Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater stated that he is representing the applicant, Mr Crowson, and his family as an advocate for, in his view, the specially designed and stunning bungalow proposal before the committee. He added that he is aware of the general policy provision that apply in this location in terms of principle of development and flood risk, as reflected in the planning history in the officer’s report.

Mr Slater stated that in developing the concept for the design he has sought to address these in an innovative and design led way and there are 2 key elements to their argument. He added that in Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework it does provide a pathway to achieve new development in isolated locations, provided that it is exceptional and it is contended that the design of this home is ground breaking in 2 key aspects design concept and dealing with flood risk.

Mr Slater stated with regard to design, the proposal is designed specifically to meet the needs of Mr Crowson’s son James, who needs a quiet and isolated location, and with the home designed around his needs in terms of mobility and space requirements. He added that the scheme was designed inside out with the form of the home following its function to address the applicant’s sons individual needs, a quiet and isolated location, sufficient space to not feel closed in, a simple palate and design on interior to avoid sensory overload and a chillout/sensory room.

Mr Slater added that the external appearance of the building is unrepentantly striking and will be finished in a bright blue render. He added that it is noted that the officer concludes that the proposal is not sympathetic to local distinctiveness, but in his opinion the design and built form of Elbow Lane is not particularly distinctive and the site is visually separate from the development along Elbow Lane, with the approach being always to deliver a sculptural architectural form and as such it is not intended to replicate the surroundings, but to be distinctive in its own right.

Mr Slater stated that in relation to flood risk, the issue of dealing with development in flood zones is very important in planning, but of particular significance to Fenland and a number of the costal districts of Lincolnshire and Norfolk, which the Environment Agency identify as being at particular risk. He is aware that members of the committee are frustrated at the blanket approach to flood risk planning advocated at a national level and are looking for a design solution that can allow development in parts of the district that lie within Flood Zone 2-3 and otherwise would fall foul of national policy.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the jacking system proposed to raise the home in the event of flood is genuinely innovative and added that he is aware of the Larkfleet example.  He stated that this proposal is innovative through evolution as the home is significantly larger than the experimental home built in Bourne and the technology has moved on in the intervening years.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that the personal circumstances associated with the application, the medical condition of the applicant’s son in combination with the medical needs of the applicant, is a material consideration in decision making, with the weight to be attributed to material considerations is a matter for the decision taker and whilst he notes that the officer has not given this significant weight he asked the committee to give weight to the particular medical circumstances of this family. He stated that it is considered that the proposal is consistent with material policy that can allow special homes in isolated locations and in combination with the very unfortunate medical circumstances of the family, he would hope that that members can support this much needed and innovative proposal.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that the proposal has not been accompanied by any technical figures to state that the land would be suitable for a hydraulic jacking system and he expressed the view that, in his opinion, it appears to be an expensive way of mitigating the risk. He asked Mr Slater to clarify whether the technical data has been provided to demonstrate that the jacking system will work in the area and to confirm the associated costs to deliver the jacking system? Mr Slater stated that he does not have the details of the cost, but with respect to the engineering of the jacking system, he is sure that it can be achieved and it is a case of building a raft foundation where the jacking system will sit and he is sure it can be done but is unaware of the costs.

·         Councillor Meekins stated he appreciates the medical conditions of both the applicant and his son and added that he notes that inside the property there will a low level muted colour scheme to avoid sensory overload, however, the external colour scheme proposal is going to be a vivid blue colour scheme, and he asked whether there is a reason why it needs to be that colour and not a more sympathetic colour? Mr Slater stated that potentially it could be any colour, however, the applicant has chosen blue, but if members are concerned over this aspect of the proposal, then another colour could be considered.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Slater to clarify whether the proposal is viable if he has no detail of the technical data or associated costs? Mr Slater stated that he has been advised by the architects that it is a viable scheme.

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked whether there has been any investigation into the depth of the earth before bedrock is reached in order to facilitate the jacking system? Mr Slater stated that it is his understanding that the rafting system does not need to hit bedrock as the jacking system effectively sits on a raft. He added that if it is a matter that members wanted more information on then they could look to defer the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked Mr Slater to confirm why there has been no sequential test and why is the applicant so insistent on this particular location, bearing in mind that it is in Flood Zone 3? Mr Slater stated that in terms of viability of the project, the applicant owns the site and if he is to deliver it, it does need to be at this location. He added that the reason that they have gone for the unique jacking system is because there is no need for the sequential test and a house can be delivered which is safe for the duration of its lifetime within an area of land in Flood Zone 3. He added that the applicant wishes to build a property in an isolated location to assist with the needs of his son and a built up location would not suit the personal requirements of the family.

