Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated that the application seeks approval for the erection of three dwellings on the application site and subsequent biodiversity BNG metric would be produced as part of any future reserved matters application, which would address the mandatory 10% BNG requirement. He stated that the planning officer’s report at 1.2 makes reference to the fact that the proposal represents a form of development which fails to respect the built form of this part of the village, but he drew members attention to application F/YR24/0635/RM, which the committee approved for 24 two-storey dwellings, immediately to the north of the site, which goes further back behind Westfield Road than the current application before the committee.

Mr Bevens drew members attention to F/YR23/0337/F, which was for the erection of four dwellings, 2, two-storey three-bedroomed dwellings and two single-storey houses at land south of 37A Westfield Road, opposite the site, which was approved by the committee in August 2024. He added that both these applications offer development behind the main frontage of Westfield Road and made the point that if the application is approved then a full foul and surface water strategy will support a reserved matters application.

Mr Bevens referred to 1.3 of the officer’s report regarding the long nature of the access and he explained that details of external lighting would form part of the reserved matters application and there is no reason to assume that the lighting or the height of the dwellings will give rise to a detrimental impact on nearby dwellings. He explained that plot 1 is over 45 metres away from 104 Westfield Road and 40 metres away from 98 Westfield Road, with the properties orientated at 90 degrees to the houses fronting onto Westfield Road to avoid any loss of privacy or overlooking and, in his view, he cannot foresee how any long term disturbance will be caused other than the limited time to construct the development any more than the adjacent approved scheme for 24 dwellings.

Mr Bevens circulated a hand out to members of the committee and stated that officers have referred to the application site as to being in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and he explained that it is only part of plot three that enters Flood Zone 2.  He stated that plots 1 and 2 are not located inside Flood Zones 2 or 3 and made the point that the Council has recently approved a number of schemes in the immediate proximity of the site and these are indicated on the circulated handout.

Mr Bevens added that these sites are located on a lower point than the proposed scheme which includes the four-bedroomed dwelling at Westwood Farm which was approved a few years ago, 2 four-bedroomed houses along Fallow Corner Drove and four-bedroomed dwellings at 106 and 110 Westfield Road. He explained that as part of the reserved matters application a subsequent drainage strategy as well as full details of flood mitigation measures will be detailed to ensure that properties do not flood, and he asked members to reconsider the recommendation for the application and grant the application.

Members asked Mr Bevens the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks questioned Mr Bevens as it is his understanding that he was involved with F/YR20/0186/F which was an application for one single dwelling located by the barn, and he indicated it on the presentation screen. He asked how far out of the ground that needed to be built due to flood mitigation measures which had to be incorporated? Mr Bevens stated that he was advised by the drainage consultant to build approximately two metres out of the ground. Councillor Marks asked how much further out of the ground will that stand compared to the proposed three dwellings? Mr Bevens stated that the three proposed are not as low as the four-bedroomed dwelling at Westwood Farm. He added that the flood risk consultant suggested that 300mm of flood resilient construction but, in his view, he does not see them being anywhere near that far out of the ground. Councillor Marks asked whether Mr Bevens would agree that the dwellings would not be seen as you drive down Westfield Road? Mr Bevens stated that is correct.

·         Councillor Benney asked for clarity with regards to the location of what flood zones the dwellings will be located in. Mr Bevens stated that plots 1 and 2 are not in Flood Zones 2 and 3, part of plot three is located in Flood Zone 2. Councillor Benney asked whether the actual building is located in Flood Zone 2? Mr Bevens confirmed that it is only part of it. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the maps are so far out of date, and he asked whether the attenuation ponds will be located in Flood Zone 3? Mr Bevens confirmed that is correct.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that he knows the area well and he rents a shed in the next-door adjoining buildings, with there having been various developments which have appeared over a period and there have been developments which the committee have refused due to land use and access concerns. He stated that he is very much in favour of this application as are the Parish Council and he has considered what the agent has said with regards to flood zones and added that the property which is raised out of the ground, in his view, looks very much out of place because of the height of the building. Councillor Marks made reference to the handout provided to the committee by Mr Bevens which indicates the other developments, and he stated that he will support the application against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the word consistency is used on many occasions when the committee determine applications, and he recalls visiting Manea and reviewing all of the developments that the committee had approved in the area. He stated that to remain consistent he does not see any difference with the application before the committee and he will support it.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Marks that it is a good solid development, and he recalled passing another property in Fallow Corner Drove which needed to be built 6 foot out of the ground, however, now it looks very good and does not look out of place. He added with regards to the point being made that the site is located in the open countryside when you consider Glebe Close which is in very short walking distance from the site that actually goes out much further into the open countryside than the application site does. Councillor Benney expressed the view that there comes a time where you have to build where you can build, and he questioned whether Manea should be filled with lots of little houses or whether it would be better to see some nice dwellings. He added that the site further along was approved a few weeks ago and he believes that there needs to be some consistency, and he added that this site and application is worthy of passing.

