states that Mr Fox has contacted him? Mr Savage explained that Mr Fox has been contacted but he has not. Councillor Mrs French asked whether it is a legal agreement at this stage? Mr Savage stated that it is not.

·         Councillor Benney stated that from what Mr Savage has advised the committee today, the discharge from the site has got to cross his land. Mr Savage explained that it has to cross part of his land as well as Mr Fox’s and a farmer’s land down the bottom. Councillor Benney added that if that cannot be achieved is it likely to cause flooding to his property. Mr Savage confirmed this to be the case.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he understands that Mr Hall was the Agent for an application which Mr Savage submitted, and he asked Mr Savage whether the extensive drainage works he had to undertake as part of his application would be overridden if the present application were to be approved? Mr Savage advised that it could cause an issue if the works are not undertaken by proper people who can ensure that the water can discharge off of the site as the pipes that they wish to go into are not even shown on a map. He added that there are many unknown factors to consider including the size of the pipe and whether it can cope with the water.

·         Councillor Marks stated that flooding in Manea is a serious issue, and he recalled a flooding event one Christmas where he spent a night baling out various areas including an area very close to the application site. He referred to the filled in dyke at the back of Cox Way and he asked whether it was piped? Mr Savage stated that the dyke was not piped. Councillor Marks stated that the water from there is running off Cox Way into the field as well. Mr Savage explained that there is a big flooding issue at the current time on the actual property.

·         Councillor Marks stated there is a pipe which runs from Cox Way to the Darcy Lode, and he recalls going to the Darcy Lode when there have been flooding episodes and it is owned by a farmer, not the IDB or the Middle Level. He added that the pipe takes the water to the bottom and from there is goes to a culvert which backed up and flooded previously and he asked Mr Savage whether he concurs with that. Mr Savage stated that following a flash flooding event, he had been lending pumps out for residents to pump their gardens, and he then cleaned the whole back of the dyke out to get rid of the water from the High Street.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the 32 houses that are now being built behind the pub, and he recalls Mr Savage attending a meeting which he had arranged regarding flooding concerns in Manea, with there being an issue of the water which is going to enter the Darcy Lode before the pipe work for the site.  Mr Savage stated that the pipe has not been connected in the road as of yet, but the planning permission has been approved for the connection to be made, and all of the 36 properties will be coming into the same dyke. He made the point that there is nothing on paper to determine whether the dyke can cope with all the extra water and, in his view, it is about time that people make a stand and say that the dyke cannot take any more water until it is surveyed properly.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Cliss, the applicant, and Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Cliss stated that he would like to focus on the history of flooding and the history of the site, within the officer’s report it makes reference to the fact that there appears to be a history of poor drainage and localised flooding in the area, and he made the point that most of that information is unsubstantiated or has not been formally reported and he would even go further and add that there is no evidence for it whatsoever in his opinion. He explained that he was born in 12a Westfield Road, 62 years ago, and he played in the garden when he was a child as his father had made the whole garden into a football pitch and he played there throughout his childhood, and he can guarantee that rain never stopped him from paying even though the Winter.

Mr Cliss added that the site of 12a Westfield Road does not flood and does not even suffer from surface water, and he still has a football pitch in the garden for his children which is still used in the winter. He stated that when he heard the points made by Councillor Marks, with regards to his intimate knowledge of the site, he was horrified because as he is the owner of the site and lives there, he knows the site inside and out, with his mother having passed away three years ago, and he lives there which is the reason why he is selling the property.

Mr Cliss explained that all is trying to do is to maximise the estate as infill, with the property being surrounded as there were no other dwellings anywhere, on either side or behind and he is a little bemused that the application has been highly recommended and then deferred due to the so-called flooding issue in the area on the site, making the point that he does have an intimate knowledge of a lifetime of being on the site and there has never been an issue. He added that with regards to the Highways report, previously the opinion of the Highways Officer was positive and this time the positivity is even greater, and the only objection appears to be on the matter of drainage.

