Agenda item

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Daniel Samuel, the applicant. Mr Samuel stated that the proposal is for up to nine self-build dwellings, which addresses strong demand and a lack of supply offering opportunities to build dream homes. He added that the plots may attract higher earners and executives boosting investment, creating jobs, supporting Manea train station, local builders and tradesmen along with local building material suppliers.

Mr Samuel made the point that the committee has previously supported self-build developments and he would hope that the committee will support his application. He stated that the officer’s recommendation of refusal lists five reasons, firstly that it is claimed that the development is situated outside the settlement of Manea and within open countryside, however, in his opinion, that assertion is incorrect as from the junction of Station Road located on the southern side of Wimblington Road there is an agricultural building with permission granted for conversion to housing, a skip hire yard, a commercial fishing lake with caravan, motor home and caravan facilities, a dwelling at the proposed site, an agricultural warehouse, a motorsports engineering workshop, a dog kennel operation and a further dwelling.

Mr Samuel stated that across from the site entrance there are three dwellings and a sizeable commercial establishment and, therefore, in his view, the application site is not isolated or undeveloped countryside, and he referred to Braintree District Council and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He referred to the second recommended reason for refusal where it states that the location is not ideal for walking and cycling due to the road speed limit and the absence of pavements and street lighting but made the point that these same conditions apply to the developments previously mentioned and, in his opinion, his application should be evaluated on the same basis.

Mr Samuel referred to the third recommended reason for refusal where it states that the property lies in Flood Zone 3 and made the point that a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment including surface water drainage strategy that he has just received indicates that only 50% of the site is at medium flood risk. He added that in the event of a flood from a combined breach of defences, the water depth would reach just 25cm without fast flowing currents which will pose a low hazard and the likelihood of such a breach is minimal and most of the dwellings can avoid flood risk zones and those within such areas can be safely elevated to mitigate loss.

Mr Samuel expressed the view that members highly value the IDB’s management of flood defences and water systems leading to the committee’s approval of developments in flood risk areas particularly large and self-build homes. He added that a recent example was the approval of a self-build home at Honeybank, Second Drove, Chatteris which was contrary to the officer’s recommendation, and he made the point that his proposal should be addressed on the same basis.

Mr Samuel referred to the fourth reason for recommendation for refusal which is for loss of habitat for overwintering birds and stated that the site lies approximately 2.3km from the Ouse Washes protected area which encompasses over 1,600 hectares, equivalent to 2,286 football pitches within that radius from just one point. He expressed the opinion that given the vast area surrounding the Ouse Washes it is highly unlikely that given the small size of the site that it would significantly impact bird habitat.

Mr Samuel made reference to the fifth recommended reason for refusal with regards to loss and degradation of peat soils and explained that site excavation would be limited to foundations, drainage and utility infrastructure with soil redistributed on site causing no loss or degradation. He explained that the proposal could offer improvements as agricultural use would leave peat more exposed and vulnerable to wind erosion which is documented in the Cambridgeshire Fens.

Mr Samuel concluded by stating that the proposed development will bring much needed self-build plots to the village of Manea, and these will help to sustain the village facilities, builders and local trades people. He made the point that the site is not in isolated countryside and the site is no less accessible than the other approved developments along Wimblington Road.

Mr Samuel stated that a substantial part of the site is free from flood risk and the rest allows for safe development with the loss of habitat being minimal in relation to the area that will remain available for the bird population. He expressed the view that there will be negligible loss or degradation of peat soils, and he asked the committee to support his proposal.

