Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alan Melton on behalf of Manea Parish Council read out by Member Services. Mr Melton stated that Manea Parish Council resolved to support the application consisting of the demolition of Lavender Bungalow and its replacement with 5 dwellings. He advised that the Parish Council recognises that there is a need for this type of dwelling, which offers an affordable alternative to buying a detached or semi-detached property.

Mr Melton stated that although the Parish Council noted the planning officer comments regarding lack of open space and garden area, the level of open space is consistent with their comments regarding the affordability of these dwellings. He notes that the Highway Authority has no objection and the comments regarding the preservation of ecology matters, but the Parish Council feels that sensible mitigation measures can overcome these issues.

Mr Melton advised that the Parish Council agrees that Anglian Water has failed to invest significantly in the foul water discharge in Manea and with Manea recognised as a ‘growth settlement’ Fenland Planning and the Environment Agency should urge Anglian Water to invest significantly in Manea.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Charlie Marks, the District Councillor. Councillor Marks stated he is the District Councillor for Manea and lives in Manea and over the last 3-4 years has worked tirelessly with the developer, Manea Parish Council and the local neighbouring properties regarding this development. He stated that the previous development was a run-down mill, it was demolished by the previous owners who had promised Section 106 money of £110-115,000 to come back into the village but after demolishing the mill they came back and this money was removed so no money was received into the village.

Councillor Marks stated that the new owners have worked tirelessly with the Parish Council, with the current bungalow on the site being in a poor condition, it is built on a hillside and was a worker’s cottage for the mill, with no money being spent on it for a number of years and the best thing that can happen to it is to be demolished. He referred to the current proposal for 5 dwellings and stated that the scale on the four joining properties, whilst it might be slightly larger looking at other properties within the Manea area such as Station Road there are a multitude of different, large properties so he does not believe for the scale of property being described here would affect the street scene but would make it look better on an entrance to what is going to be 29 bungalows, which are desperately needed in Manea.

Councillor Marks expressed the view that this area has not flooded and in relation to ecology whilst there may be bats there, they are more likely to be in the old mill across the road because the current bungalow on site is being used as offices. He referred to the mention of sub-standard areas to plots 1 and 2, making the point that some people do not want big gardens and in relation to parking, there is a station in Manea and people walk to the station and there is also a good bus route and the likelihood is that a lot of these properties are going to be for retired people anyway and not young families so he does not see this as too much of an issue.

Councillor Marks made the point that the current owners have already started investing into Manea, with Manea Parish Council asking for various things which have been provided before development has even started.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Cooper, the applicant. Mr Cooper expressed the opinion as lead architect he feels it is a very good scheme and it responds to layering through the site, with the photos shown on the slides in the officer’s presentation not showing the large 4-6 bedroom properties which are to the west of the site, which, in his view, would have been fair to show because as you drive down Fallow Corner Drove it is all about the scale of those properties. He stated that his architectural approach has been to respect that pattern of development, with a larger structure at the front of the site and then as you go up through the site to layer into bungalows and then transition into phase 1 where 29 bungalows will be built.

Mr Cooper expressed the opinion that the larger structure at the front in architectural terms turns the corner and it does have prominence but he feels it is a good thing, adds visual interest and will be exciting. He stated that all the materials proposed here are being used in phase 1 and they align with all the materials on Fallow Corner Drove so, in his view, it is in keeping with the area.

Mr Cooper referred to talk within the report about the nature of small dwellings and he has come from a discussion this week with a 21 year old daughter of a third generation farmer in Manea who cannot get on the housing ladder, she can just about afford a mortgage but as she can do this cannot get into social housing so she is one of these people who would benefit from these small starter homes, which not affordable in tenure would be affordable in market terms and would mean she would not have to look outside the village and District. He acknowledged that there was an objection from Coolruss early in the process but the designs have been changed at the first floor on the east elevation, with there being two single light windows which serve a bathroom and are obscure glazed so there is no overlooking and there is also a side obscure glazed panel which has been added on to the balcony which, in his view, is a nice touch so you could look at the Cathedral and, in his view, a condition could be applied to insert a fan light with the main part of the window being fixed shut on that side elevation.

