Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, read out by Member Services from Mr Nick Usher, an objector. Mr Usher stated he would like to pass on his thoughts and incredulity in the manner this application has been handled.  He referred to the timeline, with 24 January 2022 being commencement of first outline application which included the Environment Agency objection, with planning suggesting refusal and the Planning Committee voting 6-0 refusal; on 11 October 2022 the exactly same outline application was submitted apart from the Environment Agency objection, which had been submitted but just not loaded onto the application, and on 23 February 2024 this application somehow got through by the same Planning Committee on a 4-3 acceptance and he made the point that on these and previous minutes there are no declarations of interest by any member.

Mr Usher referred to the Reserved Matters application, which proposes a completely new amount of much larger houses with 30% more bathrooms and toilets even though the Environment Agency objected to all previous applications but somehow 30% extra waste would be acceptable? He made the point that on 12 February 2025 the Environment Agency stated that they have had not had enough time to put together a clearly formulated case so they must rescind their objections, but, in his view, they have had exactly three years to put together a case.

Mr Usher expressed the view that there is also no bus service now on Westfield Road to service these new homes and questioned how this will that effect future homeowners? He feels there may well be a case here for a judicial review as, in his opinion, this whole application and the manner in which it has been dealt with, is a complete and utter farce, when this tragedy of an application is passed, the future will be full of flooding and foul waste problems.

Mr Usher expressed the opinion that when these water problems do occur, it will cost the entire community of Manea when it is flooded with effluence and surface water, and who do residents come to with all its costs and bills? He questioned whether it will be the Environment Agency for not formulating a plan in three years and not standing with their objections, or the planning service for not putting/withholding all the important information online or the Planning Committee for reversing a 6-0 decision for the same application?

Mr Usher expressed the view that it is all very well people sitting in their ivory towers and passing decisions that are meaningless to themselves but asked when will it become clear that applications like this will affect citizens and voters’ lives, when most are struggling with just living their lives.

Members made the following comments:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would like it recorded that the objector is a Manea Parish Councillor who also commented on the application at a Manea Parish Council meeting.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she finds it surprising that reference is made by the objector to the Environment Agency as it is Anglian Water or the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) that the Council engages with.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application site already has outline approval for 26 dwellings and that was approved by the committee in 2024. He explained that the detailed proposal is a reduction to 24 dwellings and it includes a mixture of properties, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings, including semi-detached and detached homes.

Mr Hall added that during the application process, officers raised some queries on the initial proposal and he attended a meeting with officers and as a result the proposal was amended and since that time, a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted, the layout was revised, a substation has been included, additional garages and the highways queries have all been addressed. He explained that some of the concerns on public access are with regard to concerns with the overhead cables and he has had a meeting with UK Power Networks and a plan has been produced to demonstrate that the cable will be set underground and there will be an easement strip for the substation.

Mr Hall explained that there will also be a strip of land left in order to allow access to the substation and the poles on the adjacent sites. He added that the archaeological dig at the site has already been undertaken.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority, Highways, Environmental Health, the Tree Officer and the Council’s Housing Team have confirmed that the affordable housing provision complies with the outline approval and the Section 106 previously agreed. He added that all of the development within the site is located in Flood Zone 1, and a Section 106 Agreement has already been confirmed at outline stage with both the District and County Council’s Legal Department for this site with contributions of £2,000 per house to the NHS England, education infrastructure, libraries, public open space and on-site affordable housing provision.

Mr Hall referred to the written representation that was presented and he made the point that he does not agree with its content as whilst the first application for outline permission was refused, the second application for outline permission was not exactly the same application and there were three reasons for refusal with one being ecology which was withdrawn with the second resubmission, and one had no Section 106 contributions proposed on one of those applications as he was not involved. He added that a Section 106 was submitted at the time which was agreed with Mr Harding, the previous Head of Planning and that reason was also withdrawn.

Mr Hall explained that there was only one reason on the second application which was the principle of development and members at that time approved it. He stated that the officers report sets out the proposal very well and the officer has outlined the report very well in her presentation, with the application being recommended for approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor stated that he not seen any mention of any road sweeping and wheel washing in the conditions as mud left on the road appears to be causing issues again and he does not want to see any debris left on the road from developments. He asked Mr Hall whether he can provide definite assurances that there will be measures put in place to stop that happening? Mr Hall stated that on the outline application conditions there may be a condition asking for construction management plan, but he cannot confirm that. He added that a condition can be added to the application or on the outline to reflect conditions about wheel washing and sweeping the roads, but he cannot give a cast iron guarantee that will happen as he is not the developer, however, he would welcome a condition.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         David Rowen stated that condition 4 of the outline permission does require measures to minimise mud from being taken onto the highway from the site and for it to be submitted and agreed with officers as part of a construction management plan.

·         Councillor Connor questioned whether that categorically states that there will be a wheel washer and a sweeper of some description. David Rowen stated that wording states measures to minimise mud from being taken onto the highway from the site and in practice that is likely to be a wheel wash or a sweeper but there is a control in the condition which addresses that issue.

·         Councillor Connor referred to 5.4 of the report which relates to waste disposal, and he explained that he been made aware that there is going to be some improvements made to the drainage system so waste water can flow away which will alleviate any problems which may arise.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether it has been confirmed that construction will not commence until a drainage strategy is in place? Danielle Brooke stated that within the outline scheme which has approval, Anglian Water have the obligation to take foul water flows from the site. She added that there is a condition on the outline application, a pre commencement condition requiring a full foul surface scheme to be secured prior to development commencing.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned whether officers are satisfied that Anglian Water do have the capacity for the development? Danielle Brooke stated that they have an obligation and whether they have the capacity at this point in time is not entirely clear, however, Anglian Water are looking to improve Manea Wastewater Treatment Works within their wider business plan and that has been secured.

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

·         Councillor Marks explained that this site is located within his ward and with regards to the first buildings on the site itself, he has received numerous phone calls regarding mud on the road from development sites in Manea, however, in the case of this development he has received no calls or been asked to go and visit the site to intervene. He added that he has been asked for advice with regards to vehicles being parked on the road, however, the vehicles in question were not connected to the development site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that with regards to foul water it is his understanding that Anglian Water are commencing works at the sewerage works which is ongoing and at times they have been using tankers. He added that with regard to whether there is capacity, in his view, there is just enough capacity depending on how many more houses come forward.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the scheme is much better than the previous one as a result of the reduction and she welcomes the inclusion of significant Section 106 contributions, and she will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned the adoption of the roadway once the site is complete.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that as a member of the Highways and Transport Committee for the County Council she would assume that the County Council would want to see the road brought up to an adoptable standard but whether they adopt it is a different matter and if adopted then there would be a 20mph speed restriction imposed.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that 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 Benney further declared that the applicants had historically undertaken work for him )

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Manea Parish Council but takes no part in Planning. He further declared that the applicant for this item is known to him in a professional capacity but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)