Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall reminded members that they would remember this application previously when it was refused in June 2022 for the same proposal with 3 reasons for refusal. He stated that since this time the applicant has provided an ecology survey and submitted a Heads of Terms Section 106 Agreement for the site and, therefore, as David Rowen has said two of the reasons for refusal have been removed.

Mr Hall made the point that Manea is a growth village within the Local Plan and where the dwellings are to be sited is all in Flood Zone 1, with there being no technical objections to this application. He expressed the opinion that the proposal conserves all the trees on site and along the frontage of the entire site there is a footpath continuing through to Manea.

Mr Hall referred to one of the key reasons for refusal and was raised as a concern with members was the lack of affordable housing and the Heads of Terms on the previous application being carried out by others. He stated that the submitted Heads of Terms was agreed with Mr Harding in September 2022 and this reason for refusal has been removed and he displayed a map on the presentation screen showing the site and another area highlighted in blue, also recommended for refusal, which was approved by members last year against officer’s recommendation which extends back to Darcey Lode, is in Flood Zone 1 and has a footpath across the frontage of the site and between the two sites there is various other residential developments that are set back from Westfield Road.

Mr Hall displayed a location plan of the area and referred to the area to the south, which was a former grain store being a brownfield site which was also approved for a number of dwellings and there have been various approvals down Fallow Corner Drove so this area looking at the map is quite well built up. He reiterated that two of the previous reasons for refusal have been removed, the dwellings are all in Flood Zone 1, Manea is a growth village, a draft Heads of Terms has been submitted which has been agreed with Mr Harding, there are no technical objections, he considers it abuts the built up form of Manea and since the previous application was refused another application shown on the presentation screen was approved by members which also extends to the back of Darcey Lode.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that when this application came before members previously members were not happy with the ecology and the Section 106 Agreement and the committee have just had a considerable debate on a Section 106 Agreement on the previous application and drainage, but this site is in Flood Zone 1, there is 20% affordable housing on offer, £2,000 per unit contribution and he thinks the emerging Local Plan is bringing in more money than he has seen on this committee for a long time. He feels this application will bring much-needed homes, including affordable, to Manea, which is a growth village and it needs the growth, having lost a shop in the last few months, and this is what brings sustainability to a village. Councillor Benney expressed the view that to say this is in the open countryside when you have Glebe Close one side and there is another house on the corner, this is just filling in a piece of land that is suitable for development and it provides good local need for the area. He does not consider this as building in the open countryside, he is pleased the ecology report has been submitted, he welcomes the 106 contributions that the applicant has agreed to supply and feels this is a good application, which he will support.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that two of the objections have been resolved but the third one has not been addressed because it is unaddressable as it was agreed previously this was out in the countryside and he cannot see how this has changed. He stated that he voted against the other area that was approved as referred to by the agent for the same reasons and he can remember Councillor Mrs Davis saying the difference to that site and this site is that one was closer to the village and he feels she is right. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the same reasons for refusal exist as before and it is clearly in the open countryside.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that as much as Councillor Sutton voted against it previously he voted to approve it and this committee has got different makeups and different members, with every week there being different people sitting on the committee and different answers. He feels that if members want consistency, if the other one was approved in Westfield Road the committee should be consistent with this one.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he can understand where the recommendation is coming from and would have gone along with this line if the other development had not been already approved. He feels the developments are so close together and he does not see why one should get approval and not the other and it seems sensible to him.

·       Nick Harding drew members attention to the one reason for refusal which is the same as it was on the last application so this application needs to be determined on the basis of what is different now compared to when the previous application was determined. He stated that the agent has referred to the development that was approved contrary to officer recommendation just up the road so members have got to consider whether or not that represents a significant enough change in circumstances to render the reason for refusal on this scheme as no longer appropriate and it needs to be identified why does it make a difference. Nick Harding reminded members that in the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters the fact that there has been a significant change in the membership of the Planning Committee does not justify inconsistency between current and past planning decisions.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis to refuse the application, which was not supported by a majority vote.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officer’s to formulate conditions and that a Section 106 Agreement be entered into.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of approval of planning permission as they feel that since the application for this site was refused previously another application has been submitted which changes the definition in terms of where members perceive the boundary of Manea to be.

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows a partner of the applicant personally and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Marks registered, 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 Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him and also worked with him on the Growing Fenland project at Chatteris and he also went to school with the applicants, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)