Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Dr Robert Wickham, the Agent.

Dr Wickham explained that he represents the Diocese of Ely and Chorus Homes in this application. He referred to the two objections raised to this application, which he feels are closely related, and that if the site is within the settlement then the flooding policy issue falls away. He asked for the application to be considered fairly and there are several issues where he takes a different view from the Planning Officer's report.

Dr Wickham referred to the issue of whether the proposal is in the village and asked members to take into account decisions on two other applications in this part of Benwick one with reference F/YR15/0411, for a cemetery extension which was the site immediately adjoining to the west of the former Rectory. He quoted from the Case Officer, Kathryn Brand's report of 12 October 2015, which stated under 'Principle of Development The site is located within Benwick which is identified as a small village in accordance with Policy LP3 of the Local Plan’ and under ‘Health & Wellbeing The proposed development would be located within a sustainable location located within the village of Benwick'.

Dr Wickham then referred members to thesecond decision, which related toa consentfor asingle dwelling further to the west at 6-7 Nene Parade, reference 12/0981/F, which was granted on 11 February 2013, where thePlanning Officeron thatoccasion recommendedrefusal butthe Committeedetermined in favour. The presentation by the applicant referred to 99% of Benwick being in Flood Risk Zone 3 and that Benwick is 'a real community having a school, pub, hall'. A favourable proposal by Councillor Stebbing was supported at the time and resulted inconsent.

Dr Wickham asked members to accept that this is the older part of the village and it is of lower density than the recentpart. He drew members attentionto oneother decisionunder referenceYR15/0132/F and in that casethe Planning Officer stated that it was not strictly an infill, with the report explaining that 'it is not strictly supported by LP3 of the plan.

Dr Wickham stated that regarding the proposal before members today, the Diocese will enter into a Section 106 Agreement for the two dwellings to be affordable, with the Diocese having worked with Chorus Housing Association of Huntingdon and the Planning Officer's dismissal of this is disappointing. He stated that a Section 106 is the recommended method to provide affordable housing, with the need for affordable housing in the area being well known and in the Cambridgeshire Acre Survey for Benwick it states that there is a need for 1 or 2 bed homes and this offer is not subject to viability testing because the land is surplus and a cost to the Diocese in terms of upkeep. He explained given that the number of affordable homes in Fenland that are produced, these modest two homes will be of use to the community and should not be ignored.

Dr Wickham stated there is one other important material consideration to mention and that is paragraph 78 of the latest NPPF and this together with paragraph 79 supersede Policy LP3, with this point being accepted very fairly by the Planning Officer on the earlier application and should be considered on this occasion. He added that a detailed flood risk assessment has been undertaken and 99% of the village is in Flood Zone 3.  In his opinion the land is dead, is waste land and common sense and public gain in terms of special circumstances, with a material consideration being the affordable housing provision and a Section 106 Agreement will be entered into prior to planning consent being issued.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy asked why no archaeological investigation has taken place with this application? David Rowen confirmed that this is something that would normally be dealt with as a condition and this application is recommended for refusal. He added that the determination of this application is purely for permission in principle and the issue of archaeology would be looked at during the technical detail stage should permission in principle be granted. Councillor Murphy asked for clarity in that if the application was approved, then an archaeological dig would be requested? David Rowen confirmed that if planning in principle permission was granted then a further application for technical details consent would be required and at that stage the archaeology detail would be picked up.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for confirmation that, in terms of LP3, this is classed as an elsewhere location? David Rowen stated that the view of officers is that it is outside of the established settlement of Benwick, which constitutes it as an elsewhere location.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that she will support the officer’s recommendation, as it is in Flood Zone 3 and is in an elsewhere location under the terms of LP3.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the comments of Councillor Mrs Davis and added that it is interesting to see this first application for permission in principle and she hopes there will be more of these types of application received which will save applicants and officers time and money. She stated that she agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with all the comments made by members and he added that if the applicant realises that they would have to carry out an archaeological study, it could dissuade them from going further as it is so costly and therefore the affordable homes, no longer become affordable dwellings. He added that he agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

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

(Councillor Sutton had left the meeting prior to the consideration of this application)