Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the application has the support of most of the standard consultees and a number of businesses from the village. He expressed the view that the proposal will provide for 5 individual plots which are likely to be purchased by self-builders or small developers which do not have the financial capacity to purchase the larger sections of development land in the District, with these parcels being massively important for Fenland to provide a diverse housing mix.

Mr Edwards stated that Gorefield is a small village under LP3 where development will be considered on its merits but will normally be of a very limited nature and limited to a scale of residential infilling or a small business opportunity but he would argue that as the site is the continuation of the constant built form on this side of the road of High Road and the natural boundary to the village built form is that of Hassock Hill Drove, which is to the west of the site, this is infilling from the existing built form to the natural end of the village. He made the point that there are further properties and businesses down Hassock Hill Drove but he would suggest that these are in open countryside whereas this development is a continuation of the built form and will provide a natural break between the village and the open countryside beyond.

Mr Edwards referred to in the description of LP3 the mention of “normally” a couple of times and questioned what is normal arguing that the site is similar to many that have been approved in the District and within the village itself especially the frontage plots that were approved on High Road at the other end of the village where there was a dyke seen as the end of the village for new development, with works taking place on the dwellings on this development. He stated that this is an outline application with all matters reserved, with the indicative layout showing how the site could easily accommodate 5 large dwellings but should committee feel that a single point of access should be provided they are happy to accept this as a condition of the approval.

Mr Edwards stated that the points made by North Level are noted and any development will look to put surface water from the site into the North Level main drain which is the other side of High Road and the relevant applications will be made to both North Level and Cambridgeshire County Council. He expressed the opinion that the site has not been maintained for a number of years other than for a bit of grazing and any proposal would look to clean out the dykes to improve the drainage for the site and surrounding properties and the land has not been commercially farmed for many years and viewing images from Google Earth it was in its current use in 1999 so there would be no loss of commercially farmed land.

Mr Edwards stated that a sequential test has been carried out on the land as part of Gorefield and not an elsewhere location, this has shown that there are no available sites in the village that can accommodate the number of dwellings proposed and he also checked Rightmove this morning and there are no plots for sale in the village. He feels they have addressed the reasons for refusal in that the development is infill between the existing constant built form of High Road and that of Hassock Hill Drove, which is the natural boundary to the village and from this point it becomes open countryside, the sequential test carried out on Gorefield which shows there are no available plots, the site is consistent with other developments that have been approved both within the village and the District as a whole and he requested that committee approve the application with the conditions deemed appropriate.

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards as follows:

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the mention that the land had not been commercially used since 1999 but feels the photographs show a cornfield. Mr Edwards responded that the site is just a grass field there are no crops. Councillor Marks added that his first thought was the land has been set aside so is still commercial property, still being used and getting paid a grant on it. Mr Edwards advised that his client has owned it for a long while it has never been farmed. Councillor Gerstner reiterated that the photos make it look like a cornfield. Mr Edwards responded that it is scrubland it has never been farmed as far as he is aware.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he has visited the site with Councillor Mrs French and it is not a cornfield it is just scrubland. Councillor Mrs French added that this is the benefit of going out on site rather than looking at photographs.

·       Councillor Gerstner requested clarification that it was arable land in its past and it has not been commercially used for a long time? Mr Edwards responded that at some point in time every part of Fenland has been arable land but this site has not been farmed for many, many years.

·       Councillor Benney referred to 10.17 of the officer’s report in that the application is accompanied by a sequential exception test which advises that the area of search is Gorefield rather than the whole rural area and officers disagree with this as a site it is considered to be outside the settlement of Gorefield and as such the sequential test is considered to fail and asked from this was the sequential test undertaken area wide rather than specific to Gorefield, when the test was undertaken was it looking for sites within Gorefield only and what is his opinion about undertaking it over a bigger area, with the bigger the area the more likely it is to fail? Mr Edwards responded that they concentrated on Gorefield alone as they are touching the built form of the village, with the village sign being in front of the site so it is clearly Gorefield and not an elsewhere location in his opinion. Councillor Benney asked what was found in Gorefield that would be an alternative site? Mr Edwards advised that there was no land available that is not already being developed.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Gerstner acknowledged that committee is looking at the application in front of it today, however, an application was considered by the committee in January 2022 and was refused on three grounds and asked if anything has changed since the previous application and this one? David Rowen responded that the previous decision was a delegated decision so it was not a committee decision and the application is essentially the same as previously refused by the Council.

·       Councillor Booth stated that reading the report the reason that it is before committee is because there are 5 letters of support from Gorefield and 2 from the neighbouring ward of Leverington, which takes it over the 6 letter threshold and asked if this is correct? David Rowen confirmed that this is correct.