·         Councillor Marks added that as far as he is aware he has never known the application site to flood and the Darcy Lode runs to the bottom of that and he has never seen that part of the Darcy Lode flood either and, therefore, he has no concerns with regards to flooding at the site.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Parish Council have raised no objection to the application and that should be taken into consideration.

·         The Legal Officer stated that the Code of Conduct and Constitution states that if there has been a recent refusal and should any member wish to propose the application for approval, then that proposing member needs to explain the change in planning circumstances since the last refusal.

·         Councillor Connor confirmed that the last refusal was in 2021.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he will propose that the application be approved against the officer’s recommendation as the field above the red line as shown on the presentation screen has now got development along with the area across the road from the application site and a number of properties have been granted planning permission within the local area. He added that the house that is raised out of the ground has also been granted permission and, therefore, within the last 3 years there has been a significant amount of development in the area.

·         Councillor Marks referred to LP12 and LP16 stating that those parts of the Local Plan are very subjective, and he does not feel it can be seen as inappropriate when there are another 20 dwellings to be developed in the vicinity. He stated that the Parish Council are in favour of the proposal, and he cannot see it as making any difference to the streetscene as the properties will not be able to be seen.

·         The Legal Officer stated that with regards to Flood Zones 2 and 3, there needs to be clarification with regards to why that is not a reason for refusal. Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the bottom property on the left-hand side which is built in Flood Zone 3 and mitigation measures were included so that it was built out of the ground and, therefore, in order to remain consistent there has already been approval given for a dwelling in Flood Zone 3 less than three years ago.

·         David Rowen highlighted the difference between the current application and the application that Councillor Marks had made reference to, namely Westwood Farm. He added that he recalls that the dwelling was granted because there was actually a need that the committee accepted in relation to a dwelling being required on the site and a tie through condition of the occupancy of that dwelling to the adjacent commercial operation. David Rowen added that consequently there would be no need for a sequential test in that instance as opposed to the current proposal which does not have those sort of site specific circumstances and, therefore, there is a fairly distinct difference between the two sites in terms of consideration of flood risk.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is not aware on what grounds the previous application was refused on and the agent has explained that only a small proportion of one of the dwellings is located within Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, he is considering the application on face value today, with only one property out of the three being in Flood Zone 3 and members have heard previously that maps alter fairly regularly. He stated that officers have advised that they cannot do an overlay map and advised that is down to the responsibility of the agent which he understands, however, there is one property in Flood Zone 3, others in Flood Zone 2 and he feels that the committee needs to be consistent.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the agent has confirmed that only half of one of the properties is located in Flood Zone 3 and it conflicts with officers’ opinion. He added that two of the dwellings are probably in Flood Zone 2 and 3 and at Chairman’s briefing it was discussed that it was down to the agent to undertake the proper work and, in his opinion, the agent has undertaken the proper work. Councillor Connor added that there are mitigation measures which can be looked at and he is happy to support the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that in Elm, several years ago, there was an application where the dwelling was in Flood Zone 1 and next door was in Flood Zone 2 and it was noted that the dwelling in Flood Zone 2 was actually higher out of the ground than that in Flood Zone 1. He expressed the view that the maps are very vague as are the maps that the Environment Agency publish. Councillor Benney stated that most of Fenland goes from Flood Zone 3 to Flood Zone 1 and he made the point that there should be Flood Zone 2 between the other two zones but for 90% of the area there is not.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with conditions delegated to officers in conjunction with the proposer and seconder.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that there is other development which has been granted permission in the vicinity and, therefore, a precedent has already been set.

(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)