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 Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated that he is disappointed to see that the wording on the description of the development is incorrect and that he had specifically worded the application originally and completed the application form, based upon nice self-build and custom-built dwellings. He made the point that the Council has been legally required from the 1 April 2016 to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to require surplus plots of land in their area in order to build their own homes and he has asked the Council on several occasions for a copy of the register, and it is only recently that he has been provided with the figures from 2016 onwards.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that it is unclear whether the figures provided are for specific self-build custom builds as described within the qualifying terms of the Self-Build Custom House Building Act. He stated that if the Council is bound by this Act to keep and publicise the register then he cannot understand why it is not a public document.

Mr Bevens stated that in considering whether a home is a self-build or custom build the Council need to be satisfied that the initial owner of the house will have primary input into its final design and layout. He expressed the opinion that he is unsure whether the criteria has been met and added that if the application is approved it will meet all the required criteria to comply with Self-Build Custom House Building Regulations 2016.

Mr Bevens stated that the officer’s report refers to the site lying predominantly in the countryside, and referred to the presentation screen which shows the open countryside is delineated by Darcy Lode to the north and the public footpath to the northern side of the site. He pointed out that beyond Darcy Lode it is typical Fenland farmland which he agrees is open countryside and he referred members to the second slide which has been taken from the Ordnance Survey footpath maps which highlights the footpath that runs along the northern boundary alongside Darcy Lode and that the land south of Darcy Lode which is coloured grey infers it to be in the built-up area of Manea.

Mr Bevens stated that, in his view, the development is not out of keeping with the area and he added that on the first slide it shows Glebe Close to the south west of the site which is not a linear frontage site and therefore it breaks the linear frontage pattern along Westfield Road together with development along Dunvegan Close and the recent approval for planning at 18 Westfield Road. He stated that the proposal does recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside by including a green frontage to Westfield Road and the retention of all of the trees and fauna at the northern end of the site which is adjacent to Darcy Lode.

Mr Bevens explained that the layout suggests that the area would also have the inclusion of additional tree planting to screen the development even further and the hedgerows will be retained and increased along the west and eastern boundaries. He pointed out that a surface water attenuation facility will create a significant ecology enhancement on the site.

Mr Bevens stated that members may recall an application for 26 dwellings in Westfield Road earlier in the year, which was refused by the committee. He added that the officer has referred to the site within their report outlining its similarities but, in his opinion, the proposal before the committee has more cohesiveness to nearby housing and is less dense than the other application and offers better mitigation to the countryside beyond its boundary.

Mr Bevens pointed out that the proposal has a clear ecology strategy that could be further reinforced in a future reserved matters application. He added that the site does not require affordable housing provision and there are numerous letters of support for the proposal which outweigh the letters of objection received and the Environment Agency, Natural England, Highways, Wildlife Officer, Fire and Rescue and Environmental Health all have no objection to the proposal.

Mr Bevens stated that in the report at paragraph 10.9 the officer makes reference as to whether the application can be deemed as brownfield and Mr Bevens expressed the view that the land lies within the curtilage of an existing structure currently, which was purchased and mortgaged under one title with no agricultural restrictions and in accordance with the description of brownfield as described in the National Planning Policy Framework which was also recognised in the Court of Appeal and accepted as case law in a case with Dartford Borough Council v the Secretary of State. He stated that the site should have been entered onto the brownfield register by the Council by 31 December 2017 and recognised as a brownfield site.

Mr Bevens added that the Parish Council’s reasons for refusal, in his opinion, are not strictly accurate as it is a brownfield site and whilst the entrance is opposite the fire station, access will be made easier by virtue of the fact that cars will no longer be able to park opposite the entrance. He stated that there is infrastructure to support the proposed dwellings with shops, schools, bus services and a train station and he added that the officer has noted that affordable housing is not a reason for refusal.

Mr Bevens concluded by stating that he would ask the committee to consider his counter argument to support the application to give nine applicants the opportunity to design their own dwellings.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the application site is within walking distance of the train station at Manea. Mr Bevens stated that it would be about a 30-minute walk to get there.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks stated that officers had advised the committee that there is a quantity of self-build plots available, and he asked whether that was within the Manea area or within the district? Nick Harding explained that the register that the Council maintains, is not a public document in its own right, because the register comprises of personal names and addresses which cannot be shared under General Data Protection Regulations. He added that the key point about the register is the numbers of the persons that are on the register and those that have an interest in constructing customer self-build accommodation. Nick Harding stated that the information that has been provided to the agent is available on the Council’s website and can be found in the Annual Monitoring Report which has been compiled in accordance with the requirements of the legislation in relation to monitoring of custom and self-build properties. He pointed out that the register relates to the district as a whole and is not location specific, however, when somebody registers, they can indicate if they have a particular interest in custom and self-build properties in a particular part of the district. Nick Harding pointed out that the statistics that are published on the website and also provided to Government each year and have been shared with the Agent, demonstrate that the number of planning permissions that the Council grants is significantly higher than the required figure. He pointed out that since October 2016 and annually the requirements have been 18, 23, 7, 2, 5 and the number granted has been in excess of 100 every year except for the period ending 23 and by looking at HMRC information about reclaims the average number of reclaims in our area is 36 per annum and therefore in terms of actual deliverable custom self-build homes, the Council is exceeding its requirement. Nick Harding explained that the Council has to monitor the number of planning permissions granted that may go on to be used by custom and self-build homes.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarity that the dwellings could be anywhere in the district and Nick Harding stated that there is no requirement for that to be monitored or factored into the decision making.

