Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 Ian Gowler, the Agent. Mr Gowler stated that the application is to replace an existing rundown house with two new dwellings, referring members to the displayed photos which shows the existing house which is in poor repair and will cost a significant amount of money to renovate which is why the applicant is looking to redevelop the site. He stated that the proposal looks to demolish the existing house and construct two new properties within a lower flood risk area within the existing site and should the existing house be renovated it would not alleviate the existing flood risk to the property.

Mr Gowler explained that the indicative site plan provided indicates two dwellings in a location which was recommended by the Environment Agency and the sequential and exception tests were provided earlier on in the year and as the sequential test indicates there are existing sites in Manea which are capable of development and obviously this would fail the test, however, the proposal site should fall under Paragraph 166 of the National Planning Policy Framework as it is within the current developed area of Manea and, in his opinion, it should fall under existing allocated land. He stated that this matter is also part of the Local Plan Policy LP12 A (a) as an infill site and under both of the policies a sequential test would not be required and only subject to an exception test which was provided.

Mr Gowler stated that the site should be classed as a windfall site as paragraph 25 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change guidance is where exemptions can be made to the sequential test where redevelopment is proposed to existing dwellings of an existing site. He added that as the site is a redevelopment site within the existing built form of Manea, in his view, it should be considered and he believes that this was the basis for the properties which are opposite the development site which were approved by the Planning Committee in 2020.

Mr Gowler made the point that under the emerging Local Plan the site also falls within the proposed development area boundary of Manea and, under the new Local Plan, windfall sites would be provided in order to provide 1500 homes and whilst the proposal only has 1 dwelling it still counts.  He referred to the presentation screen and stated that on the Environment Agency Hazard map (Figure 3) it identifies existing flood risk levels, and pointed out that by locating the two dwellings in the corner of the site it is the least hazard area as recommended by the Environment Agency and it is in a lesser hazard area that the existing dwelling already there, with in recent years there have been dwellings approved opposite and to the northwest which are both in a worse flood zone area than shown.

Mr Gowler stated that within the exception test that has been provided, he is proposing two important items which would fall in line with the windfall guidance and are improvements to the existing site providing a wider community benefit. He explained that the first is to provide an attenuation for the surface water on the site and at present the existing hard paving and dwelling goes unattenuated into an existing surface water drain and the new development will improve the situation. He explained that the second improvement is the proposal to install a footpath around the site which would go around the corner of Fallow Corner Drove and Westfield Road which will provide a much safer pedestrian access for people wishing to walk around the corner.

Mr Gowler pointed out that the development opposite was approved on similar redevelopment reasons which have been given for the site before the committee today and the proposed site is a lower risk area due to the fact that it already has an existing dwelling on the site, asking for consistency in the application of the two exceptions being applicable. He referred members to the presentation screen and showed them an indicative image of what the developed site could look like, subject to a reserved matters application, and he would hope that members agree that it would be an improved outview than the existing dwelling.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that on the site visit questions were asked with regards to the perceived visual levels that seemed to disagree with what the Environment Agency had stated. He added that it appears that some levels have been provided in detail and asked officers to advise whether they have considered the application strictly in accordance with Figure 3? David Rowen stated that the application has been considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework advice which is that notwithstanding whether a site is or can be demonstrated to be safe from flooding for its lifetime is that sequentially development should be steered towards areas of lowest flood risk and, therefore, if anything is within Flood Zone 3 it should be steered to an area of lower risk of flooding and the site lies within Flood Zone 3.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that it is his understanding of Figure 3 is that the Flood Zone 3 area is actually in the corner which will form part of the new footpath. David Rowen stated that the Figure 3 that was displayed is the Environment Agency Hazard mapping which illustrates what the actual flood depth would be of the flood velocity and does not indicate that the area is in a lower risk of flooding. He added that within Flood Zone 3, there are areas that have different flood depths and if there is a flooding event the hazard map shows the actual variance in flood depths around and across the site. Nick Harding added that you could be in Flood Zone 3 and have up to a quarter of a metre of water depth or you could have a greater depth and still be in Flood Zone 3 and he stated that the point is that you are still at risk of flooding and the vast majority of the site is shown on the slide by the agent as being under water in a flooding event and only a small corner is not affected by flood water. He added that although not clearly shown on the slide there is an area shown highlighted over which a flood depth of 0 to 0.25 metres indicated and that this covers the majority of that site.