Mr Cliss explained that the pond was always located on the site as a natural feature in the 1960s and in the 70s his father dug it out and it was made three times deeper than it was originally and it has always adequately drained the site. He made the point that there will be increased run off with the development but on the site plan, the swale, the drainage base of the pond will be extended to twice its size to form a short term collection point so that if there was very heavy rainfall it would adequately collect all the water, with the attenuation of that subsequently draining very slowly over a long period of time down to the Darcy Lode.

Mr Cliss stated that he would hope that the committee will agree with the officer’s recommendation of approval for the application from the outset and he apologised to Mr Savage as he did not realise that the associated works for the application would involve encroaching onto his land which is why he has not approached him. He added that he was under the impression that it would go along the public byway and across Mr Fox’s land, which he has received permission for.

Members asked Mr Hall and Mr Cliss the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he will stand by what he has stated previously where three Christmas’s ago he had to request the assistance of the Fire Service at 11pm to a property adjacent to this site because of flooding and the water could not be disposed of. He added that following that a public meeting was held with Anglian Water and a number of residents including some from Cox Way who also stated that they had flooding issues backing onto Mr Cliss property. Councillor Marks added that there has been water in the ditch or runoff onto that side of the road and when discussions have taken place concerning planning applications in Dairy Road that ditch has been a topic of conversation by councillors who visited the site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that his concern is that there is dyke which has been filled in and there is nowhere for the water to go and there is definitely water there. He added that when he has reviewed the points made by the Parish Council who were not in favour of the application due to flooding concerns and until there is a solution which is brought forward, he will not be supporting the application. Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that when the pipe was filled in was it on the land in the ownership of Mr Cliss or was that on Coxs Way land? Mr Cliss confirmed that it was Coxs Way land.

·         Mr Cliss addressed Councillor Marks and stated that the only thing which he has raised has been with regards to flooding and nothing to do with the application site. Councillor Marks stated that where the water comes from is to do with the site. Mr Cliss asked Councillor Marks how can he be sure that the flooding issue from Coxs Way comes from his site and how he can ascertain that fact? Councillor Marks explained that when Anglian Water and Cambridgeshire County Council attended an onsite meeting along with the Environment Agency and all along Westfield Road, there were several places identified which were highlighted as issues as to why the water was not getting away along with the drainage towards the Darcy Lode. He explained that there were a number of residents from Coxs Way and Westfield Road following the flooding meeting providing information with regards as to what was taking place and one of the highlighted places was the area where the application is located.

·         Mr Cliss stated that that nothing specific has been mentioned with regards to the application site at all and reference is only being made to adjacent areas and not the site itself. Councillor Marks explained that he has never walked onto the site, however, in his view, it is blatantly obvious that the ditches around the site have water in them and that has not come from anywhere and has not come from across the road. He added that he is aware that when Mr Savage submitted his own application there were concerns with regards to flooding. Councillor Marks expressed the view that by adding houses on the site is only going to make matters worse.

·         Mr Hall stated that on most applications he obtains a land registry plan, from which he ascertains where the boundaries are as well as reviewing historic maps, having the site surveyed and gaining an understanding of where Mr Fox’s boundaries were. He added that he also found out where the byway and public footpaths are and he was unable to find anything that shows between the land in the ownership of Mr Fox and the application site that shows Mr Savage owns or has any rights. Mr Hall explained that should Mr Savage have any documentation then he will be more than happy to have a look and engage with him.