·         Councillor Purser asked for clarity that the proposal site is very isolated and stated that he had noted that the distinct colour of the proposal could be seen as a distraction to passing traffic, however, due its remoteness this may not be the case. Mr Slater stated that he agrees and he does not foresee any issue with passing traffic, with the prerequisite for a Paragraph 79 house is that it needs to be in an isolated location.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked officers to confirm that if the application was passed in its present form, with the hydraulic jacking system, would it then give the land status in terms of development and could another application be submitted, once the principle of development had been established on the site, with another simpler scheme to deliver, which could not be refused because development rights had already been given on the land? Nick Thrower stated that the granting of consent for a residential dwelling on the land would give the site a residential use and it could not be precluded the possibility of an application coming back in the future with an alternative proposal for mitigating the flood risk. He added that the application before members is based on the jacking proposals, which form part of the application, and should a further application be submitted with alternative flood mitigation the decision on that day would be based on that proposal with the alternative schemes . Nick Thrower explained that a subsequent application could not be prevented from coming back with an alternative scheme for flood mitigation if the application before members was granted consent based on the principle of a residential development on the land.

·         Councillor Connor asked for clarity that if the application was approved against the officer’s recommendation and it proved to be non-viable, it is his understanding, that a condition could not be added to the application. Nick Thrower stated that the approved plans are based on the information supplied under the current scheme and it would not be possible to require the jacking system to form part of any subsequent planning application on the site. Sheila Black stated that the agent has already made reference to a Paragraph 79 house as opposed to an elsewhere location house and part of that is innovative and if it is approved, members are probably looking at how innovative the house is. She added that if the applicant comes back without the jacking system then the question would be is it still innovative enough or is it just a house that does not fit Paragraph 79.

·         Councillor Meekins asked whether any details were available concerning the research that had been carried out following the Larkfleet Homes scheme? Nick Thrower stated that the consent was granted in 2016 with a test bed property implemented in 2019 and, therefore, any results from that as a trial would be sensitive information and there is no evidence to substantiate that the jacking system would work.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the actual cost of the building is not a material consideration, if the application is approved and then the applicant comes back and states that the proposal is no longer viable, then it is a different planning application. She stated should the application be approved and then it is deemed as not cost viable, she would hope that the applicant would not come back with a proposal for a dwelling due to the fact that planning permission has already been approved. Councillor Mrs French added that the proposal involves modern residence solutions and in the Fens lots of the land is in Flood Zone 3 and under National Guidelines there is a steer to build and sometimes Flood Zone 3 is the only place to do it. She expressed the view that if the application is approved, and the applicant decides that their proposal is not viable, then it is unfortunate, but they should’ve carried out extensive research prior to submission of the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor questioned if it was in the remit of the Planning Officer to ask for engineering details concerning an application such as this? Nick Thrower stated that a detailed engineering specification was not asked for on the jacking system and he added that he would expect that to form part of the building regulations process as planning is more related to land use. He stated it is something that could be requested, but the proposal that is before members details the system that is going to be used and if it does not work it will not pass the building regulations and if it is too expensive it will not be undertaken. Nick Thrower stated that officers had concluded that it was not a material consideration to understand the engineering system in order to make a recommendation on the application.

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

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the proposal is a very expensive way of getting an application passed. He added that the application goes against all policies and recommendations and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that at paragraph 10.22 it states that the ‘design and access statement states that the external appearance of the building is considered to be intentionally striking, such that the bungalow will  be visible within the open landscape and that this will raise design standards inthe area and enhance its setting.’ In his opinion a bright blue bungalow in the open countryside will not enhance the landscape and enhance design standards. Councillor Meekins stated that there is not enough information concerning the jacking system and, in his view, officers have made the correct recommendation and he will be supporting them.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the issue concerning whether the jacking system will work or not is of no consequence to the committee and that is down to whoever may build the property. He expressed the view that the design is not innovative, it is in an elsewhere location and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

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