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

·         Councillor Murphy stated that on the site inspections he saw that all the road and the land fell away into the agricultural land. He stated that if that area gets flooded then Chatteris will get flooded, and he added that there are other new properties which are built in the vicinity who will also suffer from a flood event and, therefore, he cannot understand why this proposal is any different.

·         Nick Harding explained that the Figure 3 Environment Agency Hazard Map shows that if the land falls away to the left-hand side that is where there will be deeper water but it does not stop the application site from being at flood risk up to a depth of quarter of a metre and, therefore, the water is not as deep but it still has water on it. He added that is why it is still in Flood Zone 3 and that flood zone is about the frequency of flood events and not depth.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that if that is the case then the water will just run down the road, and it will not flood there.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he understands the officer’s recommendation as they are adhering to policy but feels that the proposal is slightly different as it is replacing a dwelling, although he would have preferred to see a single storey dwelling with perhaps an escape route into the roof space. He added that to be consistent then sometimes officer’s recommendations need to be overturned, with the committee approving the dwellings on the other side and the dwelling that is already built was approved under delegated authority and the property on the other side of the road which was also in Flood Zone 3 was approved as the committee thought it would benefit the business owner. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it would be difficult for members in this case to agree with the officer’s recommendation, given that the committee went against officers for the development on the opposite side of the road. He added that it is not an open piece of land as he may have had a different view but given that there is already a dwelling on the site which is an eyesore and out of keeping with the newer buildings around it then, in his view, consideration could be given to allow it to be approved, although he would prefer to see bungalows on the site rather than two storey dwellings which, in his opinion, are not in keeping with the nearby bungalows. Councillor Sutton stated that the comments from the local residents appear to state that they would also rather see bungalows on the site to stop any overlooking.

·         Nick Harding stated that if the proposal was for one dwelling to replace the existing one, there would not be a reason for refusal that cited flood risk due to the fact that there would be one dwelling replacing the existing dwelling and, therefore, the problem is not any worse, however, the issue is that there is a second dwelling.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he can see the officer’s view, but practically when you look at the site the levels do not appear to accord. He added that approval was given for the dwellings opposite and he can see the arguments for building a house because if there is a perceived flood risk there would be an escape access upstairs. Councillor Cornwell made the point that consideration needs to be given to the footpath and the safety elements where the road comes out onto Westfield Road and the Chatteris Road due to the fact that currently there is a blind corner, and the footpath could be seen as a gain within the proposal. He added that the main plot has a 0.25m risk of flooding and if water should rise at that point at 0.25m high he wondered whether anybody has estimated how much water is flooded as, in his view, most of Isle of Ely would disappear on that basis. He added that the site on the other side of the road is still higher than the fen beyond it and that was very apparent when members went on site. Councillor Cornwell added that because the development across the road was allowed there is a net gain including the safety on the corner and the gains outweigh the small amount of flood risk that there is the site, and he will be going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that a quarter of a metre is not very much and is about 9 inches in real terms, which is the same sort of issue that occurred when development took place near the Boathouse in Wisbech and the dwellings on that site were built 300mm higher. He stated that if the proposal is built 300mm higher then mitigation is in place as construction is built over what the projected flood zone is going to be. Councillor Miscandlon stated that he does not see any issues with the proposal providing that the reserved matters application has flood risk mitigation in place for the construction of the buildings as it has been achieved in other locations which needs to be taken into consideration.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the committee overturned the officer decision on the property opposite and the others may have been before the introduction of the current Local Plan. She added that she does not think it is for agents to state that they will not bother about undertaking the sequential test process as it will not benefit them and members do need to be mindful of setting a precedent, however, on the site inspection it was clear that there was a height difference. Councillor Mrs Davis added that whilst she has concerns about agents not applying for sequential tests and not abiding by policies, in this instance she will support the application.

·         Nick Harding stated that the issue is not about the depth of water, it is the fact that there is water present. He referred to the point made by Councillor Miscandlon stating that you are not allowed to consider the mitigation until the sequential test has been passed but if your attention is focussed firstly on the mitigation then for 99% of the time the mitigation is capable of resolving the problem that would undermine the whole point of Government policy which is to avoid building in flood risk areas in the first place.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he welcomes the proposal which will replace an eyesore and he will be going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is aware that the last time any type of flooding took place in the vicinity of the development site was in 1929.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as it is already a developed site, and the extra dwelling will override the necessity for the sequential test.