Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Robert Sears, the applicant, and Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Sears stated if successful his daughter will be able to have one of the plots as she is taking more responsibility and will very soon take over his responsibilities on the farm, currently being involved in undertaking the farm accounts. He feels it would be useful for her to be living on the farm and near the station as she has young children and it would enable them to go to school in either direction, with her husband being a teacher and it is all about future proofing for future generations.

Mr Sears referred to what he is doing on the farm in relation to the environment, with them being in a mid-tier scheme and are taking 240 acres out of food production, which is approximately one-sixth of their total farm for the next 5 years. He advised that the land will be sown with 5 different sorts of seed mixes, which will provide an all year round source of food and cover for the likes of birds and insects and provide pollen and nectar for pollinators and to complement this they have so far planted 2.3 miles of hedgerow and in the coming Winter they are planting 74 hedgerow trees which will provide shelter, food, nesting sites and song posts.

Mr Humphrey made the point that this application is for 5 executive style plots on the edge of Manea and, in his view, the market shows there is a distinct lack of such plots and if this application is approved it will help address this situation. He referred to the officer’s executive summary which refers to the site as being beyond the established settlement of Manea and it is, in his view, on the edge of the village but adjacent to housing and a new development of the Station car park, with this development changing the character of the area and was a Council application and the access for the plots are within the village sign for Manea.

Mr Humphrey stated that from the previous refusal for this application members agreed that the site was within the village. He feels the application will help secure and future proof the Sears farming enterprise for generations to come, with the site actually being closer to the school and village hall than the proposed allocations on the emerging Local Plan at Fallow Corner for some 29 dwellings by some 300 metres and the site is well related to the existing farm and the spatial characteristics of the village.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that proximity of the station should not be underestimated and undoubtedly will be used by the residents of these dwellings. He referred to the NPPF, which prioritises new development with access to significant public transport hubs, such as rail stations, to provide a long-term sustainable transport option.

Mr Humphrey stated that the application also proposes a new footpath link for this development to the new rail station plus the village beyond. He acknowledged that the site is within Flood Zone 3, but referred members to the Council’s own application in Parson Drove, F/YR22/1187/FDC, which was also in a Flood Zone 3 recommended for approval and he is looking for the Council’s applications to be treated the same as his application.

Mr Humphrey advised that they are prepared to provide a further swan report if needed but Wild Frontier say that the results of the habitat survey and desk study indicate that the site is unsuitable for Hooper Swans and there are no known records of such species using the site or nearby fields.  

Members asked questions of Mr Sears and Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that he lives within 250 metres of this site and asked Mr Sears whether he has ever known it to flood as he does not? Mr Sears agreed that he has not known it to flood.

·       Councillor Benney asked if, as the site is in Flood Zone 3, full mitigation measures will be taken to safeguard the properties? Mr Humphrey responded that similar mitigation measures will be used as on the Fenland District Council Parson Drove scheme. He made the point that they have undertaken their own sequential test and it has been proved that this site passes and he asked that they be given a level playing field so they can provide exactly what the Council is.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that it was mentioned that one of the houses would be for Mr Sear’s daughter, but this still leaves four for market sale and asked why only one house is not just being provided? Mr Sears responded that due to the works there is a cost involved, his son-in-law is a teacher so does not earn enormous amounts of money so he wants to help his daughter in building a new home and it is beneficial to have five houses that generate some of the money towards the costs.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she noticed that the road speed limit is 40 – 60 and asked if it had been considered to reduce the speed limit here? Mr Humphrey responded that this has not been considered but if permission is granted this can be discussed with the Parish Council to obtain their support. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is executive homes being proposed and she understands that the speed is bad in this area. Mr Humphrey made the point that vehicles slow up when they approach the rail line.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the rail line is in Flood Zone 3. Mr Humphrey confirmed it was.

·       Councillor Miscandlon questioned the de-restricted road sign by the entrance of the proposed site. Mr Humphrey responded that if the plan goes through this will be something they can look into with Highways and would be happy to accept this as a condition.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks questioned if it was necessary to have a Habitat Regulation Assessment as the site is basically a brown field so why does the applicant need to go to all these lengths? Nikki Carter responded that it was a request by Natural England who are a statutory consultee referring to its comments within the report and there is an obligation to follow its advice. Councillor Marks queried whether the same would have been needed for the Manea Station car park? Nick Harding responded that he is not aware that this was the case in this situation. Councillor Marks made the point that this location is just across the road. Nick Harding stated that he does not have the information to hand so could not say definitively yes or no, but it would be irrelevant as Natural England has made it quite clear the site needs to be subject to the Habitat Assessment process and that is not something that can be ignored. He stated that if planning permission was given today, it would be in the knowledge that it would be unlawful so he would strongly advise against that.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the assessment could be made a condition on any approval? Nick Harding responded that it could not be guaranteed that the test would be passed.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that 240 acres is going to be planted with seeds, hedgerow and trees and she has never heard of an applicant wanting to spend so much money. She expressed her confusion on why there is so much opposition to this development as opposed to the Manea Station car park development.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the comments about encroaching on linear development but made the point there is development opposite and asked how further it is encroaching when there are properties there? Nick Harding clarified that there might be properties on one side of the road, but it does not necessarily mean there has to be development on the opposite side. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that he fails to see where it is encroaching.

·       Councillor Meekins asked that if it is a legal requirement that has to be undertaken, what are the consequences if this committee passes something today? Nick Harding responded that he would strongly advise against doing something that is knowingly unlawful and the decision could be subject to legal challenge from a third party.

·       Councillor Marks questioned why the application has been brought before Council knowing there is a legal requirement and could the application be deferred? Nick Harding responded that a decision has been made as a committee on a similar scheme and there is no point making applicants undertake work when there is already a similar decision made by committee.