·         Councillor Marks provided Mr Hall with the handout which was circulated by Mr Savage. Mr Hall explained that when he submitted the application, he served a Certificate C, which is where an advertisement is placed in the local paper, which is not dissimilar to other sites which he has worked on in the vicinity because the actual surface of byway is maintained by the County Council but the ownership of the byway is not known and it is not shown on the land registry documentation. He referred to the pipes that the application will connect into and which goes across the land belonging to Mr Fox, is actually an Anglian Water sewer and, therefore, he does know what he is connecting into. Mr Hall added that he agrees that the ditch has been filled in, however, he is demonstrating a pipe to connect onto the main sewer in third party land for which he has approval in principle. He explained that with regards to the pond on the site it is going to be enlarged to hold all the water on the site and then it will be attenuated at greenfield run off rate into the Darcy Lode because that is what the Middle Level has asked them to do. Mr Hall stated that he cannot see any reason why Middle Level are objecting to the proposal, and he would be more than happy to engage with Mr Savage, but the Land Registry did not demonstrate that Mr Savage has any ownership in the relevant parcels of land.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the ownership of the Public Right of Way and the fact that Mr Hall is stating he does not know who the owner is. She explained that the County Council are responsible for them and the officer is Mark Peck, making the point that a Public Right of Way cannot be built on. Mr Hall stated that when he has undertaken other applications in the Old Dairy the County Council are not always sure who the owner is. He added that the County Council have raised no objections to the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she concurs with the points made by Councillor Marks with regards to flooding and according to Mr Savage the water cannot be moved to the Darcy Lode without crossing his land, asking Mr Hall to clarify. Mr Hall stated that is what Mr Savage has advised but the work that he has undertaken with Land Registry does not demonstrate that Mr Savage owns the land when following the route that needs to be taken for the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that prior to 1981 it was not a requirement to register your land.

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Hall whether he has a robust drainage strategy which proves that the water can get away from the site including the size of piping to ensure that the whole scheme will work because if that is not the case then the application is incomplete. Mr Hall explained that as part of the application submission a drainage strategy was included but as it is an outline application it was indicative, and the type of dwellings could change. He stated that there was not a detailed drainage strategy submitted showing the pipe size, falls and manholes as it is an outline application in Flood Zone 1 with no history of surface water drainage on the EA flood map and he explained that officers have not raised anything. Mr Hall stated that he has some calculations based on the sizes of the houses that he had done, permeable block paving, size of the swale, what it would take to get to the manhole in the third-party land and should the application be approved the house sizes could be changed and then all of that detail would need to be redone.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there still appears to be area of no mans land which has to be addressed. Mr Hall stated that following the deferral at committee he spoke to officers and asked whether there were any other changes or any steps that need to be undertaken. He added that the officer stated that she had spoken to David Rowen and he was advised that officers would be contacting other consultees but from his perspective there was nothing further that he needed to do.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that, apart from the drainage surveys and reports for the actual site and apart from the remarks from Mr Savage, has there been any surveys undertaken of the actual discharge channels with regards to whether they will cope? Mr Hall explained that where the pipe crosses the third-party land it discharges into the Darcy Lode, he has the fall of that at the diameter and position. He added that he does not have the detailed pipe layouts for the actual site although he does know where the pipe goes down to and where it discharges to which would have to be at greenfield run off rate otherwise the Middle Level would refuse it. Councillor Imafidon stated that there is still the unknown point of whether it would cope. Mr Hall explained that this is not undertaken as it is an indicative layout.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it appears to be inconclusive because Mr Savage has stated that he owns the land where the pipe has to go through and he is a third party owner as is Mr Fox and that it is something that needs to be addressed, although it is not a material planning consideration.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that this application was deferred last month and the questions that members requested answers to, in her view, have not been addressed. She added that she did not know about Mr Savage’s land as she does not know Manea very well, however, she did visit the site and the last time she visited the site, the ground was wet regardless of what Mr Cliss has stated. Councillor Mrs French added that the committee have always been told that applications cannot be approved if it is going to cause flooding further down the road and there are still unanswered questions. She stated that it also appears the surface water is also going into the sewerage, and she is not happy with the application, the questions which arose have not been addressed and she will not be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has listened to the points made by Mr Cliss, and it appears that they are both in disagreement. He added that he has seen the Fire Service in attendance previously pumping out water and there is a flooding issue in that area. Councillor Marks added that by adding extra properties on the site without a robust drainage plan he feels that there are going to be more problems for the village of Manea, and he cannot support the application without a proper robust drainage plan.

