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 Joshua Newell, a supporter.  Mr Newell stated his father has lived in Glebe Close his entire life with the land in question being where his father was born and brought up and the purpose of the application is to build two houses, one for himself and one for his brother.  He stated that him and his brother have lived in Glebe Close since birth and the houses would be 3-bedroom family homes.

Mr Newell expressed the opinion that it is not backyard development as historically Glebe Close was built on greenfield land as affordable homes as a cul-de-sac close from the main road to Darcey Lode, which is the Manea ward boundary.  He understands that another planning application for 26 dwellings is at present being considered by the Planning Department by a developer who has already built off Westfield Road towards Darcey Lode, which is adjacent to the land for this proposal.

Mr Newell expressed the view that the proposal would also provide enough space for 6 vehicles, 3 per property, and access is through Glebe Close, with the Highway Authority not giving any reason to refuse on access grounds.  He made the point that recently, before Covid, another property has been built in Glebe Close and the close has recently been resurfaced in the last 18 months, which his family were heavily involved with.

Mr Newell expressed the opinion that availability of 3-bedroom houses in Manea are few and far between and allowing this development would allow himself and his brother to own their own homes within Manea, which would mean that they would not need to leave the village.  As Manea is a designated growth village, he feels property is becoming scarce and the new car park at the railway station is pushing the cost of houses up meaning that a number of families are being pushed out of where they have been born and lived all their lives.

Mr Newell stated that the land for the proposal is part of a property that his family owns and is tenanted by a family member.  He expressed the view that he has seen Manea being developed over a number of years with back garden development and permission has recently been given to two developments off Westfield Road, Smart Close and land at the Dairy Yard, and he believes their application is no different.

Mr Newell stated that for bin collection the wheelie bins would be put to the entrance of the property but still remain on the property not causing any obstruction on the road.  He stated that if permission is given for the proposal as a family they are happy to work with officers via their architect to design affordable housing so they could stay in Manea.

Members asked questions of Mr Newell as follows:

·         Councillor Topgood asked for clarification that the properties would be for Mr Newell and his family?  Mr Newell responded that they would be for him and his brother.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy referred to 5.2 of the officer’s report where it states that it is not possible given the limited information to determine whether two dwellings could be accommodated to include adequate parking and turning and asked if any further information had been provided on this?  David Rowen responded that the application is a Permission in Principle one so there is no requirement to provide any further details above a plan showing the land outlined in red, therefore, no technical details have been provided.

·         Councillor Murphy questioned if it is approved today then a query would still exist on whether it could accommodate two dwellings or not which seems to be the ‘cart before the horse’ scenario.  David Rowen responded that this is the flaw of the Permission in Principle regime.  Councillor Connor added that this application is only asking whether the land is acceptable for erecting two houses and if approved today, it would come back to officers for further discussion and agreement.

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked why a Permission in Principle application had been submitted rather a full planning application and feels the planning system is being circumvented.  He feels that discussions could have been held with officers and the proposal could have come forward as a proper planning application.  Councillor Connor responded that it is a fairly new but legitimate planning regime and members need to decide whether the land is acceptable for two houses as no other information is provided.  Councillor Miscandlon agreed that the application is to determine whether the land is suitable, but feels this could have been determined in discussion with officers at an earlier stage.  Nick Harding responded that it is the applicant’s choice as to whether they want to go down the Permission in Principle route, an outline route or a full application and it is not for officers to advise.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the size of the land is known?  She stated that she has listened to what Councillor Miscandlon has said but made the point this is a new route for people, if they do not want to go down the expensive route of a full planning application if the principle is agreed then the detail follows.  Nick Harding responded that the land is 0.04 hectares.  Councillor Mrs French stated that it is large enough for two dwellings and she does not have a problem with the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that the purpose of Permission in Principle is to establish if two dwelling could fit on the site and whether an application would be acceptable.  Nick Harding responded that the key to this application is, looking at the pattern of development on Glebe Close, the committee happy for a tandem type development to take place and as the access will pass along the line of the existing driveway that leads to the garage of the existing property and there would be two additional dwellings passing right in front of windows and side entrance to the existing property whether this is an acceptable relationship.  He added that whilst it has been said that the properties are for family members of the applicant, this needs to be put aside as the occupancy cannot be restricted for these two dwellings to family members.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she always reads what the Parish Council says and Manea Parish Council strongly objects, and she can understand why officers have reached their recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that members should not be questioning what planning route an application decides to take.  He has mixed feelings on this site as if it is approved then the adjacent dwelling has a similar piece of land along with others in the close which would be difficult to resist and questioned would members want to see development in all these gardens?

·         Councillor Connor reminded the committee that it should not be looking at what might happen in the future, it has to look at what is in front of it.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.  This was not supported on a majority vote by members with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Topgood that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation.  This was not supported on a majority vote by members.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that he is a member of Manea Parish Council and the applicant is known to him on a business basis, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Benney had left the meeting prior to this item and the remainder of the agenda items being discussed)