Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney explained that the application is for outline planning permission for up to six dwellings and the officer’s report states that the principle of development is acceptable. She added that members may recall the Planning in Principle (PIP) application was granted by the committee for five dwellings on the land to the immediate east of the site.

Ms Penney referred to the presentation screen and pointed out the neighbouring PIP is entirely reflective of what she is proposing both in terms of the suggested layout of development in depth and in general density. She explained that the neighbouring site is located entirely within Flood Zone 3, whereas the current application is located only partially in Flood Zone 3, with the remainder of the land being in Flood Zone 1.

Ms Penny referred to the presentation screen which points out the officer recommendation for the neighbouring PIP and it states that the back land nature of the development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and it further states that there is insufficient information to allow for development in Flood Zone 3, clarifying that no sequential test was submitted for the PIP. She referred to the presentation screen which displayed the extract from the decision notice for the PIP which shows that it was granted and the committee’s reason for going against the officer’s recommendation was ‘the committee in consideration of the scheme deemed that the benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. The development was therefore considered to comply with the Fenland Local Plan 2014’.

Ms Penney expressed the view that the similarities between her site and the PIP next door are such that the PIP is a material planning consideration, with her scheme having the added benefit that they have provided a sequential test and that there will be the removal of an industrial non-conforming use within a residential area. She added that in the committee report at paragraph 9.13 it says that the technical details for the PIP have not been submitted and as such only limited weight should be afforded to it in terms of the back land nature of the development but referred members to the presentation screen which shows an extract taken from the Government’s planning practice guidance, which states that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission and the first stage relates to the principle of development and the second stage relates to technical details, with it at no point suggest that the first stage is a lesser permission.

Ms Penney explained that the adjoining PIP was granted on the 30 May 2024 and is, therefore, extant for nearly two more years. She added that contrary to the officer’s report and given the Government guidance and despite the lack of technical details, in her opinion, she suggested that the length of time the adjoining PIP remains extant for means that it is allowed to be a material planning consideration.

Ms Penney made the point that when factoring those aspects in the tandem nature of the development is already established in this location as is the principle of development in Flood Zone 3. She expressed the opinion the proposal is entirely reflective of the character of the approval next door which has been demonstrated by a sequential test that there are no alternative sites which are suitably available to accommodate the development, with the proposal being for 6 plots which would remove a non-conforming business use from a residential locality, and this would represent a solution to the site which is in keeping and consistent with other decisions in the area.

Ms Penney asked members of the committee to afford the same considerations to this site as was given to the site next door by granting planning permission.

Members asked Ms Penney the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for an explanation with regards to the non-conforming use term which she has used in her presentation and whether she is implying that the business has not got planning permission? Ms Penney stated that the existing use for the site is industrial and is Class B2 which is noisy use typically. She added that by removing it from a residential area it would be to the benefit of the surrounding area.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked how long the business has been located at the site? Ms Penney explained that it has been on site for a number of years and was there on its own originally and was purposefully sited there as it was noisy use but over time the area has evolved, and it is now residential.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that because of the new houses which have already been constructed and the other PIP application, in her view, by removing the building would actually be a community benefit and she would like to support the proposal in its entirety.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French and agreed that there has already been a PIP application which seemed to be acceptable. He explained that he cannot see any other way to move forwards other than grant the application and he feels that it would be a benefit.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he agrees that the application will benefit the community and clean up the area whilst benefiting the residents who live in the locality, and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application further down the road was approved and Fallow Corner Drove is being developed. He expressed the opinion that there is other development at the end that is not of linear design and just because there is not a development of one particular style does not mean that something does not fit in or work. Councillor Benney expressed the view that it is a good use of land and if he was living next door to the site then he would be pleased to have houses on the site, rather than an industrial unit which may be quiet at the moment but if it is occupied by another business it may turn out to be noisy all the time.

·         Councillor Benney stated that by removing the hard standing it will help with the surface water issue. David Rowen explained that he is not aware of any recognised surface water issue which has been identified. Councillor Benney stated that in the officer’s report it states that there is a lot of hard standing.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officers’ recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the objections by removing a noisy industrial building and adding a nice residential development, with a precedent already having been set.

(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. Councillor Marks further declared that the applicant is a customer of a business that he is director of and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Benney chaired this application)