To determine 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 Archie Hirson, the applicant. Mr Hirson stated that he is seeking approval for four dwellings on Station Road in Manea, which was previously before the committee in July 2022 when it was deferred for an ecological report and sequential test details to be provided. He explained that the documentation is in line with the plans for the village and meets the critical tests applied and that the key points are fully supported and there are no objections to the pre-submitted documents from the consultees.

Mr Hirson stated that Manea is identified as a growth village and the adopted Local Plan reflects its range of local services, school, pubs, shops, modern dwellings as well as the railway station which has recently seen a major upgrade. He expressed the view that the recent developments have resulted not only in the historic core of the village now being almost entirely linked to the previously outlined development areas but now the plan looks to create accessible and desirable dwellings in Manea.

Mr Hirson stated that members will have seen when they visited the site that the plot is exceptional in the fact that it is under utilized for needed housing and represents a gap in the shape of the village and the existing linear development precedent set on Station Road. He referred to the issues arising from the previous deferral and stated that in terms of the potential ecological impact, an additional ecological report has been carried out and it has concluded that the potential ecological impact is unlikely in every category with no requirement for any additional surveys and this aligns entirely with the assessments from Natural England and there is no evidence of any potential impact on wildlife in the area.

Mr Hirson stated a detailed sequential test has been submitted and met which has demonstrated that there are no other reasonable available relevant sites at lower risk of flooding. He added that as a result of the sequential test being met an exception test was carried out and was again met and he made the point that the exception test is made up of two points, firstly exception test A where the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and, in his view, there would be considerable sustainable, economic and social benefits in addition to the immediate economic benefits to the local construction professionals and businesses with the economic, social and cultural contribution being ongoing as the residents of the proposed dwellings would bring additional spending to the village as well as using the local services and facilities.

Mr Hirson stated that the dwellings will be built to a modern and green specification which will benefit from triple glazing, heat source air pumps and solar panels on the roofs. He expressed the view that by walking to the train station and village amenities it will reduce the need to use private vehicles which is a key environmental consideration.

Mr Hirson stated that on exception test B, the Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible reduce flood risk overall. He stated that although the site is positioned in an area marked as Flood Zone 3, the mapping is based on the assumption that the land is undefended which is not the case as it is widely accepted that the Fens has the best defended and managed river system in the country and the actual risk of flooding is not reflected in this categorization.

Mr Hirson stated that in common with most of Fenland the area is subject to layered engineering management defences and specifically the Mid-Level Barrier Bank provides a 1 in 100 year plus climate change protection and this is further reduced by free board in the Manea and Welney District Commissioners system and the Environment Agency has raised no objections .He stated that as the land owner of the site he can confirm that it has not suffered any effects of flooding, historically or in more recent years.

Mr Hirson hoped the information he has provided supports what he hopes is an exciting and progressive part of Manea’s ongoing development.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that David Rowen had made the point that there have been 61 applications and, therefore, there are 61 other places that houses could be built that have passed the sequential test. David Rowen made the point that by reviewing the sequential test information that has been submitted by the applicant it identifies a number of extant planning permissions for a number of dwellings which equates to 61 dwellings within Manea which would be sequentially preferable.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that the application maybe near the station, but it is not near the centre of the village.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the application was deferred previously for the ecology report and the sequential test and that it why it has come before the committee having still not met the requirements. She expressed the opinion that she will support the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the land does need development and Manea needs houses, with the Combined Authority having worked with the Council to invest and rejuvenate the Station Car Park and there is the need for houses in Manea. He added that there is the want for the station to survive and growth is needed in the villages but whilst there may be a significant number of other places that potentially could be built on that does not mean that any of those plots will be built on compared to the proposal before members that might be. Councillor Benney stated that the ecology report is fine and that the sequential test has been done and the proposal will bring much needed houses to the area so he could consider supporting the proposal.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she disagrees with Councillor Benney, and she made the point that if there is the demand for houses there are 61 places that are not being built on and developers build to demand, and she questioned whether the demand is really there otherwise they would be built out.

·       Nick Harding stated that consideration does need to be given to the planning consents that are still in place and are available to implement and the rules that officers have to follow state that they do have to be counted and should not be ignored. He added that with regards to the need for residential development the Council does have a demonstrable five-year land supply that is quite healthy, and the Council is also meeting that housing delivery test as well.

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