Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Alison Hutchinson, the Agent.

Ms Hutchinson noted that the concerns of Parish Council have been stated but that there are exceptional circumstances with the redevelopment of this brownfield site which have removed the ability of the applicant to make S106 contributions.

She added that when outline planning permission was granted in 2016 the viability of the scheme was tight and it was agreed that the applicants could only make a partial contribution towards education and no provision for affordable housing.

Ms Hutchinson stated that following the grant of permission, the applicants sought to market the site but it was made clear that prospective purchasers were not willing to take on the costs of clearing the site and as a consequence, the applicants had to take on that work themselves. Before doing so, Natural England required additional surveys for bats to be carried out before they would agree to the demolition of the buildings in advance of any approved detailed replacement scheme which significantly delayed the project. However, the applicants have also had to carry out the archaeological and contamination surveys and to discharge the relevant conditions. All this has added to the costs and prevented the previous planning permission being able to be implemented.

Ms Hutchinson added that the result is that the costs of demolition and clearance are now known and were considerably larger than previously anticipated in the original application. When combined with the significant costs of drainage and the highway works required by the highway authority, as well as normal house build costs, this has led to fact that the scheme cannot now be made viable with any contributions. This is regrettable but is a direct result of the very significant and known costs of removing the old and dilapidated Lavender Mill. These costs have been made known to the Council in the latest viability assessment and are agreed by the Council’s own experts.

Ms Hutchinson concluded by stating that the applicants now have a prospective purchaser and asked members to  approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation to allow the site to be built out and complete the removal of what is termed a ‘blot on the landscape’ by the Parish Council.

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

·         Councillor Hay asked for clarification with regard to one of the objections raised by Manea Parish Council, who have stated that the proposal does not include public open space. Councillor Hay stated that at 3.2 in the officer’s report it states that the proposal includes an area of children’s play area and asked for confirmation as to whether this would be classed as public open space. David Rowen confirmed that the indicative layout plan shows an area of open play space and that would be secured under condition 13 on page 42 of the agenda.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that at 5.11 of the officer’s report, it states that the Council would not wish to adopt any more open spaces or play areas and they should be managed and maintained by the developer or offered to the Parish Council.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he does not believe the Parish Council would look to adopt any open space at the present time. Councillor Murphy stated that it does say it ‘could’ be offered to the Parish Council.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion, that he is not surprised by the frustrations raised by the Parish Council however it is Central Government who give the directive that viability has to be taken into consideration. He added that he is pleased to see the pavement linking to Westfield Road is still included, and has to be constructed before any occupancy takes place on the site. He stated that he is concerned with the comments raised by Leisure Services who do not want to adopt any further open space.

·         Councillor Hay expressed the opinion that she can see no reason for this application not to be granted. She added she is pleased to see that there is already somebody interested in building the site out. She stated that she would like to see added within the conditions, a reference made with regard to restrictions of the hours of work, within condition 12, where it clearly sets out when work can be carried out on the site.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he is frustrated with the absence of a section 106 agreement. He stated that if the play area is going to be managed by a management company, could a bond be taken against them, in case of bankruptcy.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he agrees with the comments raised by both Councillor Hay and Councillor Benney. He added that he also has concerns with regard to Anglian Water being able to supply all the additional dwellings. The villagers of Manea have noticed that water tankers have been visiting the area since the Covid 19 lockdown already, and due to the proposal of the additional houses, it is a worry whether the village has the capacity to cope with an additional number of dwellings.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regard to the question concerning a bond, this is something that could be put in place however there could be associated problems if one was included, as it could have further implications and the Council would end up adopting the area.

·         David Rowen added that if members are minded to approve the application, then it would be possible to add a clause to condition 12 with regard to operating hours.

·         David Rowen stated that with regard to the concerns raised in relation to water issues. It would be down to Anglian Water to ensure that they have the infrastructure which is fit for purpose and they have an obligation to do that under drainage legislation.

Proposed by Councillor Benney seconded by Councillor Hay and decided that the application be APPROVED, as per Officer’s recommendation. (to include the clause alongside condition 12, with regard to hours of work)