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 Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the application has the support of neighbouring propertiesand the Parish Council and acknowledged the comments made by them that they support the proposal, but they would prefer a single dwelling and added that his  client would accept this if that would be preferential to the committee. He added that that the layout is purelyindicative with only accesscommitted at this stage, and with the site falling within Flood Zone 3, it is no different to many otherdevelopments within the district and the submitted Flood Risk Assessmentdemonstrates that thescheme can bemade technically safe from flooding.

Mr Edwards explained that with regards to the finished floor level of the development it should be noted    that the dwelling is required to be lifted 1.0m above the existing land levelwhereas a development approved by the committee at the last meeting inGuyhirn required the finished floor lifting higher from the existing ground levelthan required, and as the report states the Environment Agency haveno objection to theproposal. He added that the site is in a continual line of development except for the current site thatmeanders around the road and the stretch from the original impressivefarmhouse of Inlays Farm incorporates two barn conversions both of a highquality andthen thenewly converted former agriculturalbuilding known asthe Stables which has recently been completed as a dwelling and is adjacent to  the site. He stated that the other side of the site is the applicants own dwelling which again is    an executive styled dwelling which sits very comfortably in the street sceneand the plot was approved by this committee against officer’srecommendation.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that this stretch of dwellings is then finished with the replacement bungalowNewbury Lodge, with this and the original farmhouse are the only propertiesthat the applicant has not been involved in and the dwellings in this area are of a high standard and finish adding that the proposal infront of members, whether for one or two dwellings will be of the same quality andwill enhancethe area. He explained that the indicative layout shows two executive barn styled properties whichbecause of the host property could well have existed and reads as a complete farmstead.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is served via an existing access on to Mouth Lane and the site isagricultural at present, but of a size that is no longer commercially viable to  farm and withthe builtform around it lends itself toa residential site. He expressed the view that the proposal makes the best use of the land and will finish off this part of the   villageand thelane.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Edwards to clarify why the sequential test that was submitted with the application did not cover a larger area as alluded to by David Rowen in his presentation. Mr Edwards stated that the reason was to be consistent with previous scenarios. The proposal is in Flood Zone 3 and whilst there is the potential for development in Guyhirn in Flood Zone 1, he has an approved recommendation for the Flood Risk Assessment from the Environment Agency which, in his opinion, should take a precedence.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that Mr Edwards has stated that the applicant would be happy if permission was only granted for one dwelling and he asked officers if they would prefer if the application was only for one dwelling rather than two? David Rowen stated that if the application were to be for a single dwelling, the recommendation would not change given the clear conflict with Local Plan policy.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that this is another application where the Local Plan does not acknowledge the situation of what he would call hamlets. He added that he was surprised to see how the area has been upgraded over the years to become a tiny hamlet based on the original farm.

·         Nick Harding stated that when the Council started to prepare the adopted Local Plan it made decisions over its spatial strategy, which means that the Council has its housing requirement that it needs to satisfy and the Council makes choices about how that growth will be distributed across the district and in doing so makes decisions how that growth will be distributed amongst the rural settlements and hamlets. He added that the Council made a purposeful decision not to allow growth to take place in hamlets and this was included in the current Local Plan.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that when taking the Local Plan into consideration the application is in an elsewhere location and the officer’s recommendation should be agreed with.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he takes a different view and added that not everybody wishes to live in a standard dwelling and this proposal will become a nice dwelling. He stated that Fenland needs to attract people to the area that will bring their money with them, with many people choosing to live in rural areas and stated that the current policy blocks that and is detrimental to the area and, in his opinion, the application will be a nice addition to the area. Councillor Benney expressed the view that individual houses will make an area individual and special and there is the need to build quality developments in an area. He expressed the opinion that why should the Council put a block on people having what they want and stated that if somebody is prepared to buy a plot and build two nice houses on it, the proposal should be welcomed and encouraged. Councillor Benney stated that this is all part of Covid recovery, and employment and boosting the economy should be encouraged in the area. He expressed the opinion that if the plots come onto the market, they will not be on the market for long as somebody will buy them and deliver high quality housing. He added there are no objections to the application, and he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation on this proposal.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the Local Plan is in place for a reason and he added that the application is in Flood Zone 3 and there should be no development in that flood zone and he will vote to support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that an elsewhere location is exactly that as is a hamlet and she added that area has been determined as an elsewhere location. She expressed the view that the Local Plan is in place for a reason and just because a dwelling would look nice in a rural location, does not make it acceptable or right. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she will be voting to support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the issues with this application are twofold and added that the first issue is that it is in Flood Zone 3 and secondly there have been recent overturns when determining planning applications and he expressed the opinion that the committee’s decision making needs to be consistent. He stated that due to recent approvals given where the committee has gone against the officer’s recommendation, the only way to remain consistent is to approve the application.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that North Level Internal Drainage Board, have made no comments on the application and if they had identified an issue then they would have commented.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that Mr Edwards has stated when asked about the sequential test that there is land available in Guyhirn where the properties could be built. He added that he is concerned that by going against recommendations of professional officers and legal professionals as the committee have already done so will end up with the Council encountering repercussions.

