Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site has been in the ownership of the family for over 50 years and they farm 750 acres of land. He added that a yield map was submitted for the application site but unfortunately was not submitted on time, however, officers have included it to demonstrate the part of the field where the black grass is grown is of a poor yield compared to the rest of the field.

Mr Hall stated that Manea is a growth village under Policy LP3, where a small extension may be appropriate and the application site, in his opinion, abuts permanent development to the west, and he stated that over half of the objections are not from Fenland residents whereas all of the supporters are from Manea residents. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that to the north of the application site there is continuous residential development comprising of large individual houses and the hatched areas demonstrate the approvals given with some of them being in flood zones, with the dwellings located to the east being far closer to the Ouse Washes and pointing out that the blue hatched area received planning in principle approval for 5 dwellings, and the outline application has been submitted.

Mr Hall stated that he appreciates that there needs to be an ecology report submitted as there must be biodiversity net gain. He explained that along one side of Fallow Corner Drove to the west there have been properties which have already been built out and referred to the presentation screen, pointing out a hatched area in green located in the corner which was approved by the committee and that in 2018 a large dwelling was built out of the ground by 1.82 metres, with landscaped surroundings, which, in his view, looks extremely nice where it has been built on Fallow Corner Drove.

Mr Hall stated that Anglian Water and the Environment Agency raise no objections to the application, and he added that the applicants are members of Drainage Boards and are, therefore, aware of their responsibilities with regards to drainage. He added that houses along Fallow Corner Drove have septic tanks and treatment plants and the application site is a large site and it is expected that it will also be on the same method of disposal to negate extra pressure on Anglian Waters foul water treatment plant in Manea.

Mr Hall explained that on the indicative plan which was submitted he has not shown the layout of houses, but he has included all the large highway verge and there has been no objection from the Highway Authority. He explained that it will allow for some community benefit such as the widening of Fallow Corner Drove or the introduction of a large layby if the application was approved and it would form part of the technical matters stage of the application process.

Mr Hall reiterated that Manea is a growth village, this is a small village extension in his opinion and is compliant with policy LP3. He expressed the view that there are numerous other approvals much further east and further down Fallow Corner Drove.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification as to where the location to Lavender Mill is sited? Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen, explaining that the yellow hatching located directly opposite the application site is an area of land which has a bungalow on it which has approval for several dwellings, with the green hatched area being the mill and the area further to the west is where there are two further houses which have already been built out.

·       Councillor Purser asked for clarity with regards to the agricultural land which is believed to have a poor yield. Mr Hall explained that the land is still used for agriculture and referred to the yield map pointing out the area which has a poor yield.

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

·       Councillor Marks explained that the application site is located within his ward and he has undertaken a great deal of work with Lavender Mill and the residents who live in the area and whilst he appreciates that people can look at the view across a field, he also notes that the piece of land falls into an area that could be built on. He added that it is only a PIP application and members do need to be consistent when they are considering flood zones and they have approved other applications in the vicinity. Councillor Marks made the point that the land has black grass on it which is dreadful to get rid of and he questioned what the land will be producing in years to come. He stated that when considering land usage, the Lavender Mill application has resulted in an improvement in drainage and there are no longer any flooding issues on the corner, with the Lavender Mill site discharging into the Anglian Water system and he highlighted the area to members by referring them to the presentation screen. Councillor Marks added that for those dwellings which are connected to septic tanks, in his view, that is a bonus and for the proposed dwellings to be connected to septic tanks is a bonus as it is not putting more pressure on Anglian Water for the sewage work. He referred to the presentation screen and indicated an area which has been given permission for 115 houses and the water from those homes will be discharging directly into the mains system which is going to cause issues. Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the area is a disused mill which is being used as a garage and he added that he understands that, in time, it will be removed and become a barn conversion.

·       The Legal Officer stated that the application is subject to an objection from Natural England, and the habitats regulations requires that a planning authority has to conduct a screening exercise considering the ecological information that it is provided with. He added that as a result of the screening exercise it then must undertake an appropriate assessment as there are the SPA and SSI areas nearby, however, at the current time, members do not have any environmental information to support the application or any ecological information. The Legal Officer explained that if members are minded to approve the application, the habitat regulations would prevent an approval from being granted in the absence of ecological information. He explained that it would not only be a breach of guidance, but it would also be a breach of the regulations and as a result would mean it is an unlawful decision being taken against the regulations if approval were to be granted.

·       Councillor Connor stated that as this application is for a PIP which is only concerned with land usage, the SSI and SPA can be considered at a later stage in the application process. The Legal Officer stated that is not correct as members are being asked today to determine an application in principle and conditions cannot be imposed on a PIP and even if they could it would not be possible to override the need to consider whether screening is required. He added that members cannot grant permission and further down the line it may become apparent that there is going to be an adverse impact on the SSI or area of special conservation.

·       Councillor Connor questioned that if the further detail does not meet the required specifications then it will not get built out anyway. The Legal Officer explained that the regulations stated that the Council does not grant a PIP application in the absence of any ecological supporting information. Matthew Leigh added that it is his understanding that the legislation is not solely based on planning and it is about any decision that the Council makes and it is the legislation which impacts on any decision that the Council makes. He added that the legislation imposes its own restrictions on planning outside of the normal decisions. The Legal Officer added that is correct and he is focussing on the application before members and the committee cannot lawfully grant the application but it can be deferred or refused but it cannot be granted otherwise it would be in breach of the regulations.

·       Councillor Marks questioned that if the committee voted to defer the application it could be deferred on just the one item? The Legal Officer stated that technically yes, but the whole application would have to come back to members for reconsideration.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there appears to be anomalies when considering PIP applications. The Legal Officer explained that he is advising the committee that English Nature have pointed out that the committee do not have the ecological information before them to make a decision in principle to approve the application. He added that if the applicant supplies the missing information then English Nature may then be happy but at the current time the information is not present.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the Legal Officer has advised the committee that they can refuse or defer the application based on the legal advice provided.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that based on the legal advice provided the application should be deferred in order to receive the ecological information and he questioned whether it can just be deferred on that aspect. The Legal Officer clarified that the application cannot be split into different elements for deferral and the application needs to be deferred in its entirety.

·       Councillor Mrs French questioned whether there is going to be a timescale added to this application to allow the applicant to provide the missing information? Matthew Leigh explained that the advice that he would give the committee would be not to place a restriction on a deferral because if there is an issue to be resolved then that needs to be overcome.

·       Councillor Murphy requested clarification that the advice that members are being given is to defer the application. Councillor Connor confirmed that is correct.

It was proposed by Councillor Murphy to refuse the application, which did not receive a seconder and, therefore, this proposal failed.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED for the applicant to provide ecological information.

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

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he has been lobbied on this application. He further 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)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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