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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for a new dwelling for Mr Thomas who is well known within the local area as being a major employer with at one stage 230 employees with that business having now been sold and Mr Thomas’ current enterprise employs approximately 70 people. She expressed the view that over the years Mr Thomas has put a lot into the local community and continues to do so as his health allows but unfortunately in more recent years Mr Thomas has suffered considerably poor health with one of the resulting main issues being reduced mobility and he is struggling to gain proper access in and around his existing dwelling at The Chimneys, with an opportunity presenting itself with the site next door as the Bowls Club is now closed there is a redundant brownfield site next door to his existing dwelling and the redevelopment of a brownfield site as proposed would provide an opportunity for Mr Thomas to design a purpose built dwelling to meet his specific needs, it will allow him to stay within the area that he loves, close to his existing home, family and business.

Mrs Jackson noted the officer’s comments with regards to the location but feels there are benefits to be had by redeveloping this parcel of previously developed land, which is something supported by the NPPF and it would also remove a non-conforming leisure use which could attract unlimited numbers of traffic and noise away from a residential dwelling and business. She expressed the opinion that it is argued that the reuse of this previously developed land would result in a site which is sequentially preferable in terms of flood risk, it is important to note that although the site lies within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood maps for planning these maps do not acknowledge local flood defences and taking into account these defences within the area in reality there is actually a low probability of flooding on this site and this position has been set out in the Flood Risk Assessment which has been acknowledged and supported by the Environment Agency and accordingly there are no sustainable objections in terms of flood risk.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application has received 7 letters of support from the local community and no objections from local councillors or statutory consultees and it is considered that there are valid planning reasons to support this application in terms of the benefits of removing a non-conforming use, the reuse of brownfield land and the acceptability on flood risk grounds.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is a brownfield site, it is for one single dwelling and is outline, assuming it would be for a bungalow if the applicant has poor health and the only concern she has is regarding flooding but questioned whether the site has ever flooded before.

·       Councillor Benney made the point as the agent said all flood risk has been complied with and Fenland is the best drained piece of land in the country with the best drainage system and the water is managed and whether the site itself floods there will not be a problem with it being built and raising the level of the development which is the mitigation measures to resolve building in Flood Zone 3, it would not run off and run into somebody else’s garden and it is not proposed to build 20 houses that is going to allow surface water to run off into another housing estate somewhere else and cause problems there which does happen. He stated that planning is about putting all these ideas in a pot and working out which ones are given merit and what the planning committee feel comfortable with, the fact that it is in Flood Zone 3 there are mitigation measures to build which will stop that building from flooding and if the house next door had flooded he is sure there would be problems with the insurance and in which case he would not want to be building a house next door. Councillor Benney stated that it is a brownfield site and brownfield sites should be developed before green sites and agricultural land so, in his view, it is making good use of land.

·       Councillor Marks made the point in relation to flooding that the IDB have got no problems with it, he has driven this road on a number of occasions and he has never seen any flooding, the issue is more with the road being bumpy than flooding and the water is going to sit on the roadside more than it is the land. He feels it surely makes better use, with the Bowls Club gone, to use this land here than try and find a green field site somewhere else and he has no problem supporting this application.

·       David Rowen referred to Mrs Jackson’s comments about the site being previously developed but looking at the definition of previously developed land within the NPPF it is not quite so certain that it is within that definition and it is quite explicit that this excludes land in built up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments and he feels that a bowling green would come within the definition of a recreation ground. He referred to the issue of flood risk and the comments of Mrs Jackson regarding the existence of flood defences, making the point that the adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Flooding, which is the Cambridgeshire wide document, is quite clear that in applying the sequential test the existence of flood defences should be effectively ignored when undertaking that sequential test so the fact that flood defences exist does not make the site sequentially acceptable.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the mention of recreational grounds and asked if this is in public ownership as opposed to private ownership as he would have thought there should be a difference between the two. David Rowen responded that land ownership does not come into it when looking at this definition but the actual land use relative to that definition.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as under Policy LP3 developments in small village settlements will be considered on their merit and would normally be limited in nature and scale to residential infill or small opportunities which it is felt that this proposal is, under Policy LP12 this is the reuse of a rural bowling green and it is felt the benefits of the proposal outweigh the requirement for a sequential test.

David Rowen pointed out that the applicant, his background and his contribution to the community are not material planning considerations, the development site is outside the settlement boundary and conflicts with that settlement hierarchy and the delivery of housing does not override this or flood risk so whilst there is a balance a greater weight needs to be given to certain issues than other issues.

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant is known to him through a previous business but he has not been in contact with him for a long time and therefore he is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)