Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Jakub Blazczak, an objector to the application. Mr Blazczak referred to the location and introduction of the second layer of buildings away from the street and added that there is plenty of space to create dwellings alongside the field. He stated that the presentation has shown the views from the ditch and the property named Conway, but the only thing that can be seen from Mill Road is the hedge belonging to Conway and the bungalow itself.

Mr Blazczak referred to concerns regarding privacy, which could be mitigated by a redesign of the dwelling and upgrade of the fence. He expressed the view that the privacy concerns of the property named Conway cannot be mitigated in the future as he has been made aware that there is no possibility of erecting a fence alongside the ditch as it is not permitted and, therefore, there will be no barrier between Conway and into the bedroom of the neighboring property.

Mr Blazczak stated that the shape of the proposed plot is such that it gets narrower as it goes easterly and, therefore, the windows that will face south will face Conway. He explained that there is a long gravel driveway at the site and a separate access which is private and the only other way to shorten the route to the main road would be by creating a new access which cannot happen.

Mr Blazczak explained that there is 80 metres of gravel roadway and a stretch on the other side to drag the refuse bins for collection and the driveway is soft and cannot accommodate heavy vehicles and, therefore, any residents in a new dwelling would have to drag the bin for more than 80 metres which is not ideal for potential disabled and elderly residents.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that under LP3 of the Local Plan Murrow is a small village which in these villages’ development will be considered on its merits but will normally be of a very limited nature and normally be limited in scale to residential infilling or a small business opportunity. He stated that he would argue that this plot of land is infilling development as it has a road frontage and follows the development line of the six dwellings numbers 16 to 24 Mill Road and will finish off this part of the village and utilise a section of land that is difficult to farm as it is adjacent to the neighbouring dwelling as seen on the proposed indicative drawings and in a corner.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency maps which is the same as the adjacent recently developed dwellings on Mill Road and pretty much the whole of the village, having checked Rightmove this morning there are no plots available at present in the village.  He expressed the view that it has been the argument on many applications that have come before the committee previously with regards to what is the difference in developing in Flood Zone 3 in Wisbech to Murrow, as there are no plots available he feels that this satisfies the sequential test and with regards to the exception test he is prepared to accept any condition required for the construction and renewable energy requirements to make this dwelling a better standard than the adjacent ones.

Mr Edwards stated that with regards to the comments of the Wildlife Officer, unfortunately as these only came on line on the 16 June he has not had time to carry out the survey required, and at present bat surveys are being carried out so trying to get an ecologist at such short notice is impossible but he explained that should the committee be in a position to support the proposal he would be prepared to get a phase 1 report underway and would be happy to either accept a condition on this or alternatively he would accept the decision being held in abeyance until the report has been carried out, he would look to carry out any mitigation measures that would come from the report.  He added that he would also ensure that the site is kept tidy periodically and as shown on the drawings there are residential dwellings adjacent.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that it has been said on many occasions at this committee that road frontage plots are massively valuable to housing supply in the District and are at a prime. He stated that plots like these will be developed by self-builders or smaller developers that are being priced out of the larger sections of land due to the cost of the infrastructure, small builders and self-builders employ local tradesman and agents and buy locally from local merchants, which in turn contribute to other businesses in the district.

In conclusion, Mr Edwards expressed the view the plot is infilling development and at no greater risk of flooding as any other in Flood Zone 3 and will be technically safe, it will finish off this part of the village and any design issues can be looked at, at the reserved matters stage and he asked the committee to support the application with the conditions they deem appropriate.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the previous speaker had made reference to the long gravel driveway being soft and not suitable for heavy vehicles and she asked how it was anticipated that the construction traffic would be able to access the site? Mr Edwards stated that there have been four dwellings which have been approved off the roadway and it should be of a standard due to a condition on the original approval which identifies the required weight capacity. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the objector does not need to be concerned then.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis questioned that if there is not an ecological report attached to the application and if the application is approved, with the ecology report consequently being submitted and is negative does that  mean that in principle the committee will have approved the plot to be built on. Nick Harding stated that officers would always advise against grating planning permission where there is the need for an ecology survey. He added that the ecologist has indicated in the officer’s report that there may be a presence of otters or water voles which are a protected species and without that work being undertaken there is a risk of approving development and then subsequently find out that there is the protected species present and planning consent has been given for development which then cannot be retracted. Nick Harding added that officers would always advise against granting of planning consent without the ecology survey as there could be a non-compliance with the legislative requirements for protecting the protected species that may be present on the site and he added that in relation to flood risk it has been noted that no sequential test has been undertaken which is also a national policy requirement that a test is submitted as part of the Flood Risk Assessment, which means that the Council would be in breach of the national policy requirement in the determination of an application positively.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked that, as the application appears to be incomplete, could it be deferred to request the ecology report and sequential test or should the application be refused and allow the applicant to resubmit their proposal. Nick Harding explained that deferment is an option but the committee but should be aware of the additional reason for refusal which is with regard to the principle of development in terms of whether it constitutes infill development.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that if the ecology report has not been submitted then the committee should make a decision on the proposal. Nick Harding stated that from a decision-making option the application can be deferred, or a decision can be made on the application on the basis that the applicant had the opportunity to submit the information with the application but has not done so.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he thought a planning application should not be turned down where any issues can be conditioned, and he asked for clarity as to why the issue of ecology cannot be conditioned? Nick Harding explained that when a condition is applied there needs to be an understanding as to the scope and extent of the matter that the condition is being applied to and in the context of ecology at the current time there is no information available about what ecology is on the site.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that if the application was refused on the lack of sequential test and ecology then the committee would be accepting the principle of allowing development to be built in that location and, therefore, members have to be clear in their decision making.

