Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Gowler, the Agent.

Mr Gowler referred members to the presentation screen and explained that the application is for an exception dwelling under NPPF Paragraph 79 home, Part e). He added that the designof thedwelling isunique withinthe Fenlandscape and whilst the report mentions that this dwelling is not in an isolated location as ruled in the ‘Braintreejudgement’, in his view, the courttranscript isnot particularlyclear inclarifying whatis orisn’t classedas isolated.

Mr Gowler expressed the opinion that the ‘Braintree Case’ site as shown on the slide was for a site that was immediatelyoutsidethedevelopmentboundaryforasmallvillage and, therefore, thiswas notdeemed  as an isolated case by either other dwellings, facilities and services within built up area. He stated that thecourt judgement indicated isolated could in circumstances mean isolated from services such asshops andfacilities and this siteis isolatedin thisrespect andapart fromthe fewdwellings along partof PrimroseHill, which hasminimal propertiesaround it,unlike theBraintree casewhich was basedon theimmediate edge ofa village.

Mr Gowler stated that under the report it mentions that the site is in the open countryside under LP3 and, therefore,does not fulfil the requirements of LP3 for a new dwelling and this would also then seem toindicate thatthe dwelling isin anisolated location. He stated that the reason whyit is unique andinnovative is because the design is high thermal mass with large overhanging roof which all maximise solargains and storage of heat in the winter or cooling in the summer, with the site being particularly suitable due to the open land in front to allow Winter, Spring and Autumn solargains and along with the young trees that as they mature will give further shading to helpprevent solar overheating in the summer but without leaves allow the low sun to give solargains inthe winter.

Mr Gowler stated that from sustainable point of view the high insulation standards, car charging, heat pumps and battery storage withsolar panels will be included. He stated that the innovativedesign andlayout are toinclude sustainable elements and will include agreen roof, with the surface water being partially absorbed by the green roof, theexcess will be to a shallow soakaway and the foul drainage will be into a treatment plant with filterdrain, thenitrates fromthis willalso bebeneficial tothe treeson therest ofthe field.

Mr Gowler explained that the proposed costs are likely to be more expensive due to its design and are likely to be 30%-40% more than a normal dwelling, however, due to all of the proposed sustainable measures being introduced, payback of that will be in the region of 20 to 30 years costs and it is hoped that the dwelling would continue tobe energyefficient formany decadesafter that.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for confirmation that if the proposal had been submitted as an ordinary application as opposed to a Paragraph 79 application, would it have still been considered as being in an elsewhere location and, therefore, in the open countryside? Nick Thrower stated that yes it would, and officers would have concluded it was an elsewhere location beyond the built-up part of the settlement and that is the justification on the reason for refusal.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion the proposal fits the exact description of a Section 79 application of the National Planning Policy Framework that the Agent has provided. He expressed the view that the design is an innovative way of bringing homes forward and he welcomes the proposal, which includes experimental technology. He added that if the Agent is willing to take a leap of faith, he should be supported. Councillor Benney stated that location of the proposal is ideal, and he will support the application and looks forward to the dwelling being delivered. He added that the design is innovative, the technology is still in an experimental form, but the nature of the proposal meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, which over rules the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Benney. She added that she would like to the see the Building Design Awards re introduced which used to showcase exceptional designs. This is the type of proposal that she welcomes, it is something totally different and, in her opinion, the location is perfectly suited, and she will support the application.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he will support the proposal and he wishes the agent well.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the design is to be commended and it is about as innovative as it can be for Fenland. She stated that officers have confirmed it is an elsewhere location and could also be classed as isolated with this proposal. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he applauds the application and stated that is one of the best proposals he has ever seen.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he does not think that the proposal is exceptional, although he agrees it is different. He added  that officers have had to act in accordance with the policies in place and he stated that if the proposal was just for a standard dwelling it would be determined as being in an elsewhere location, however, in his opinion as this is a Section 79 proposal, the policies somewhat contradict each other. He expressed the view that officers have made the correct recommendation as that is what the policies dictate, and, in his opinion, he would have preferred to see something to be more viewed to the public realm. Councillor Sutton stated that he will support the application due to the contradictory issue of the elsewhere location.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she takes exception to the view of Councillor Sutton that he does not think that the proposal is of an exceptional design as it is very rare to see an application come forward of this type and design.

·         Councillor Topgood stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis and added it is an exceptional design and the engineering techniques used are fantastic. He added that he will support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation. It was agreed that the appropriate conditions imposed on the permission be decided in consultation with officers, the Chairman, Proposer, and Seconder.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the application accords with a Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework and it is going to be built in the right location.

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis declared an interest, by virtue of the fact that the Agent for this application is known to them as he is a Doddington Parish Councillor and Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis attend Doddington Parish Council in their positions as elected members of Fenland District Council)