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 Mr Holliday the applicant.

Mr Holliday explained that the 3 acre field on which he lives has been in the family for some 20 years plus, with his wife inheriting the field from her late mother 8 years ago and they have been living here since taking over the plot from their uncle 7 years ago. He added that there is a further 7 acres with stabling that they own approximately 200 metres down the track that runs alongside them where they house their 6 horses and this land has been in the family in excess of 35 years and in their direct ownership for 7 years. He added that his wife was brought up in Guyhirn living in the house immediately to the left of the drive leading onto High Road where his father in law still lives and they have other family very close by. 

Mr Holliday stated that in the officer’s report it mentions the issue of flooding and the report is quite right to highlight that they currently live in a single storey prefabricated dwelling in a flood zone. He added that he has submitted a third Flood Risk Assessment which he has been assured addresses all of the Environment Agency (EA) recommendations and from his my experience as a National lead water rescue officer with the Fire & Rescue Service he has witnessed the devastation that flooding can do to property and communities, so he is keen to incorporate a solution that will satisfy the EA, with the proposal also scaling down the requirement for 2 caravans being on site during construction to 1 at the suggestion of the EA.

Mr Holliday stated that the officer report explains that it is not policy to replace a temporary structure with a permanent dwelling and added that the issuing of a certificate of lawfulness for his park home last year provided his family with a permanent status for his existing dwelling forevermore. He added that his family have no ambition to move from this site, as they have too many ties in the area to move, with the application being to replace a permanently sited park home, which is showing its age in both design and wear and tear, with a more modern, efficient, environmental friendly, and, in his opinion, better looking two storey property. Mr Holliday expressed the view that with regard to the scale and massing of the design they have not tried to hide the fact that what they are asking for is larger than they are currently occupying. He expressed the view that they have tried to design a family home that is fit for purpose for their lifestyle and for the number of likely users at present and for the future and added that their two daughters both have long term partners who spend time with him and his mother is 84, living alone which is not sustainable long term, so the proposal would allow for him and his wife to care for her in their home when necessary. There are properties that have been extended in close proximity to them which are now of a similar scale and mass to their design.

Mr Holliday stated that he disagrees with the officers report saying “that the development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area”. and expressed the opinion, that the approach to their property is through a bus yard along with a coal merchant to one side. He expressed the view that his family want to improve the look and character of their dwelling again by replacing a tired old park home with a fresh nice looking property.  and he is not aware of any objections to either the size and scale or the character and appearance of the proposal, and there has been support from local people on these issues.

Mr Holliday stated that the officers report makes mention of the established bus yard, and clarified that he has long standing access rights at all times to his property. He also clarified that the original lighting on the yard was upgraded last year to LED and works very well from dusk to dawn, there is approximately 5 metres where an area that moves from the bus yard to the boundary is darker which can be easily rectified, otherwise once on their property security lighting is activated on their drive.

Mr Holliday stated  that, the bus and coal yards did have planning permission for a number of houses granted about 15 years ago which would have seen properties up to his boundary approximately 10 metres away, and will in all likelihood be put forward again for development in the future.  He feels that  his certificate of lawfulness grants him the right to have a residential dwelling on site indefinitely, and he stated that they are currently living in a single storey dwelling in a flood risk, so a two storey property with flood mitigating arrangements would provide a safer place for his family, especially by having the second floor refuge area.

Mr Holliday stated that he has received support from the Parish Council and local residents and he is not aware of any objections to the proposal from statutory consultees except from the EA . He  concluded by stating that they would like to replace an old park home with a modern, environmentally friendly fit for purpose dwelling that is safer in terms of flood risk and physical security and  is sustainable, giving betterment in terms of health and wellbeing for his family and future families a like.

Members asked Mr Holliday the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Holliday whether he has known any incidents of flooding over the last 35 years? Mr Holliday confirmed that there has been none.