·       Councillor Miscandlon asked whether the developer has been given the opportunity to withdraw the application as the application is missing vital information that the committee need to deliberate over. David Rowen stated that not as far as he is aware, and the application has been submitted in its current form and the Council has a duty to determine it. He added that the officer’s reasons for refusal have been in the public domain for a week and, therefore, the applicant has had the opportunity to withdraw the application during that time.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked why incomplete applications are accepted, she feels that they should be returned along with the application fee. Nick Harding explained that the authority are under no obligation to return the application fee and once an application has been made valid the Council has an obligation to determine the application. Councillor Mrs French stated that if the information is incomplete how can that be actioned professionally. Nick Harding stated that if the application is submitted and it is subsequently found that there are shortcomings with the application then it can still be determined, and it does not need to be returned along with the application fee.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the application is incomplete, and it should be made clear that applications will not be considered if they are incomplete, as it is a waste of members and officers’ valuable time.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he concurs with the comments made by Councillor Cornwell and, in his opinion, the application should be refused.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she also agrees with the comments that have been made and added that if the committee make the decision to refuse the application it should be refused in its entirety.

·       Councillor Topgood stated he also agrees that it is a waste of officers’ time and developers and agents should submit complete planning applications. He added that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs Davis that the application should be refused in its entirety.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with some of the points made by members, however, members must be clear with their distinction as to whether they feel that development should or should not be allowed at that location.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the application cannot be determined because it is incomplete, and it is not the committee’s fault if the information is missing.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he disagrees with the point made by Councillor Cornwell and reiterated that he specifically stated that if the application is refused as per the officer’s recommendation the committee are stating that they do not feel that any development should be allowed there and if that is what is being said then there is no requirement to encourage a future application as it will be refused again.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Sutton that there have been applications brought before the committee previously which have had three and four reasons for refusal, but the committee have only refused the application for one reason and if the application is resubmitted the agent has only got to overcome one issue.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the point made by Councillor Benney and stated that it appears that from the comments that he has made he is proposing to set a precedent that allows the committee to look at incomplete applications and deal with part of it and leave the other part and she expressed the opinion that she cannot agree to that. Councillor Benney stated that the process is already in place and until the process is changed the application before the committee does not need to be turned down on all three reasons.

·       Councillor Connor stated that over the last 18 months, there have been 5 applications where the application in principle has been accepted and the agent has been asked to come back with further information.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to his original statement which was that the only applications that should come before the committee are ones which are complete, and they should not be considered if any element is missing.

·       Nick Harding stated that the application before members is a valid application and the committee need to determine the application even though there are shortcomings with it. He added that the points made by Councillor Sutton and Benney are correct, and the committee need to look at the three reasons for refusal and look at each one in turn and make the decision as to whether they agree or disagree with each of those three reasons for refusal and if the committee disagree with them then members need to identify the reasons why and propose and complete the voting process.

·       Councillor Miscandlon referred to page 146 of the agenda pack which details the three recommended reasons for refusal, and he expressed the view that none of the reasons for refusal have been fulfilled and, therefore, the application could be refused on all three counts.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked again whether the application could be deferred? Nick Harding stated that it could be deferred but as the agent has stated that it may take some time to be able to source an ecologist to undertake a survey it could be a delay before the report is brought back to committee. He added that the only specification for the access drive on the previous approval in terms of construction was in relation to the access way over the drain with regard to the gravel driveway on the other side of the drain that serves the individual houses it only specifies gravel and not below gravel construction standard. Nick Harding expressed the opinion he would recommend that the committee make a determination on the application today.

·       Councillor Skoulding asked whether conditions could be added with regards to the roadway? Nick Harding stated that he would not recommend a condition because he would question why there is a need to upgrade the standard of the access for one dwelling when it was not needed for the previous dwellings.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that a decision must be taken on point one today.

·       Nick Harding stated that there are three reasons for refusal and he appreciates that members may have an alternative view on the first recommended reason for refusal as to whether it does constitute an infill site but with regards to reasons 2 and 3, in his opinion, there is an important point of principle there and the reasons for refusal should not be ignored where the information has not been provided to clarify whether the situation is satisfactory or not which would mean that important national policies would be ignored.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that LP1 of the Local Plan refers to building in the open countryside and he does not see that as a problem as the principle of development is already on site. He added that the ecology report is missing, and the application could be refused on that basis and with regards to Flood Zone 3, he cannot see that as a reason to refuse the application. He added that if a proposal was made to refuse the application for ecology reasons and then the ecology report was submitted at a later date, he would be satisfied with that, but he does not consider the application to be in the open countryside and he does not feel the flood zone as an issue and, in his view, it is an acceptable risk where mitigation can be put in place for it to built.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the risk of refusing the application on the first aspect is that if the application went to appeal, she does not think that the Council would win. She added that reasons for ecology and the sequential test do cause her concerns and if the application were approved, it would have to come back on the ecology and flood risk points.

·       Councillor Miscandlon expressed the opinion that all three points are reasons for refusal and whilst it may be in the open countryside it deviates from the line of linear development which was agreed at the time of the previous development, and it is going down behind the property named Conway and it is not an infill development.

·       Nick Harding stated that if consideration is being given to dropping the flood risk reason for refusal, then members must specifically address why the national requirement for a sequential test to be submitted by the applicant does not apply to the site.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he agrees with Councillor Miscandlon that the application should be refused on all three points so the whole application is resubmitted in its entirety.

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