·       Councillor Marks stated that a self-build dwelling is more affordable than a property already on site and he asked whether that is considered when taking affordable homes into account? Nick Harding explained that custom build and self-build homes do not come under the consideration of affordable homes and, therefore, it would not be lawful to consider it on that basis.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked officers to confirm whether the site is a brownfield site? David Rowen provided a definition of previously developed land from the National Planning Policy Framework which states that land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.’ David Rowen expressed the opinion that his interpretation of the site in the context of that definition is that even though there is a dilapidated building on the front part of the site, in his view, it would be very difficult to say that the four fifths of the site that stretches back into the grassland paddock area could be defined as brownfield.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he does not necessarily class the land as brownfield, but the site is Flood Zone 1, and it is the land that should be built on first and the proposal will provide 9 homes in what is classed as a growth village. He added that whilst the site is at the other end of the village to the train station, there is a very large car park at the train station, and he would like to see it used to its full potential and, in his opinion, anything that can be done to encourage the use of the railway at Manea is good. Councillor Benney stated that every business is struggling, and Manea has a few shops and a good Indian restaurant, and they all need customers to spend money and if more homes are not built then the businesses are going to suffer, and the businesses and the village of Manea will go backwards, with the village currently thriving with a very good community spirit. He expressed the view that the application is for a good development, and within the officer’s report it states that Glebe Close is in the open countryside which he does not agree with as the lane at the back is garden land as opposed to fields of wheat and barley and, in his view, it is a piece of land which needs development. Councillor Benney stated that it will make access into the fire station easier and, in his opinion, the site is not on the outskirts of Manea. He expressed the view that there have been other approvals of developments on the entrance into the village of Manea and the proposal will provide 9 good homes. Councillor Benney stated that regardless of the fact whether the Council has a land bank that meets Government targets, which are a success story in their own right and the number of HMRC returns for VAT reclaims demonstrates to him that this is what people want. He stated that 2,800 homes have received planning permission already in Fenland which are still to be built and just because they are approved does not mean that it has got to be built making the point that if there is land with self-build dwellings approval on it, some of those will not be developed. Councillor Benney expressed the view that he feels it will be a good development and it will be built out and provide homes, with the Council and the Combined Authority having spent a considerable amount of money in the area around the railway station and if development is not supported then, in his opinion, the Council is remiss because they are not supporting the very thing that public money has been spent on and the application is something that the village of Manea is suited to. He will support the application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that reference was made earlier concerning the application which was refused for the 26 dwellings at 96 to 100 Westfield Road but, in her opinion, it cannot be compared as it is on the edge of the village of Manea.

·       Councillor Mrs French clarified that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority financed the car park at the train station which is for 116 car parking spaces and prior to its development she is aware that they had looked at the local infrastructure and possibility of growth and, in her opinion, they would not have funded such a project if they had not agreed that Manea was a growth village. She added that there is a shortage of houses in Manea, which is a nice village with an underused car park which she hopes will be utilized more when people move in as the local roads are not good. Councillor Mrs French stated that she will be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he is the local Ward Councillor and explained that over the last 18 years he has seen the village grow. He explained that there have been some recent self-build dwellings constructed in Station Road and they have good space around them. Councillor Marks added that due to a lack of footfall a local shop has just closed and whilst the train station has just been improved there is still the need for people to live in Manea. He stated that he will support the proposal and believes in the new Local Plan the boundary of Manea is being extended down to the Darcy Lode and there will be development along that piece of land as well.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he agrees and will also be supporting the application.

·       Nick Harding stated that the consultation of the emerging draft Local Plan shows the proposal site sitting outside of the village boundary. Councillor Marks asked for clarity as to whether that is the suggestion of the Council or what the Parish Council had suggested previously as he is of the opinion that there are two differences in the boundary position. Nick Harding stated that it is the proposal of Fenland District Council in the Local Plan as opposed to the opinions of the Parish Council.

·       David Rowen stated that with regards to the point made by Councillor Mrs Davis in terms of the developments not protruding out into the open countryside beyond Glebe Close, the indicative layout shows the dwellings extending out approximately 50 metres beyond the line of Glebe Close.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to formulate suitable conditions.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation for refusal as they feel that the development does not harm the open countryside, does not adversely impact the character of the area and will provide much needed homes.

Nick Harding stated that during the debate a number of members made reference to the sort of benefits that this development would bring in terms of delivery of custom self-build dwellings and he asked for confirmation as to whether the committee would want a legal agreement to secure that the development is delivered in the form of customer and self-build dwellings. Members agreed that they would want a legal agreement to form part of the conditions applied to the planning permission.