·         Councillor Marks stated that it is not only Flood Zone 3 that has encountered flooding issues, both Flood Zones 1 and 2 have suffered from recent flooding problems. He expressed the view that the focus appears to be with concerns surrounding Flood Zone 3, but as has been seen, other zones can also encounter flooding issues. Councillor Marks added that the drainage board have stated that they do not have an issue, and, in his opinion, he does see any concerns with the proposal.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that flood zone issues get misconstrued and added that this issue centres around the River Nene as opposed to the Internal Drainage Board areas. He added that when he made the point earlier with regard to hamlets, it did not mean he was supporting the application. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that over the past few meetings the committee have made different decisions concerning applications in elsewhere locations and in his opinion until there is a new Fenland Local Plan in place to help members determine applications in elsewhere locations, the committee should be adhering to the Local Plan which is still current.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the Council are looking to bring forward the Nene Waterfront Development, which is in Flood Zone 3, which is by the harbour in Wisbech and the Council are bringing forward their own land for development. He added that if mitigation measures can be put in place for the Waterfront development, they can also be put in place for the proposal before members. Councillor Benney added that there needs to be consistency when deciding what parts of Flood Zone 3 are built on and there has been the same issues raised at various different planning meetings, but it does not mean you cannot build on it, but there has to be mitigation in place to cope with it. Councillor Benney stated that Mr Edwards has already confirmed that he intends to build the land up slightly, but not as much as an application that was previously approved for a site in Guyhirn and if members are looking to be consistent then this application should be approved.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to a point made by Councillor Meekins with regard to decisions made against officers recommendations and she stated that as a member of the committee it is your fundamental right to overturn planning applications as you see fit. She added that with regard to flooding there were 3 serious episodes of flooding in March last year in Flood Zone 1, and an ongoing piece of work is being undertaken by County Council to address the issues. She added that funding has been applied for from Central Government to alleviate flooding issues across the whole of Fenland. Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Sutton that if this application is not approved there is no consistency in place.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the recommendation for refusal on this application is not just based on Flood Zone 3, it is an elsewhere location and the current Local Plan is quite clear in its guidance.

·         Nick Harding stated that whilst a number of members of the committee disagree with the adopted Local Plan, there must be an acceptance that it is the adopted Local Plan for the Fenland District area and the legislation is quite clear and states that it is the primary source when decision making on planning applications. He added that to go against the policy, there must be specific and special reasons that are associated with this specific development and from the comments made by members this afternoon they appear to be general points, which are nonspecific to the application. He added that, in his opinion, there does not appear to be any specific exceptional circumstances that have been cited, which could mean that the committee could go against planning policy in this case. Nick Harding stated that the Environment Agency are only interested in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and are not interested in the application of the sequential test and that responsibility lies with the District Council. He added that the Environment Agency only look at the technical information which has identified what the risks are and where they come from and also what the level of water would be in the event of a breach or storm event. Nick Harding stated that the Internal Drainage Board are also only interested in how surface water from the site will be disposed of and if it goes into their system they want to ensure it is correctly designed and they will receive reimbursement for accepting the water. He added that it is clear in Government Policy that the sequential test has to be followed and development has to be located in those locations where flood risk is at its least. Nick Harding advised that Government policy does distinguish between certain geographical area types and the policy does accept that urban areas, which are located adjacent to a river does have a flood risk, but you are allowed to mitigate it by raising floor levels. He stated that in this case the application site is in an elsewhere location and the Council’s own policy and National Policy states that development should not be allowed in those locations.

·         Councillor Marks asked what other sources should members consider when determining applications and Nick Harding confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance are sources of information and the Council also has a Supplementary Planning Guidance document which is adopted in respect of how flood risk is dealt with. Nick Harding stated that the officer’s recommendation on this application is based on the demonstration that the development proposal does not comply with the relevant local and national planning policies. Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that by putting the mitigation measures in place by raising the floor level is it still deemed to be unacceptable? Nick Harding stated that is not permissible because Government policy states that you have to go through the sequential test and only if that is passed and, where appropriate the exceptions test, a mitigation scheme is then permitted.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that you cannot compare the proposal before members and the Nene Waterfront Development when Wisbech has flood defences in place to protect it in the event of a breach.

·         Councillor Benney stated that whatever mitigation is put in place will never be enough and the chances of Wisbech flooding are still high even with the flood defences in place.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that a conclusive decision should be made with regard to whether development in Flood Zone 3 is permissible or not. He added that there is far more chance of Wisbech flooding as opposed to any other area in Fenland.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Meekins that the application be refused as per the officer’s recommendation. This proposal was not supported on a vote by the majority of members

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with the conditions imposed on the planning permission being agreed in conjunction with the Chairman, Councillor Marks, and Councillor Mrs French.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that flood risk is not an issue on this site, whilst there may be other sequentially preferable sites in the area these are not owned by the applicant and the benefits of the proposal outweigh the negative aspects.

(Councillor Murphy had left the meeting prior to the vote taking place on this item and took no further part in the meeting thereon)