Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall referred to the Google image on the presentation screen which shows a residential dwelling was approved on the opposite side of the road, down a track, in 2021 by committee and believes this has been built out. He stated that opposite to this site and adjacent there are residential dwellings, which were seen on the photos, and opposite this site there is a bus stop, which gives further links to the surrounding villages and towns and the majority of people in this area, Primrose Hill, own cars.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal would not be on mains drains so there would be no additional pressure on the foul water system in Doddington and there is further land to the rear of this site if anyone required it for paddocks, etc. He referred to concern being raised with regards to the access but made the point that there is no objection from Highways.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that this is not the only site that has been approved by members, he has already mentioned the one on the opposite side of the road, where the report has stated that the proposal is beyond the built up form of Doddington, with two dwellings being approved on Benwick Road in 2023 and the officer’s report stated that that proposal was 1.3km from the built up form of Doddington, far greater than this proposal. He acknowledged that the plan is an indicative plan and conditions cannot be placed on it if it is approved but they have shown residential dwellings with annexes.

Mr Hall stated that having travelled along this road last week there were no other dwellings that he could see that were vacant or for sale in this section of Primrose Hill. He continued that the indicative proposal is for dwellings with annexes, and he feels there are examples of this sort of development, such as Charlemont Drive in Manea, and there is a need for these types of dwellings.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal would allow high quality homes with tied residential annexes, although it is an indicative layout, to allow various generations to live together and he undertakes many jobs where people want to convert buildings to be annexes so feels there is a need for them.

Councillor Connor made the point that some of the agent’s presentation was not relevant as the proposal is only a PIP application.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to the built-up form of Doddington and, looking at the Google map, he had not realised if a straight line is drawn from the site across it is still Doddington because the postal address is PE15 0TB and he would say this is still as far out as the built-up area and asked if he agreed? Mr Hall responded that if a straight line was a drawn there are numerous other dwellings in that area both sides of the road and also planning approvals, so he does agree.

·       Councillor Benney stated that if there was a straight line, straight up then you go past the greenhouses and committee has passed dwellings further out than that along Benwick Road and asked if this was correct? Mr Hall agreed that two plots were approved here and thinks works may have started.

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked what is the difference between this development, where it is saying that people could be put at risk in Flood Zone 3, and the development which was passed in Wisbech for 47 bungalows, which were raised so can the same thing not be undertaken here where they are raised out of the ground to take them out of Flood Zone 3. David Rowen responded that Wisbech is Fenland’s largest town, it is its most sustainable location for development and there are significant areas of housing within Wisbech which are already within Flood Zone 3. He continued that in terms of putting people at risk there is an economy of scale on top of this, which as part of the preparation of the Local Plan, most of the areas within Wisbech were subject to a strategic flood risk assessment and also flood modelling work, which underpinned the allocation of a lot of those sites which the 47 bungalows at Wisbech were within the identified broad location for growth. David Rowen stated that at this location, there is a site outside a settlement in the open countryside which has not got any of the regeneration and sustainability benefits that a site in Wisbech has, feeling that the sites are uncomparable. Councillor Marks made the point that mitigation has been provided against Flood Zone 3 by raising the property, it has occurred elsewhere and members are told to be consistent so asked why these properties cannot be raised to be outside Flood Zone 3. Matthew Leigh responded that he feels there is a bit of a misdirection as when looking at planning in flood zones there are two aspects for the legislative requirements and the process and what needs to be considered. He stated that the first aspect is around the public benefits and as explained by David in Wisbech there are derelict sites, previously developed land and its Fenland’s largest residential area being a very sustainable location, therefore, there are significant public benefits including the regeneration, improvement and uplift of the area that meet the first aspect of the test. Matthew Leigh continued that the second aspect of that test is about raising it, it does not stop it being in a flood zone just because it is raised up, but what it means is the flooding is less likely to go into the home but it does not make it in an acceptable flood zone, it is still in the flood zone but it is just that the built form would be above the flood zone. He stated that both aspects of the test have to be passed for it to be acceptable in a flood zone so a site in a rural area with no public benefits from building on that site outside of housing, which in Government guidance is clear, is not a reason to build in flood zones otherwise there would not be flood zones and officers would not say housing is unacceptable. Matthew Leigh expressed the opinion that this proposal does not meet that first aspect so comparing a site where the Council has gone through a policy of assessing spatial strategy and strategic flood risk to find that there are public benefits of delivering housing in that area cannot be compared and reflected upon a rural site in an elsewhere location. He made the point that the whole principle of the strategic assessment of flooding is that there needs to be public benefits and the Council decided in Wisbech there was and to keep referencing this is just artificial and accidentally misdirecting members, they are not comparable.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated that he drives past this site most days, there are definitely buildings across the road, there is a new building being built beside it, and feels there is built up form around it. He is not convinced it is an elsewhere location as this is what Fenland villages are, with dwellings built on the roadside and this proposal is for two properties on a roadside. Councillor Marks stated that he is not going to go over flood zones again but feels it is a difference to what they were told a couple of planning meetings ago when discussing the Wisbech site when members were told it takes it out of the flood zone by raising it so questioned why this proposal cannot just be raised. He made the point that this is a PIP application and feels it is a good place to build and personally he would be supporting it.

·       Councillor Benney stated that these are properties with an annexe and questioned where else would you put these types of properties? David Rowen interjected that a lot of what was in Mr Hall’s presentation, as intimated by the Chairman, was not relevant as this is an application for Permission in Principle for basic residential development in this location and the form of that development, whether there are annexes or not, is not committed or part of the application and cannot be given weight.

·       Councillor Benney stated that in terms of land usage where do you build new houses and people pay for a view and this proposal will create a nice view and will deliver housing. He stated that he sees nothing wrong with the application and there is other development taking place here.

·       Councillor Marks stated that going to Chatteris, on the same road, building has taken place towards the bridge. He acknowledges that there are not boundaries to work within, but he sees this as still within the Doddington village and setting, with properties around it.

·       David Rowen stated that the countryside is not just fields and there is built form within the countryside, with sporadic dwellings that are allowed, some which predate the planning system, some which are allowed for agricultural reasons and the one that Mr Hall referred to opposite this site was allowed because the committee were of the view that it was an exceptional design which met one of the national exemptions for residential developments in the countryside. He made the point that planning policy in the Local Plan and NPPF seeks to restrict development which is outside established settlements for the reasons of sustainability, connectivity, etc. David Rowen continued that to try to make an argument that this is within the built form of Doddington, members only need to look at the map on the screen and look at the agricultural fields which are in between this site and the main built form. He added that the definition within Policy LP12 of what the developed footprint of the village is, is the continuous built form of the settlement excluding individual buildings, groups of dispersed or intermittent buildings that are clearly detached, gardens, paddocks, other undeveloped land on the edge of the settlement, agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of the settlement and he does not feel there is any reasonable way in which this site can be classed as within the built form and the settlement of Doddington. David Rowen agreed that it might have a Doddington postcode, people that live there live in the vicinity and may say they live in Doddington but that does not alter the fact that it is not part of the settlement, which is what the policy requires to allow development to be acceptable.

·       The Legal officer reminded members that if they are departing from the officer’s recommendation that they need clear planning reasons for this.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that Flood Zone 3 can be mitigated against, it is a high-quality environment, permission has been given in the vicinity for other properties and there is built form opposite the site.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally and he knows of the applicant, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Connor declared that he knows of the applicant, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows the applicant’s sister and has undertaken personal work for her, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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