Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Member received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alan Melton on behalf of Manea Parish Council. Mr Melton stated that the Parish Council has no objection to this development and they feel it is a replacement of dwellings that are already there, although they may be caravans. He finds it interesting to note that the proposed development would see the loss of a gypsy traveller site, which may be the strict interpretation of the rules, but having known this family for a long time and know of them and their work this site as a travellers site is dependent and personal to the occupants, Mr and Mrs Savage and family.

Mr Melton stated that under no circumstances, if there had been a planning application come in for a gypsy traveller site in that location, would it have been granted in the first place. He referred to the consultees and made the point that he can see no objections, especially from Highways as he knows residents have shown concern about the access and egress.

Mr Melton referred to the County Ecology report which recommends refusal due to lack of biodiversity but, in his view, it is surrounded by biodiversity and reiterated that there are already structures on the site so he feels it cannot be detrimental by building these homes. He feels there is a lot of writing about ecology but having read it thoroughly, in his opinion, this should all be dismissed.

Mr Melton highlighted the comments from the Council’s Traveller and Diversity Manager who stated the existing development was approved for a gypsy traveller caravan but expressed the view that circumstances and people change, with people wanting to move on and Chatteris and Manea and the surrounding areas years ago welcomed lots of traveller sites and travellers and their descendants are now living in houses and are prominent business people who have contributed a lot to the local economy and the local environment. He, therefore, feels these comments are not relevant and should be dismissed.

Mr Melton referred to local need, with it stating in the report that there is no discernible need but, in his view, from training he has received in the past the baseline of planning is land use and the need of houses will be determined by the market place. He expressed the view that the emerging Local Plan makes no provision for any housing whatsoever in Manea, with in one section it saying it is a growth village and in another section it says there is no growth so it cannot be both.

Mr Melton questioned whether it encroaches into the countryside and referred to piecemeal development, with, in his opinion, anybody who uses that road as regularly as he does will know that Westfield Road is made up of piecemeal development so this proposal is not out of character. He stated that it is the conclusion of the Parish Council that this application stands as a good application, a replacement application, it is going to have no detrimental effect on the village or highways and, therefore, the application should be approved.

Members asked questions of Mr Melton as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to it being stated that this would never have obtained planning permission but in 2014 it received planning permission? Mr Melton agreed that it did but if the report is read carefully it says it was personal to the family that lived there as they were already living there and had done for some time. He added that if the County Council had identified a need for further traveller sites within the boundaries of Manea that site would not have been considered.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the policy for gypsy travellers is not up to date and she would suggest as the Clerk of Manea Parish Council that this information is submitted to the Council for inclusion in the emerging Local Plan. Mr Melton responded that in the next municipal year Manea Parish Council are going to embark on a Neighbourhood Plan and this will be included. He stated that he recognises as does the Parish Council that there is a need for gypsy sites but there are sites that are far better than this one.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the key points with this application are Policies LP3, LP12 and LP16 and he feels that Manea is a growth village, with the site lying within the built-up form of Manea. He stated that he has been visiting this site for around 20 years and there has always been various buildings on site.

Mr Hall, referring to a map on the presentation screen, stated that under Policy LP12 it states development should abut existing built-up form and, in his opinion, this does by abutting Cox Way to the southeast and there are further permanent residential dwellings to the south west of the site that are established. He made the point that Policy LP16 states that proposals should make a positive contribution to the character of the area and this site cannot even be seen from Westfield Road and is well screened from the public right of way running along the front of the site so, in his opinion, the proposal will not be detrimental to the area and would have no impact on neighbouring dwellings, with there being no objections from any adjacent neighbours.

Mr Hall made the point that there are no technical objections to the application and the site is in Flood Zone 1, has an existing access which will be utilised and there has been no objection from Highways and there have been already for a number of years persons living on site. He stated that the indicative site plan submitted with the application shows three dwellings but as can be seen from the size of the site it could accommodate in terms of area a lot more dwellings but it has been limited due to the existing access and persons that are on site now and persons assumed that would be on site if the proposal gets approval.

Mr Hall expressed the view that members will be aware of other applications along Westfield Road, on the northern side, that are just like this one having been approved by committee and they go back a similar distance from Westfield Road compared to where this one would be. He expressed the opinion that this is an ideal site for development with persons already living on the site, it has an existing access, it will not block the public right of way, there is existing drainage, it is in Flood Zone 1, there is no change in the street scene with it being well screened and it is supported by all the consultees, particularly the Parish Council as just heard from Mr Melton.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if this proposal is for the traveller’s family, ie sons/daughters? Mr Hall responded that the persons living on site are all the same family as it is and from what he has been told it will be the same persons who will still be living on that site.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned the proposal being in the open countryside and what she can see and has read this is a brownfield site and this is for replacement of structures that are already in existence and asked if this is correct? Gavin Taylor responded that the planning permission in use currently is for residential use, the structures for residential use are tighter to the existing built form than the extent of the site plan proposed via the red line so the concern is the depth of that site relative to the existing built form and how that relates, with it being considered that it relates more closely to the countryside. He stated that there are structures on the site but they do not extend as far as the red line goes and notwithstanding the residential use of the site is restricted by virtue of the special circumstances that were considered at that time, the policies that direct development to villages and countryside are no different to what they were before due to the need to protect the open countryside and keep development tight to the existing built form.