Members asked Officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked for clarification with regard to the Certificate of Lawfulness and whether when it was issued would a condition have been included to state that a full application could not be applied for? David Rowen stated that Certificate of Lawfulness demonstrates that the site had been used for the siting of a mobile home for the requisite period of time of 10 years, and therefore, the use of the site for a mobile home was lawful but it has no bearing of the future use of the site.

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

·         Councillor Sutton raised concern with an application which is described as a temporary dwelling but has a Certificate of Lawful use which in reality means that there is full planning permission for perpetuity. He added that the (EA) have raised an issue with regard to there being 2 caravans on the site during the construction phase, but feels that the application should be approved as it improves all the concerns that are in place with regard to flood zone 3. He added that within the EA report it states that if flooding occurs on that site it could reach a depth of 1.6 metres and if that particular area suffered flooding to that extent, then it would have a bearing on many other people and the only way to make people safe on that particular plot is to allow a two storey dwelling.

·         David Rowen stated that lawful use of the site is for residential purposes and that has been proven with regard to the Certificate of Lawful Development and allowing the mobile home on the site for the requisite amount of time. He stated that he appreciates the comments raised by Councillor Sutton with regard to adding a first floor which would potentially make the site safer from a flooding perspective, but from a policy perspective should effectively mobile homes be allowed on site without planning permission for a period of time to establish a residential use on site and then to be replaced with substantive dwellings in locations where dwellings would not be allowed in the first place.

·         David Rowen stated that with regard to the concerns Councillor Sutton had raised with regard to flood zone 3 and different flood depths which differ from site to site, officers are guided by what the EA dictate and the modelling work that they have undertaken and they provide advice and guidance as one of the statutory consultees with regard to flood risk.

·         Councillor Hay stated that this application goes against Policy LP12 c of the Local Plan, which states that a replacement dwelling should be of a similar scale and size of what it is replacing as the total floor area would be 353% of the existing floor space. She expressed the view that it will be out of keeping for that particular area and she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that to replace a 2 storey dwelling in flood zone three will make the family safer than living in a caravan. He added that the Parish Council support the application and there are no letters of objection to the proposal.

·         Councillor Cornwell highlighted that any existing properties would also suffer if the flood waters rose to 1.6 metres.  He added that the he cannot understand why we would want to stop the applicant from creating a better quality of life for his family when he already has permission.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that by approving the application it will ensure that the family live in a safer environment. He added that the officer’s recommendation has followed the guidance and policy apart from the fact that in his opinion, it is now not temporary as the mobile home is in place and he expressed the opinion that this application should be approve. He added that it does not alter the street scene as it cannot be seen from the garage, which is why the mobile home has gone unnoticed because it could not be seen.

·         Nick Harding stated that in the Local Plan there is a clear policy with regard to replacement dwellings which states that if the dwelling is to be a mobile structure then development should not be allowed. In this particular case, there is no raised floor level, as a mobile structure other than the initial step up is still in the floodable area and allowing a permanent dwelling with a suitable floor level would resolve that issue. He added that consideration would then need to be given to the large increase in floor area from the existing to the proposed which is contrary to the policy and therefore members need to justify this development to go above and beyond the objectives in the Local Plan policy. He added that there would be an obligation to add conditions with regard to the settlement floor levelwhere the property will be safe from the known depth of flooding which has been reported through the flood risk assessment.

·         Councillor Sutton questioned that in the update report it states that the EA has formally withdrawn their objection subject to the development being undertaken in accordance with the flood risk assessment and the temporary caravan being removed within two years, which he believes to be an incorrect statement. Nick Harding stated that the usual condition says that the caravan needs to be removed within a couple of months after the approved dwelling being occupied.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation for the following reasons; The dwelling is compliant with all flood risk requirements and the size of the plot lends itself to the proposed dwelling as detailed in the application.

Members agreed to delegate authority to officers to apply appropriate conditions.

(Councillor Murphy left the meeting prior to consideration of this item)