Mr Cooper stated that he does understand the reference to inconsistent details on plot 5, with the Flood Risk Assessment saying it must be 0.5 of a metre above adjacent ground level and it is. He referred to the private outside amenity space comments which he finds erroneous, he has double checked and triple checked and the average is 44%, with the minimum being plot 1 at 38% and the requirement is 33%.

Mr Cooper stated that his advice to the legal position on the sequential test is that under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Water Act 2010 and within the policy of the NPPF there is sufficient flexibility to obviate the need for sequential test when there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that there is no risk of flooding and, in his opinion, there is evidence that this has not flooded in hundreds of years and it is also in an incredibly tightly monitored area and there have been no suggestion from either the Middle Level Commissioner or IDBs that there is a problem. He stated that all the data was submitted yesterday in relation to the BNG and feels this can be handled by condition and there is no viability assessment required because it is a voluntary contribution responding to a request.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French queried that the application has to be determined by 30 June 2025 and asked if this is an error? David Rowen responded that it was not, a new officer who has only just joined the Council did agree a fairly lengthy extension of time, however, there are so many fundamental issues as set out within the report from an officer perspective that it was not considered prudent to delay the determination of it any longer hence being in front of committee. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it appears to be lacking bits and pieces of information and wonders whether the application should be deferred.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that when he first looked at the proposal he thought it was a bit cramped but after visiting the site and looking at the plans he thinks it is a good quality development and is pleased to hear from the agent that the overlooking aspects have been resolved to Coolruss Lodge. He feels it is a gateway into the Lavender Mill estate that is there and is something that Manea has been working very hard towards delivering and the application warrants merit.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that this is a well thought out scheme, this proposal is being undertaken first before the bungalows are built and Manea Parish Council support it having worked proactively towards coming to a very favourable conclusion. He commended Mr Cooper on this.

·         The Legal Officer reminded members that the Parish Council’s support in itself is not a material consideration in determining the application.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the reasons for the refusal, personally feeling he can support the application, the amount of development taking place on the site he has seen far more cramped applications than this one, referring to a development in Wisbech St Mary where it was said that one-bedroom flats were not needed but they all sold, this may be or may not be in keeping but he thinks the proposal would look nice and he does not think they will stand empty for long when they are built and just because there is nothing like it in the road it does not mean it is unwanted or will not sell. He expressed the opinion that the overlooking has been addressed, the relationship with plot 5 has also been addressed and not everyone wants big gardens and young people these days have no desire to undertake or want to do gardening and once they are built people will have the choice it will be buyer beware and they can make an informed decision. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that committee has already overturned a similar application in relation to a flooding reason for refusal, there is Flood Zone 3 opposite and the scheme can be mitigated against. He feels that the ecology appraisal can be dealt with via condition and in relation to voluntary contribution he feels if it is on the table it is welcomed.