·       Councillor Miscandlon asked if the applicants are aware of this legal requirement as if not someone was being negligent in not providing that advice. Nick Harding responded that the agent is very experienced and knowledgeable and has access to all the information that comes back through the consultee process so he would have been aware of the comments and on the previous application it was indicated but they did not want to provide it.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the application could be deferred until the agent has the opportunity to get the information required? Nick Harding confirmed that deferment is possible.

·       Councillor Sutton commented this was refused by committee last time as the site is a long way outside of the village and the Parish Council does not support this development and asked if the committee is saying that all the reasons for refusing it last time are no longer relevant as if members are not saying this it is pointless deferring the application for the agent to undertake the assessment.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that there are two issues, a legal requirement that if the vote goes ahead could be open to legal challenge and is there any point in going forward at this time as the correct information is not before members and would it make more sense to defer it at this time or the officers’ recommendation is accepted.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the last application was considered in September 2021, which is more than a few months ago and information was not previously given on the 240 acres being provided for wildlife and planting of trees. She made the point that these are executive homes and she would not support refusal but would support deferment.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that it was September 2021 when the previous application was refused, with a subsequent application being withdrawn, but he does not remember the September 2021 application so cannot comment on it. He feels that members are going around in circles and they need to make a decision on the face of the application and the easy way may well be to determine the application today and if it is refused the applicant can either appeal or resubmit but if it is approved the committee is taking a legal decision which puts the Council in a position that they could be challenged, which, in his view, is not an option. 

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like to see a deferment to clarify what information is legally required. Councillor Marks agreed with Councillor French

·       Councillor Benney stated that he remembers the application coming before committee previously and it was one vote that refused it, with, in his view, the decision being subjective. He added that fully supports the application, the area needs executive houses and it is right near the station. Councillor Benney acknowledged the legal position but questioned who would challenge Council? He feels it is a worthwhile development and would be pleased to see the houses built, although he is disappointed that it is an incomplete application.

·       Councillor Marks added that he would vote in favour for this development as he feels this is the right place for development in Manea at this time, it is near a railway station, the houses would not add to traffic issues in the village or put any pressure on the sewage system as they will all have cesspits and Manea needs houses to keep the facilities open.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that these are executive homes and Fenland is short of these.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that on balance if the Council has not been challenged in the past he would support the application.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that it is a field presently and he has never seen swans or habitat on this land.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that he has listened to what other councillors have said but still feels uneasy if it was to be passed today knowing it to be unlawful. He feels it should be deferred for the assessment to be undertaken and then he could possibly support it.

·       The Legal Officer stated that the legal requirements are unambiguous because the site is near a European site or special protection area the rules are that the Council should not grant planning permission unless satisfied that there will be no adverse impact on that site and the Council does not know that because Natural England who are the experts who advise the Council have said it needs more information on this. He added that if committee goes ahead and approves it today it will be making an unlawful decision and the fact that nobody might challenge that is not a reason to do it and he would never advise the Council as a whole to make an unlawful decision.

·       Councilor Mrs French stated that this information was not presented in 2021 when the first application was refused so what law/policy has come into place to require this information now? Nick Harding responded that Natural England were informed in 2021 but at that time the Council did not receive a response. However, a response has been received on this application and it does not mean that it should be ignored now.

·       Nick Harding stated that from listening to the debate it seems to be going in the direction in favour of the proposal and reminded committee of the previous reasons for refusal and in what way these were now addressed. He made the point that the Manea Station car park opposite the site was granted consent at the time of the previous applications and it is still considered that the site is an inappropriate location for this proposal. Nick Harding referred to the mention of the Council application at Parson Drove and referred members to the update report which addresses this position and it is not comparable as the application was in the settlement and redevelopment of an existing car park. He advised that if committee is still minded to look at the scheme positively then he would recommend that it is deferred to get the additional ecology information but to address the concerns of the highways officer, whose concerns were not sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme but perhaps more work could be undertaken by the applicant.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to officers mentioning that it should be determined how this application differs from the previously refused one but he does not have the information as to why the previous scheme was refused. Nick Harding advised that this is in Section 9.3 of the report.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the highway concerns being in regard to traffic and speed and asked if this would not have been the same for the car park? Nick Harding responded that he could not say certainly but he would think it is in relation to the design of the access footway and the order for removing the speed sign and warning signs for the level crossing.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the agent and applicant were asked if they would be prepared to look at the speed so if they are the signs could be looked at at the same time.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the officer’s report outlining that the previous application had insufficient evidence so the applicant would have known this and should have complied with it. Nick Harding responded that the refused scheme did not have the objection from Natural England so the refusal reason was just on ecology.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the committee needs to be sure of the reasons if it does decide to defer the proposal because if only the missing report is included that means members accept all the other reasons for refusal and she would like to see this application refused as all the elements cannot be sorted and for the application to come back again. Nick Harding responded that if members are going to defer for the issue of the Habitat Assessment then they need to be satisfied that all the other reasons for refusal have been overcome. He referred to the highway comments and feels the traffic regulations and signs are more complicated due to the railway and there is more engineering required so it can be demonstrated that it is viable.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Cornwell to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation, which was not supported by a majority vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks to defer the application to obtain the required ecology report and to resolve the highway concerns regarding the footpath and speed limit.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they do not feel the site lies outside the settlement and is within Manea, it is within the existing village footprint, would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area, the scale and location is in keeping, it is the right area of Manea to be developed, Manea needs to grow, flourish and thrive, it makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and mitigation measures can be introduced for flood risk and the safeguarding of the properties.

(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 he is a member of Manea and Welney Drainage Board as is the applicant but is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)