Members asked Mr Samuel the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that from Wimblington Road T junction and all the way along the straight, he is aware of one new development approximately 2 miles out of the village along that stretch of road and there has been no other development for at least 18 years. He referred to the point made by Mr Samuel who stated that the proposal would fit in nicely, and he asked him to confirm why he feels it is a sustainable place to develop when it is outside the village? Mr Samuel stated that he disagrees with the point made by Councillor Marks, referring to a planning application for Rutland Manor in 2021, which was to convert an extension along with the application for development at Rutland Farm for commercial use, along with the other developments which have taken place within a certain period. He added that there have been developments in that area for some time.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he disagrees and added that apart from Gant Farm where they have converted a barn, and at the end of Wimblington Road there is an application for two dwellings, however, along that stretch of road there is no other development being built along there to the best of his knowledge for the last 18 years.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the applicant’s presentation slides where it states that there is a footpath, however, the footpath which goes down the side is only able to be used for three months of the year due to the mud but there is nothing from the applicant’s development site into the village. Councillor Marks stated that the applicant makes reference to a footpath but there is not one and there is a dyke which has been filled in past the skip company but that is not a footpath, and the road has a 60mph speed limit. Mr Samuel stated that the footpath adjacent to the property is a footpath for cyclists and people walking to the village centre and it is the same footpath that exists along Wimblington Road. Mr Samuel referred to the presentation screen and indicated to the committee where the footpath is located. Councillor Marks stated that the area which Mr Samuel had referred to was actually not a footpath and he added that it is actually a grass verge owned by the County Council which was only introduced four or 5 years ago. He added that the road has a speed limit of 60mph which has been subject to a number of accidents.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that the road is not of a good standard of repair. Mr Samuel stated that he disagrees and added that the road is in a good state of repair and has seen no accidents in the last decade. He added that the response received from the Department of Transport has demonstrated that there has not been a single accident in the last decade. Mr Samuel explained that the Highway Authority responded to one of the neighbouring properties and have confirmed that their records show that there has not been a single accident on that stretch of road in the last 5 years.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is aware that a Poat Office van went through the fence into that property about four years ago. He added that a skip lorry went into the dyke along with another lorry which went into the other side on the left as well as another resident in the village who went into the dyke and spent 2 months in hospital following an accident. Councillor Marks made the point that whilst it is not an accident blackspot there have been numerous accidents along that stretch of road where Mr Samuel’s property is located. He added that there is no footpath for pedestrians and the application is for up to nine dwellings on the site. Councillor Marks added that the letters of support appear to be from families, and he asked Mr Samuel whether he has taken into consideration the risk to families living there with no proper footpath or street lighting? Mr Samuel stated that he disagrees with the points made by Councillor Marks due to the fact that the Highway Authority have looked at the development and have no objection to the proposal. He added that if the neighbouring properties objected to the proposal, then they would have been present at the committee to make their objections. Mr Samuel stated that the neighbours have all reiterated the comments made by Councillor Marks but none of them have turned up today.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that the neighbours are aware just how vocal he is as their local Councillor, who knows the area and knows the property and who has sat in the Parish Council meeting. He added that with regards to the Parish Council meeting, the Parish Councillors are elected officials and have lived in the village for a number of years whereas Mr Samuel has only lived in the village for less than a year.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Samuel how he can consider that the application he has submitted is a good application for nine self-build dwellings which have these issues. Mr Samuel stated that he totally disagrees, and he would not have contemplated submitting an application or considered building properties if it was not safe. He added that safety of people is a priority for him and there are developments all along this area which are clearly not in the open countryside and there are properties to the left and the right.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the application site is in Flood Zone 3, and he is a member of the Manea and Welney IDB where the site would feed into. He explained that at the T junction at Wimblington Road there is a culvert and that backs up according to the IDB Engineer who has said that they are unhappy to take the water. Councillor Marks asked Mr Samuel to explain what steps he is going to take in order to deal with the water which will come from the application site should the application be approved? Mr Samuel explained that he commissioned a Flood Risk Assessment report with a surface water drainage strategy and that has listed the development as being totally safe and there is nothing wrong with the application and nothing wrong with the flooding in that location. He stated that half of the plots on the site have no associated risks whatsoever and the other half which have a flood risk element will be elevated.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is a County Councillor, and she sits on the Highways and Transport Committee and with regards to accident reporting, the County Council only record accidents which result in fatalities. She explained that there have been various accidents along that stretch of road which has meant that the road has had to be closed but the County Council will only provide statistics concerning fatalities.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the application appears to be backland development and is in the open countryside. She stated that at the top of the road there is a Public Right of Way, and she asked whether Mr Samuel has introduced a gate in order to stop the public from being able to access it? Mr Samuel stated that there is no public right of way.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there is a metre width down the side of the fence to the dyke in order to allow access. He added that it should be a metre but it is a little less but that was down to the previous owners who erected the fence and there was a dispute, with the measurement taken from either the centre of the dyke to the fence or the metre left so there is a walkway to the left and he does not believe it is gated as it is a maintained Public Right of Way.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what is being farmed on the site at the current time? Mr Samuel stated that it is not used for farming, and it is only used for residential purposes. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would question that as it is certainly open countryside, and it used to be farmed and, in her opinion, it looks as though it has something growing on there unless it is just grass, and Mr Samuel is cutting it.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has noticed some garages on the site which have been built, and he asked whether any planning permission has been granted for them. Mr Samuel stated that the garages were there before he purchased the property. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that the garages that are on the site with the brown fronts were added after Mr Samuel moved in. Mr Samuel stated that he does not agree with the point made by Councillor Marks.

·         Councillor Connor asked officers to look into that matter at a later time.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney questioned whether there is anything special with this application which means it is exempt from nearly every planning policy as it appears to contradict many elements. David Rowen stated that the officer consideration of the application is set out within the report.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she realises that the application is a planning in principle application (PIP), and questioned that when considering a self-build application there appears to be a lack of control, asking whether her understanding is correct and if the application was approved eventually what the controls would be. David Rowen stated that if a PIP application were to be granted, it cannot be subject to any planning condition or planning obligation and, therefore, it would not be possible to secure the delivery of self-build through the PIP. He stated that if the PIP was approved then potentially there is the mechanism to give weight to that in the determination of the application then there would potentially be an expectation that the further technical details consent might come forward as a self-build and that could be tied. David Rowen explained that ultimately it is a case of determining whether it is an acceptable location for housing.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application should be refused as it does not comply with policy as the application is in the open countryside and the officer’s recommendation is correct, and the application should be refused.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is time that there was a policy introduced for self-build applications as they are very complicated applications to deal with and cause many issues.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees that the application is very poor, and the Parish Council were also of the same opinion. He made the point that the letters in support of the application are from a great distance away and not very many from the local area. Councillor Marks added that there are a number of objections from the village of Manea, and he congratulated officers for a very comprehensive report and feels their recommendation is 100% correct. He stated that if the application is resubmitted then he would hope a great deal of thought and consideration is given to it before it is resubmitted.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(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)