Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney stated, that as set out in the committee report, the proposal is acceptable in principle, and she would suggest that the matters before committee this afternoon are capable of being addressed in a proportionate and policy compliant manner. She made the point that the scheme was before committee for 7 dwellings previously and the rear element of the development has been removed as per the concerns.

Ms Penney expressed the view that the current recommendation for refusal rests on two reasons, firstly concerns relating to living accommodation standards and private amenity space and secondly concerns regarding flood risk. She referred to the first issue of internal space standards and garden provision, with the report acknowledging that bedrooms 1 and 2 meet the nationally described space standards and the concern arises in respect of bedrooms 3 and 4, however, this is largely a consequence of how these rooms have been labelled and illustrated on the submitted plans, rather than any fundamental deficiency in the built form itself.

Ms Penney stated that importantly the application description does not fix the number or function of the bedrooms and as such there is a straightforward and reasonable solution available through the use of a planning condition. She made the point that they would be entirely content to accept a condition specifying that bedroom 3 is to be used as a single bedroom and bedroom 4 is a study or home office, with this approach bringing the development fully in line with the national space standards.

Ms Penney expressed the view that planning practice guidance is clear that conditions should be used positively to enhance the quality of development and to enable proposals to proceed where they might otherwise be refused. She feels, in this instance, such a condition would directly address the identified concern without requiring any physical alteration to the scheme and, in her view, both reasonable and consistent with the national guidance to resolve this matter through condition, rather than refusal.

Ms Penney made the point that, in terms of private amenity space, Policy LP16h of the Local Plan states the expectation for one third of the plot to be garden space as a guide rather than a rigid requirement, the committee itself confirms the proposed garden areas are broadly in the region of one third of each plot. She feels that given the policy is written with an intentionally flexible manner, and the scheme broadly aligns with that guidance, it is difficult to conclude that the level of private amenity space is so deficient so to justify a refusal and when taken together with the ability to control internal accommodation through a condition, the overall standard of amenity provided by this scheme is, in her opinion, entirely acceptable and consistent with the spirit of the Local Plan.

Ms Penney referred to the second reason for refusal, which is flood risk, and noting that the site is within Flood Zone 1, it is important to consider the recent planning history of the site, in 2024 an application for 7 dwellings was submitted under reference F/YR24/0276 and in that case the Environment Agency accepted a mitigation strategy comprising finished floor levels set at 2.2 metres AOD, at least 0.3 metres above typical ground level and alongside flood resilient construction up to 1 metre above ground level, with no refusal relating to flood risk imposed at that time. She stated that, in the current application, they are proposing exactly the same mitigation measures, there has been no change in national policy, no change in local policy and no change in the site’s flood risk context yet they are now faced with a reason for refusal suggesting that these measures are insufficient.

Ms Penney suggested that this introduces an inconsistency in decision making, which is difficult to justify and, in her view, in the absence of any material change in circumstances, it would not align with good planning practice to reach a different conclusion on technical issues. She added that the Environment Agency’s own consultation response provides a clear pathway forward in that where achieving higher finished floor levels is constrained by other material considerations, such as the building height and character, it is the applicant to provide justification and for the Local Planning Authority to weigh those factors in the planning balance.

Ms Penney referred to the indicative street scene where it can be seen that the proposed dwellings sit comfortably within the established character of High Road, increasing ridge heights to achieve higher floor levels would result in buildings that are visibly out of scale and incongruous within their context, which would introduce a clear and demonstrable harm to the character of the area. In her view, there is sound planning justification for maintaining the proposed levels and when combined with the flood mitigation measures which were already accepted on this site, she submits that the development can reasonably be considered safe for its lifetime and that the Environment Agency’s concerns can be addressed through committee’s planning judgement as decision maker.

Ms Penney concluded that this is a scheme that is supported in principle, that delivers four new dwellings in a sustainable location, and where the reasons for refusal are not insurmountable. She requested that planning permission be granted.

Members asked questions of Ms Penney as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked if there were any other three-storey dwellings along this road as it does seem out of character as most of the dwellings seem to be traditionally built. Ms Penney responded that she is not aware of any three-storey in the immediate vicinity of the site, but they have looked at it very carefully so to increase the floor levels to meet flood risk requirements they have had to push rooms into the roof space but have tried to keep the ridge level down so from the street scene everything is level. She added that despite it being described as three-storey it is a traditional two-storey height.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the current building looks quite good, it has solar panels on it so somebody loved it in its recent history because money is not spent on a house that is falling down. He asked if there is anything structurally wrong with the existing building or does someone want to knock it down to accommodate more houses on the site? Ms Penney suggested the latter.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to the reason that the Environment Agency object is because of the 1.3 metre above ground level, and it has been said this has been addressed and asked if it had been addressed? Ms Penney responded that there was a previous application on this site, where they proposed the same mitigation measures as in 1.3 and 2.2 and that was accepted by the Environment Agency, but for whatever reason that she is unaware of, it is now not acceptable to do this but there is a slight clawback in their response which says that if you are not able to increase the floor levels for reasons such as form and character then that would potentially be acceptable but that is a judgement call for the Local Planning Authority. She expressed the opinion that if they were to increase the ridge levels any higher then there would be an inconsistency seen in the street scene and she feels that this is a reason to allow the floor levels to remain the same bearing in mind that it was previously accepted. Ms Penney made the point that the site also lies in Flood Zone 1 and it is only a very small sliver at the back that lies within Flood Zone 3, which she believes is what has triggered the Flood Risk Assessment and, in her view, it all stacks up in flood risk terms.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney referred to the agent mentioning the acceptable flood risk from a previous application and asked why this is not acceptable this time, have things changed? Danielle Brooke responded that the Environment Agency provided comments on the first Flood Risk Assessment that was submitted saying that there was not a site-specific breach analysis undertaken and on the previous application, although she is not totally aware of this application, the circumstances were that the mitigation measures on that application were acceptable. She continued that whatever evidence was used on the previous application to prove that those measures were acceptable were not included in this application, they have just plucked those figures back from the previous application and said well it was acceptable then it must be now and the Environment Agency has said where is your evidence to prove that and this has not been submitted for this application. Danielle Brooke made the point that their policy objection is that the evidence needs to be provided to prove that the 1.3 metres as suggested is acceptable, which was not included within the application. She added that the applicant was requested to submit that information, but they chose not to. Councillor Benney clarified that officers have asked for something and it has not come forward and, therefore, it is incomplete and if it had been provided officers could have come up with an answer that would have mitigated that risk or removed that reason for refusal. Danielle Brooke confirmed this to be correct, they may have mitigated the issues and then the Environment Agency may have removed its objection, but they did not in this case.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is an incomplete application, and committee has always said if it is not complete then it will not get approved, making the point that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that he is usually pro-development but thinks officers have got this decision right as the flood risk information has not been submitted.

·       Councillor Imafidon agreed that it is not a complete application with the report by the Environment Agency and the officer has made the correct recommendation.

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