Agenda item

To determinbe the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater on behalf of the agent. Mr Slater stated that Manea is identified in the adopted Local Plan as a growth village reflecting the range of local services and facilities as well as access to the railway station. He expressed the view that Station Road is essentially a linear extension of the village which links the historic core of the village to the railway station and over the past 20 years the extent of this development has increased such that there is now continuous development to the station on one side or the other of Station Road for its entire length.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that this proposal is entirely consistent with this approach and is in keeping with the linear form of development which characterises Manea. He feels the proposal is to all intents and purposes an infill development within an otherwise unbroken form of development along the western side of Station Road and made the point that the officer’s reasons for refusal do not refer to the principle of development nor the design details, but confirm that the proposal is consistent with LP3 and LP12 in terms of spatial principles of the development and could be made consistent with LP15 in terms of design and impact.

Mr Slater stated that the application is accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and whilst it is accepted that the land lies in Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency maps he reiterated that members will be aware that this mapping is based on the assumption that the land is undefended, which he feels is clearly not the case. He highlighted again that, in his view, the Fens is very well defended, understood and the best managed river system and the actual risk from flooding is not reflected in the Environment Agency’s maps as the site, in common with most of Fenland, is subject to layered engineering and management defences, with the Mid Level barrier bank providing a 1 to100 year protection further reduced by freeboard in the Manea and Welney District Drainage Commissioner’s system.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the Flood Risk Assessment sets out clearly the risks and mitigation and confirms that the site is within a defended area benefitting from several engineered defences that offer layered protection to the site so that the risk of flooding can be made safe from the threat of flooding for its life span at 1 to 100 years plus climate change, which is what the Environment Agency’s processes aim to do. He made the point that the Environment Agency raises no objection, and the applicant is accepting the advice provided by the Environment Agency regarding flood warning and foul drainage which could be added as informatives to any permission.

Mr Slater referred to ecology, which he notes was a matter of concern to the committee at the last meeting but made the point that as this application has been ‘live’ since November 2021 and this issue was only evident last week when the agenda was published, the agent has not been in a position to respond or address the matter. He expressed the view that once an application is validated it is an acceptance by the Council that it has all the information it needs to consider the application, which is the purpose of the validation process although there is provision for a further period of time for additional information to be requested following receipt of consultation responses.

Mr Slater stated that the application was accompanied by the Council’s Ecology Proforma and in January 2022 Natural England provided a formal consultation response stating no objection. He stated that the agent has been in contact with the Council on an almost monthly basis with correspondence in relation to how to address the flood risk and seeking updates as to the progress of the application and at no point was it made clear during the correspondence that the matter of ecology had been raised, with it not being clear how the conclusion in reason for refusal 2 has been reached given that there is nothing on file to suggest that another ecological officer or expert body has been consulted to overrule the comment of Natural England.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the agent was only aware of the reason for refusal in respect to ecology when the agenda was published and if this matter remains of concerns to members he asked for, in the interest of fairness, the application to be deferred to enable an appropriate ecological assessment to be carried out. He concluded that, in his opinion, the application is acceptable in principle as accepted by the officer’s report, the matter of flood risk is in accordance with the 1 to 100 years plus climate change eventuality and made the point that the only consultation response in relation to ecology indicates that the proposal is acceptable.

Members asked questions of Mr Slater as follows:

·       Councillor Murphy referred to Mr Slater indicating that the sequential test had been undertaken but in the reasons for refusal it states, “the sequential test for flood risk has not be adequately applied or met and consequently the application fails to demonstrate there are no other reasonable available sites” and “In addition, the Exception Test has not also been passed”. Mr Salter responded that he is aware that this is the opinion of the Planning Officers that they consider the risk has not been adequately addressed. Councillor Murphy asked if anything was going to be done about this? Mr Slater stated that he is not in a position to do anything about it at this committee, if members wanted to defer the application they could go away and do the work. Councillor Murphy made the point that they have had time to address this issue but have not.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that pre-application advice was provided, and it says that there was the need for the sequential test and for the ecology report so if the application is deferred the agent would need to come back with both of those items addressed. Mr Slater responded that this is understood. 

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that when the floods occurred in December 2020 many properties flooded, and she would like more information on this issue. She would be happy for the application to be deferred so that the agent can come back with the proper information that is required.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he is not against this application being deferred, although he does not like to defer applications, but if there is some more information required it needs to be obtained before a decision is made.

·       Nick Harding stated that it is within committee’s gift to defer the application, but in terms of consistency earlier today members refused an application on the absence of a sequential test and at last month’s meeting refused an application because it did not include the relevant ecology information.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor questioned that if this application is refused the applicant can re-submit the scheme? Nick Harding confirmed this to be the case.

·       Councillor Mrs French queried this fact that as when planning applications are being resubmitted, officers are refusing to make a decision on them, so members need to be careful when the committee refuse applications or suggest to the applicants to resubmit after a refusal. Nick Harding responded that in the vast majority of cases having had an application refused an applicant can resubmit, however, in planning legislation there is provision for the local authority to decide not to accept an application and that process is all about applicants coming in repeatedly to try and thwart the enforcement process and twin track planning applications, which are exceptional cases.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the application should be deferred for the applicants to do the work and come back as soon as possible.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the comments of Nick Harding in that the committee refused an application today for lack of a sequential test and feels that this application cannot, therefore, be approved.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that although an application has been refused today all applications should be treated individually and taken on their own merit and he does not see why it cannot be deferred.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to allow for a sequential test and ecology assessment to be submitted.

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant is known to him and was his doctor, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)