·         David Rowen stated with regards to the issue of land ownership, it is not a material planning issue, and someone does not have to own land in order to make a planning application on it. He added that if the application were to be granted then that is a matter which would need to be resolved privately.

·         David Rowen explained that with regards to drainage the application is in outline form and as Mr Hall has stated a fully worked up detailed drainage scheme would not be expected. He made the point that there would be certain basic principles to be agreed which largely appear to have been accepted by Anglian Water as they are stating that their surface water sewer has capacity to take the flow. David Rowen added that it also appears as though the Internal Drainage Board are satisfied that the flows can potentially be delivered into their water course and, therefore, as it stands he cannot see any substantive reasons why the application could not be granted with the recommended condition which would then secure a further detailed drainage scheme when the reserved matters application is submitted. He added that if members are looking to refuse the application then he would strongly caution against that with regards of the likely success of defending that at appeal as given the comments and evidence that is held he is not convinced that an appeal would not be subject to an award of costs against the Council.

·         The Legal Officer stated that he agrees with the point made by David Rowen and having listened to the debate he cannot see what evidence that there is to put before an Inspector to support an appeal and should an appeal be lodged then, in his view, there is a strong likelihood of costs as the expert consultees, Anglian Water and the Drainage Board, are not objecting and, therefore, there would be no expert evidence for the Council to say that there will be flooding issues and there is a serious risk of costs.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application was deferred last month in order to sort out the flooding issue and to ascertain who owns what and that has not been done. She added that she is aware that it is not a material consideration with regards to land ownership. Councillor Mrs French made the point that if the application is approved then there does need to be a very strong condition that should the application reach the reserved matters stage then they do not receive planning permission.

·         Councillor Marks made reference to a meeting that took place in Manea with Anglian Water and at that meeting he asked them why they keep saying yes to all of the developments and they responded that they advised that they are told by OFWAT that they have to. He questioned whether members are now airing on the side of caution due to the advice provided by officers concerning an appeal and possible costs and he questioned whether the committee are going to do the right thing for the residents in Manea who will otherwise get flooded. Councillor Marks added that the Parish Council have also made very strong representation with regards to the concern over flooding and he expressed the view that members did ask for more information to be provided and that has not happened. He stated that the Middle Level have agreed to take the water and the local IDB have as well, but the water needs to be able to get to their systems in the first place. Councillor Marks questioned as to what will happen if the water cannot reach the appropriate systems and development starts, and he expressed the view that the application needs to come back when there is an appropriately designed water strategy in place and at the moment there is not one.

·         Councillor Connor stated that costs do need to be taken into consideration as it is Council taxpayers money, however, in his view, members have a moral judgement to look after the residents as well. He added that members need to take that into consideration when they make their decision.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the application does not need to go to appeal just for 7 dwellings and it can easily be resolved by the submission of a proper drainage strategy.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he wholeheartedly agrees that the appeal route is a very expensive course of action for all parties and also takes time. He added that he is the local councillor, and he would be happy with both parties and then not take any further part in any determination of the application going forward.

·         Councillor Connor appealed to the applicant and agent not to take the application forward to an appeal as it would not expedite the application process by doing so.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned that if the application is refused then the applicant can decide to take the application forward to appeal and she asked Councillor Connor that as Chairman is he suggesting that the committee defer the application again.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the committee decide to refuse the application, it will be refused, however, it is his strong feeling that it would be in the applicant’s interest not to take the application to appeal because if they submit a drainage strategy it could come back to the committee in a far timelier manner and hopefully reach a satisfactory resolution.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and decided that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as they feel that there is a flooding issue which has not been addressed.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, and that he knows Mr Savage from when they were at school together and subsequently when he carried out some work for him as a sub-contractor, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Connor declared that he knew Mr Savage many years ago, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Manea Parish Council but takes no part in planning and further declared that the applicant is known to him in his capacity as the village postman)

(Councillors Gerstner and Sennitt Clough took no part in the application in its entirety as they were not present at the meeting on 5 March when the application was discussed and subsequently deferred)