·         David Rowen referred to the garden space and acknowledged that people do not necessarily want big gardens, however, he made the point that the gardens to plots 1 and 2 measure 6 metres by 2.7 metres and 4.9 metres by 1.5 metres which are the size of car parking spaces and are incredibly small in terms of any kind of useable amenity space. He stated that the 2-bedroom units are being indicated as starter homes but queried what if they become starter family homes because there is no space for amenity or outdoor use. David Rowen referred to the applicant indicating that the issues regarding overlooking have been addressed but this has not satisfactory answered officers concerns, with the concerns being largely around the accessing of units 2 and 3 on the eastern side as there are raised steps to get into the property by approximately 1.2 metres and there is a 1.8 metre fence so every time somebody goes into one of those properties or comes out they will be looking over that fence at Coolruss Lodge into the side windows and the more private side area of that property. He made the point that the ecology issues cannot be dealt with via condition, in legislative terms those issues need to be resolved before a decision is made so that those material considerations are adequately assessed. David Rowen stated that the ecological appraisal that has been submitted with the application was dated April 2023 so there have been two surveying seasons where that necessary information could have been addressed and it is the applicant’s own survey work that has identified the potential presence of protected species within the site so those two issues cannot be dealt with through conditions. He stated in terms of voluntary contributions the policy requirement is that if sites are to be linked there needs to be a full viability assessment to ascertain whether the contribution that is being offered is the optimum available and as it stands on this application there is £8,000 on the table effectively from a 33 house scheme if combined with the site to the rear, which does not seem a great deal of money to mitigate any harm arising from the wider development and that is the point of needing a viability assessment. David Rowen expressed the opinion that if members are approaching this in the sense that it is a voluntary contribution that is being put forward, he would have strong concerns that without the viability assessment being undertaken that starts to get into the territory of potentially “buying planning permission”, although he is not suggesting impropriety.

·         The Legal Officer added that the Planning Authority can only require payment if there is proven requirement for that payment linked to the development and as David Rowen has said in the absence of a viability report he does not see how a Planning Authority can begin to understand the appropriate level of contribution and a voluntary contribution should not be taken into account in determining the application. He stated that the consequence might be that if members approve this application in the absence of a proper viability report then they may be missing out on a genuinely higher level of contribution.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the comments of Councillor Benney and drew members attention to 2/3 applications that were approved on the other side of the road a few years ago next to the mill and if there is going to be any bats there he agrees that is where they are more likely to be. He referred to the contribution and believes Councillor Marks said the previous owner of the site offered no contribution for 29 houses at all so he feels that ship has sailed. Matthew Leigh stated that if this site is linked to the site at the rear and it is being said they are one development that opens up viability issues for that whole site legally and if this is the way it is being looked at the whole scheme needs to be looked at but if it is standalone no contributions should be accepted as it is 5 units and they do not have to provide anything.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it looks to him to be a standalone scheme. David Rowen stated that it is the applicant that is seeking to link the two sites in terms of making voluntary contributions and their calculations to what they will provide in relation to this application is partly based on that first phase of 29 dwellings at the back so the applicant has linked the two sites from that point of view. He continued that it either needs to be linked properly and a viability assessment is undertaken or no contributions should be sought.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if it was the same owner for both sites? Officers indicated that it was the same owner. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is her understanding is that when this type of thing happen you do link them together. She made the point that she likes to get Section 106 money but it seen time and again that when it goes to viability it comes back as not being affordable and it is good that the applicant wants to offer £8,000 but she is not sure what this will pay for. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that David Rowen is right, the contributions have to come from the whole scheme.

·         The Legal Officer stated that the legal position is very clear that any voluntary contributions cannot be taken into account on this application because it is not a legal requirement to do so but if there is a suggestion that the wider site is taken into consideration which already has permission nothing can be required at this stage because it is known what the viability numbers are.

·         Matthew Leigh stated it is quite unusual where an applicant is trying to link the sites.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the stumbling block is that if the £8,000 is accepted then it looks like the committee is being bought which he does not think it can do and if it said that the £8,000 just will not be accepted then committee will be criticised for throwing good money away. He suggested that the application be deferred for the BNG requirements and financial contributions to be resolved.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is favour of the site and would not be comfortable with refusing it but feels the best compromise is a deferral.

·         Matthew Leigh referred to Councillor Benney’s suggestion of a deferral for ecology and suggested that a bat survey was also added. Councillor Benney stated he would accept the three reasons for deferment.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned why a bat survey was required when it was said the most likely place they would be found would be in the old mill? Councillor Connor responded that it is because confirmation is required to say that is where they are and not on the development site.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to obtain an ecology appraisal, a bat survey and a viability assessment.

(Councillor Marks declared that he is pre-determined on this application and after giving his presentation, left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)