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the comments of the Traveller and Diversity Manager who states that the existing development was approved as a gypsy traveller caravan accommodation to meet the cultural needs of their lifestyle and it would appear that the family that are living there have lived here for some considerable time so they are seeking to replace the accommodation that they are living in now with brick structured buildings and the agent has said that the brick structured buildings will be lived in by the applicants and their family. He sees that the Traveller and Diversity Manager has questioned that the loss of the traveller site would mean the need to look elsewhere to replace it but there has been no movement on that site for a number of years so the people are not transient. Councillor Gerstner asked for clarification on the loss of the traveller’s site and what that means to the Council. Gavin Taylor responded that there is some discussion in the report at 10.7 onwards regarding that, which considers this development on accommodation for gypsy travellers but it is acknowledged that this is specifically restricted to specific individuals which are intending to reside on this site. He stated that it does not form a reason for refusal in terms of loss of gypsy traveller site and is not an open permission for any gypsy traveller to accommodate, it is specific to this family. Gavin Taylor made the point that whilst he acknowledges the agent’s comments in terms of the intention of the applicant it is not good business to restrict market dwellings to individuals to live in and it would be unreasonable to restrict it so these would be open market dwellings and the previous permission that restricts occupancy would fall away as a result.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked for clarification that it is not a reason for refusal on the loss of a gypsy traveller site? Gavin Taylor responded that officers do not consider it is because the applicant themselves who are restricted by that condition of occupancy are the applicants who wish to have an alternative type of accommodation.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the officer’s response to Councillor Mrs French that the depth of the site as opposed to the existing built form and structures is more than what is proposed to be built and the way it is laid out there is more land space available and asked if this was correct? Gavin Taylor made the point that it is an indicative layout only and officers would have to take into consideration associated paraphernalia that could go with that residential use and curtilage afforded to one or two or three of those dwellings is quite substantial and goes out further into the countryside than the current built form. He added that whilst the layout is not committed it could be this layout, it could be deeper or it could be with residential paraphernalia so it is a consideration regarding the depth of the site and how this encroaches into the countryside.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point that when he visited the site there were a lot of structures on site and from what he sees now from the proposal this would be a better use of the site, in his opinion, from what it currently is. He asked if officers agree with this? Gavin Taylor responded that it is not considered by officers to comply with policy and is more about landscape and visual impact.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the use is already in existence in an open countryside location and is surrounded by buildings so he does not understand this and asked for clarification. Gavin Taylor responded that the extent of the red line goes into the countryside well beyond any built structures that are on that site.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated he has visited the site and he fails to see why it is at committee as, in his view, it brushes with policy and councillors are here to put a human touch and to bring benefit to the community in which councillors represent. He stated that he has known the site for years, it is a brownfield site and in relation to building in the open countryside members are told that the gaps have to be filled in before moving out but Manea is sprawling in all directions and is a very large village in terms of area and what cannot be seen on the map is Glebe Close which equally protrudes out into the open countryside. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that there is a family here that have decided they want to give up living in caravans and live in a house and this proposal is not going to interfere with anything, there will not be additional traffic and there are no objections. He does not agree with Policy LP12 as it is in the middle of Manea and he fails to see how this is in the open countryside and nothing would be built if this approach was taken to all development. Councillor Benney referred to LP12 stating that schemes must be considered for new dwellings and this is a site that could have more development on it but the applicant only wants it for his family and his family are already there and whilst he recognises the recommendation of officers but feels that the committee and councillors are here to put a human face to the proposal and he feels this would be supporting a family and does not think it is detrimental. He expressed the view that it is a development that should be approved and he will be supporting the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the loss of a travellers site but her understanding is that these travellers have been there for many years, they are born into the traveller’s world and because they live in a solid building does not stop them being travellers. She feels it is a brownfield site, disagrees that it is in the open countryside and is a replacement of dwellings, so she will be supporting it.

·         Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that there are 6 letters of support for this proposal, there is no intensification of the area, Highways have not made any objections, it sits within its own curtilage, it is a visual improvement on what is there at the moment, the family has been on the site a long while and he will be supporting the application.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that the debate mentioned the family and if that is a significant material consideration if they were to ultimately support the application it would need to be considered whether or not there is so much weight on this that a restricted occupancy condition should be imposed but the NPPF does dissuade from doing this as if housing is being delivered it should be unencumbered. He added that the site itself currently is an extension of default agricultural land and does not form the residential use so, therefore, it would not technically be previously developed land under brownfield. Gavin Taylor referred to the mention of 6 letters of support and whilst the content of letters of support or objection might be material, there is no policy indication that this should be given any more weight.

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 apply reasonable conditions in association with the Chairman.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel under LP3 that this is not an elsewhere location as it lies within the boundary of Manea, it is delivering high quality accommodation, it is improving the quality of lives of the residents and under LP16(d) this proposal is adding to the high quality environment.

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the applicant as he went to school with him and over 20 years ago he was a sub-contractor that undertook work for him but he does not socialise with him and also the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows the applicant and is undertaking personal work for them and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)