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

·       Councillor Booth stated that this site is within his ward and he was present, although he did not take part in the discussion, at the Gorefield Parish Council meeting when they discussed this application, being refused previously under delegated powers and he feels the main reason to consider is whether this is in the village of Gorefield or whether it is extending the boundary and he feels, living quite near here, that the boundary is where the two speed limit signs and this would be extending the boundary so it would be going against policy. He stated that he finds it difficult to support this application on this basis and also the Parish Council have recommended refusal so members should listen to the Parish Council where it can as they know what is happening locally and have local knowledge.

Proposed by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Gerstner to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation which was not supported on a majority vote.

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

·       Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, drew members attention to the Planning Code of Practice, which says members are advised that a serious risk of challenge is imposed by failure to give and record clear and convincing planning reasons for the approval of planning applications where there is a history of refusals by the council and in this case there is a very recent refusal. He added that the Code of Practice also says that if the council is minded to approve an application previously refused the proposer of the motion must state what significant change in planning circumstances has occurred since the previous decision.

·       Councillor Marks asked if this is planning circumstances or as it is a new committee there are different people who have different perceptions? Stephen Turnbull responded that Paragraph 10 of the Code of Practice says that the fact there has been a significant change in the membership of the Planning Committee does not justify inconsistency between current and previous decisions.

·       Councillor Benney stated that here the committee is again in a situation where the proposal to refuse it has been rejected and they are now in a position where another proposal is going to be put on the table and reasons are required. He made the point that it is another committee, people’s opinions change and the opinion of the decision makers has changed although the development may not have so how is this rectified as if the committee has voted that they do not want to refuse this application and they do want to approve it, it cannot be a situation where things cannot change as does this mean for the next 200 years this site will never be built on. Councillor Benney expressed the view that in relation to the Code of Conduct who is going to challenge it and put money up for judicial review on this application, with no councillor having been sent to prison for making a wrong decision and it will be the Council who picks the bill up. He feels if it becomes an approved decision that may not sit right with the Code of Conduct but it may be this position if members vote that way. Stephen Turnbull responded that things do change and the answer from the Council’s constitutional point of view is policy can change, with the site possibly becoming part of the settlement or allocated in the Local Plan which would be a legitimate change that might justify changing the decision but it is right that the Council has to be consistent in its decision making so if this came before a Planning Inspector who looked at the Council’s approval now having refused it last year with no change in circumstances it would be seen as a fairly eccentric decision and not consistent with previous decisions. He stated that he is not saying that committee must refuse this application but he has to draw members’ attention to their Code of Practice which was written by members and if it came before an ombudsman rather than a judicial review, an ombudsman has powers to order payment of compensation and publicly declare the Council is guilty of maladministration.

·       Councillor Benney stated that this does not change that the situation is as it is and a proposal is going to come to the table for something else and members are going to vote a certain way, with the consequences being later on if members go with another proposal but members could still change their mind and decide they do not want another proposal and go back to the first proposal but it needs to run its democratic process. He made the point that there are 4 new members of the Planning Committee who were not here last time and they are entitled to have a totally different interpretation of policy. Stephen Turnbull responded that the reason why the Code of Practice says what it says is to try and encourage consistency in planning decisions so it cannot be right that new members of a committee take contrary decisions to previous historic decisions that have been made.

·       Councillor Booth stated that the Code of Practice is there to try and ensure consistency and make sure that this Council looks like it is acting appropriately and consistently in relation to planning applications, it is one of the big criticisms the Council has that it does not have a consistent approach and drew members attention to Page 171 where it was refused on 4 August 2022 for three main reasons; policies LP3, LP12 and LP14 and, in his view, there has not been a material change in policy, with the opportunity to change policy during the Local Plan review process.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that what officers interpret and what members interpret is different. She fully understands the point about the Code of Practice but if this had come to Planning Committee last year and the committee refused it committee would have to be consistent and refuse it but members do interpret policies differently which has been seen today right across this meeting so she thinks it can be justified in members having a different view to officers, which does not take anything away from the professionalism of officers.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that this is why we are a democracy as everybody has their own views on this and all he is looking for is an element of consistency and if members decide to vote against officer’s recommendation that they come up with valid planning reasons to go against the recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members did not support officer’s refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is not building in the open countryside, there are buildings opposite and it is squaring the end of the village providing quality development on the entrance to the village and a sequential test has been undertaken in Gorefield which shows no other sites are available and the mitigation can be undertaken on the flood risk of this site.

(Councillor Booth declared, that he is a District Councillor for Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary Ward and attended the meeting of Gorefield Parish Council where this application was discussed, but took no part and will consider the application with an open-mind)