Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Grant 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 Councillor Charlie Marks, District and Manea Parish Councillor. Councillor Marks stated that he has worked very closely with the developers in the last 6 months since this was considered at committee previously and these developers have worked tirelessly with the local residents to try and resolve any issues that have arisen since they have been building the 29 properties. He made the point that the 5 properties being proposed remove a dated and in places damaged bungalow and bring 5 more affordable homes into the village as opposed to one bungalow which does need demolishing resulting, in his view, in a good use of land.

Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is not imposing by the way it stands, if you drive along that road there are a number of larger properties that are elevated and at the bottom there is a farmhouse that had to be built up due to flooding issues and on the corner there is a two storey building that is about 2½ to 3 metres out of the ground due to flooding issues, but there have not been any flooding issues at this end of the village. He made the point that the developer has worked tirelessly with Cambridgeshire County Council Highways and spent a fortune at the beginning of the road coming to the property entrance, they have had numerous incidents of coming across issues that were not either on plan or alternatively Highways wanted extra work, which they have paid for financially themselves and the benefit to the village is to stop flooding and, in his view, the flooding issue here with the foul water drainage will be overcome.

Councillor Marks stated that this application and this site needs this bungalow to be removed, the affordable homes are needed and going forward he believes this application should give what is required, whilst there are other issues there, he feels they are not insurmountable. He requested the application be approved.

Members asked questions of Councillor Marks as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to the mention that the foul water issue has been resolved but why does it say in the officer’s report that it has not been? Councillor Marks responded that the developer has tried working with the planning officer and there are still some matters that need to be overcome but he has no doubt seeing how these developers have dealt with issues already, which is a breath of fresh air in Manea, that they will be resolved. He referred to roadway at the top of Westfield Road and the corner of this road there is all new tarmac and new gullies and there was a lot of illegal discharge onto the site of the 29 houses and the developer worked tirelessly, finding it to be a Highways problem, however, Highways at the time had suspended their contractor, which held up the project and the project has gone way over budget. Councillor Imafidon stated that it was refreshing to see the standard of road when he visited the site. Councillor Marks made the point that it is refreshing to see a developer do what they say they are going to do.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked why there is no BNG? Councillor Marks responded that the developer can answer this.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Christian Cooper, the agent, and Robert Wickham, planning consultant. Mr Wickham referred to a basic error, in his view, in the officer’s report and summary, which refers to the decision of the Planning Committee on 5 February 2025, it states that the matter is deferred to amongst other things obtain a viability assessment, stressing the word that is used in the report being obtain, but at the February meeting Councillor Benney stated “I propose that we go with a deferment on this only for three things, ecological appraisal, bat survey and sort out the financial contributions and assessment of the site”, it does not say obtain a viability assessment. He expressed the opinion that sorting this out is a matter of deciding whether it is relevant and pertinent legally in the circumstances of the case.

Mr Wickham expressed the view that the design issues are not the subject of the councillors concern at the meeting, although it is raised in the report before committee today and the main point is that the statement at, for example Paragraph 2.1 that the matter was deferred to obtain this assessment, but in his view it was not it was to consider. He expressed the opinion that the officer’s report is seeking to add together the main development with this small scheme at the front of this site and there is clear guidance under case law on this subject, such as Westminster City Council and Secretary of State and New Dawn Homes versus the Secretary of State, from these decisions the key tests are whether sites are aggregated or not, ownership and in this case it is the same owner, but so it was in the Westminster case and the judge in that case determined that that was not determinative and secondly whether the sites constitute a single site for planning purposes, in this case on the second and third criteria, the aggregation of the two is not appropriate and is contrary to the case law.

Mr Wickham expressed that view that the Lancaster and New Dawn Homes cases refer to separate treatment of the applications and in this instance the current application is quite separate from the scheme under construction. He continued that the judge tested whether the two areas involved at Lancaster Gate were functionally linked, they were not and are not today, the rest of the site is linked one with the other as you go onto the site.

Mr Wickham made the point that this is a separate application, the original consent for 29 was submitted some 9 years ago. He expressed the opinion that the applicants are keen to support local services, and the Environment Agency are happy with the drainage, they only responded yesterday, and they are satisfied that the connection to the outfall proposed from the site is suitable for this development.

Mr Wickham referred to alleged flooding and stated that the houses will be on the higher land which has never been flooded, with none of the site having been flooded, which has been confirmed by a local farmer that over 75 years he has known it, it has never flooded. He expressed the view that the scheme will bring forward small homes that are very much in need in this area and a single bungalow and looking at the site from the front there is a medium to large house on the left hand side, ground and first, and this scheme will be ground and first balancing both sides of the site.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that when this application was considered previously he was happy to support it, it is not a dwelling that you would normally see in this location as they are mostly large, but this does look large even though there are four. He made the point that not everybody wants big gardens or to live in big houses and just because there is nothing else like this in this street does not mean it is not needed in the street or it will not sell, in his view, they will sell quickly. Councillor Benney referred to the flooding but there is already a bungalow on the site and this scheme is for two storeys, which gives people somewhere to go if it does flood, although he is sceptical that it would. He expressed the opinion that it is a good scheme, looks nice in the street and a local member spoke in favour of it and committee usually goes along with what the local member says as they know the area best. Councillor Benney acknowledged that it is an unusual application but that does not mean that it is not wanted or needed.

·       Councillor Connor agreed that it is a good application, committee has heard in the last 75 years that it has never flooded and across the other side of the road from this site there have been dwellings built and further along the ground goes down about 3-4 metres, so it is high ground which is unlikely to flood. He made the point that Councillor Marks has stated that the applicant and agent has worked tirelessly with the Parish Council and undertaken everything within their power to bring this to fruition, which he is refreshed by. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it will bring a benefit to Manea, as Councillor Benney stated not everyone wants a big house, it does have a small garden and some people only want small gardens, so they will not buy it if they want a big garden. He stated that he is enamoured with the scheme, it is a good scheme, and he will be supporting it.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the amount of development on the site is not considered excessive, it is felt the scheme works and looks good, the fence has been raised on the development which will help with overlooking making the point that wherever you are there is overlooking to some degree, with the current bungalow overlooking the garden of the neighbouring property anyway and the houses at the back overlooking the current bungalow, replacing a bungalow on a site in Flood Zone 3 with a two storey dwelling makes it safer and the scheme will bring homes for people, which in turns brings a public benefit.

(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 he would be speaking in support of the application, following his presentation he took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)