Agenda item

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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that the existing site is adjacent residential buildings both to the North and East and there is already a brick building on this site which is to be demolished and immediately adjacent this site there are 6 residential dwellings as was shown on the presentation screen. He expressed the opinion that this site was part of a larger site that was a commercial farm park for over 6 years that had over 40,000 visitors a year and there are a number of buildings over that site at the time which have since been converted with approval.

Mr Hall stated that in February 2013 in an officer’s report to this Planning Committee it confirmed that this site as part of the overall site is on the edge of a sustainable location, Friday Bridge, which would be under Policy LP3. He stated that the site is in Flood Zone 2 and checking throughout this application and even this morning there are no other sites on the market with planning permission in Friday Bridge that are for sale in a lesser flood zone than this site and there is no objection from the Environment Agency to this proposal on a site that already is surrounded by residential properties to the East and North that were granted approval in 2013 when under the previous Local Plan.

Mr Hall stated that the applicant, who is present today, is a member of the local drainage board and has lived at this site for nearly 60 years and there has been no history of flooding in five generations. He advised that the applicant submitted pre-application advice in 2019, which is referred to in the officer’s report, and that advice was given under this Local Plan and confirms that this area of the site is suitable for limited residential development and the advice was to reduce the proposal from 2 dwellings to 1 because that would be preferred but in that pre-application advice there is no mention of the sequential test or flood risk.

Mr Hall stated that there are no technical objections to this application from Highways, Environmental Health and the Environment Agency as well as no local objections. He made the point that an application was approved today that was not supported by the Parish Council and had 22 letters of objection but this application does have the support of the Parish Council and also has 18 letters of support from persons in Friday Bridge clearly showing local support for this proposal.

Mr Hall referred to the indicative site plan on the presentation screen, which he feels shows that two plots would round off this development and to the West is open land which is not proposed to be developed and the dwellings could be moved further back if requested. He stated that pre-application in 2019 under this Local Plan confirms that limited residential development on this site would be acceptable, the proposal is for 2 reasonably sized dwellings and would create a third garden area and ample parking using an existing access on a site with no objections from any members of the public or any consultees.

Members asked questions to Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Benney questioned the pre-application advice that it would round off the development. Mr Hall responded that it was in 2019 under a different agent and read out the wording “taking all the above factors into consideration I am of the opinion that a scheme for some limited additional development on this site could be supported” making the point that the previous proposal was for 3 plots, one of which was detached from the site, and this proposal is for 2 plots. Councillor Benney made the point that to seek pre-application advice, act on what has been said and then to refuse it does seem to be unfair.

·       Councillor Benney asked what in terms of millimetres is the difference between Flood Zone 1 and Flood Zone 2 because if you look at the flood maps there is hardly any Flood Zone 2 in Fenland? Mr Hall responded that he would not know what the difference in levels is off the top of his head.

Members asked questions to officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked what is the difference between Flood Zone 1 and 2? David Rowen referred him to the answer provided by Mr Hall.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that having a pre-application for 2 houses is cost that somebody has incurred and to get an answer back that advises to submit for less so less is submitted and it still being recommended for refusal, whilst he recognises it is not binding, he feels is unfair. He referred to Flood Zone 2 and members went to a site in Friday Bridge several years ago with that the site being in Flood Zone 2 and next door was in Flood Zone 1, which was lower and if you look at the flood maps there is very little Flood Zone 2 in the whole of Fenland and the mitigation is to raise the floor level and for limited development which the pre-application recommended would be approved he feels there is good merit for approving this application.

·       Councillor Connor agreed with Councillor Benney and remembers the site he is referring to in Friday Bridge, which did bring a lot of debate and was against officer’s recommendation that it was approved.

·       David Rowen made the point that in relation to the pre-application advice, it was one from 2019 and all pre-application advise is caveated that it is relevant for one year only because interpretation of policy can move on with appeal decisions, etc so any advice given in 2019 would not be binding upon a decision made in 2023 and unless he is mistaken the advice given was to reduce the level of development in this part of the site down to one dwelling whereas there is now two so effectively the application submitted has ignored the pre-application advice. He stated that in relation to flood risk and the difference in levels between Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 , it does not really matter it is classified as being in Flood Zone 2 and the Planning Policy requirements in terms of how such a site is considered in respect of that is quite clear which is if there are sequentially preferable sites available then the application should be refused and when applying the sequential test the issue of mitigation and site specific mitigation does not outweigh the sequential issue, the committee need to be satisfied sequentially that the site is acceptable and the issue of mitigation comes along after the sequential test has been passed.

Proposed by Councillor Marks to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation, but no seconder was forthcoming.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the applicant sought pre-application advice, and whilst this was four years ago and is not binding, did state the principle of development and flood risk was acceptable and it is the same Local Plan in existence as four years ago and that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness of the area.