Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is for Permission in Principle (PIP) for nine dwellings on a former pig farm, he has had numerous meetings with his clients’ representative which is Ed Tabner from Chefins who is acting on behalf of the Risely family and he has made enquiries independently to relet the buildings and the Risely family contacted him so he had a meeting with them, Mr Tabner and an accountant and he suggested that a residential use would be better than reletting it so they left him to make the planning application. He stated that the site is currently covered with old pig sheds and the principle of development in depth or where there has been agricultural has already been set on the site.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that the application is supported by most of those living next to the site, referring to the smells in the height of Summer from pigs, which are not particularly pleasant, although he appreciates that this is not a reason for approval. He expressed the opinion that the site is at a crossroads, it can be developed for residential or it can go back to its former use and since Mr Risely senior died the site has been unused but it clearly needs something doing with it.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the Parish Council agree in principle with the proposal, Environmental Health support the application having no objection, the Environment Agency ask for a Flood Risk Assessment at the technical stage submission but in principle it has no objection and Highways have no objections, with the development being in walking distance to Manea train station and all facilities in the village. He stated that Manea is a growth village where development in the existing urban area or as a small village extension of limited scale as appropriate is supported.

Mr Humphrey referred to Paragraph 120 of the NPPF 2021, which states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable Brownfield land and whilst the site is not Brownfield in the true term as it is agricultural a planning application could be made to convert the barns to residential and then they could apply to have it redeveloped as a Brownfield site. He feels the development would contribute towards the sustainability of the settlement and not harm the wide open character of the countryside as it is already developed.

Mr Humphrey confirmed that if approved there will be wheel washing facilities and reading the letters of support for the application he suggested the community benefit of not having smells and associated problems with a pig farm outweigh those of the site being in Flood Zone 3, with there being mitigation measures for this. He stated that the application has been a long time coming and the Parish Council and others have said to him when was this application going to be submitted so he welcomes the committee’s support.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how long has it been since pigs were kept on the site? Mr Humphrey responded that it is five years. Councillor Mrs French made the point that noise, smell and contamination are material planning considerations.

·       Councillor Booth asked why the application has been submitted as a PIP rather than an outline application? Mr Humphrey responded that it is cheaper and quicker.

·       Councillor Booth referred to the sequential test not being appropriate and asked what the response to this was? Mr Humphrey responded that on early PIPs flood risk was not an issue but since more applications have been submitted it has been deemed a material consideration but there can also be a community benefit which can offset flood risk and he believes that the benefit of the removal of the pig farm far outweighs the flood risk harm that could exist.

·       Councillor Booth referred to the officers saying in the report that the proposal results in the loss of employment but the site is not active at the moment so he assumes there is no employment? Mr Humphrey responded that there used to be one pig farmer but there is no employment at present. He stated that there is the opportunity to convert the site to employment uses but they feel this would be problematic in its location.

·       Councillor Benney asked what other pieces of land in Manea have been looked at for the sequential test and are there many pieces of land in Manea that would be suitable to take this size of development? Mr Humphrey responded that there are not, the flood risk is drafted ready to be submitted if this proposal is approved and no other land can be identified at present but this will have to be undertaken for the technical submission.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the aerial photo and asked if there is a reason why the furthest barn has not been included in the application? Mr Humphrey responded that it would exceed 1 hectare which is the maximum size allowed for a PIP. Councillor Marks questioned whether they would be coming back to ask for further development? Mr Humphrey advised that he has no instructions but it is a possibility as once the principle is established he has found that it is sometimes as easy to submit a full application as opposed to a technical application but they are trying to establish if officers/Planning Committee would prefer to see this as residential, if they would he thinks this area may be included in the next application as they would not develop nine and leave one pig shed. Councillor Marks asked if this area is developed how many more houses does he believe this area would accommodate? Mr Humphrey responded one but then the affordable housing threshold would be met.

·       Councillor Benney stated that if this is approved he would be pleased to see the subsequent application submitted with contributions and 20% affordable housing which he is sure that Mr Humphrey will be very willing to offer as he was very generous on a previous application before committee. Mr Humphrey advised that he takes this on board but if this is approved and another application is submitted it will come to committee with a recommendation of refusal as it is a new application, not the technical support of this one if approved, so a balanced view will be required on what the decision is today and then there is the risk of there being different committee members with different opinions so it has to be weighed up but the chances are they would come back with an application for a slightly larger site to include all the buildings and a contribution.

·       Councillor Purser expressed concern about a lack of footpath going from this site into the village and asked if this is correct? Mr Humphrey responded that he believes there is a footpath but there is one the other side of the road.

·       Councillor Purser referred to the possibility of contaminated land. Mr Humphrey advised that there could well be and they will have to produce a contamination report as pigs will have produced ammonia that will have leached into the soil.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Booth referred to the sequential test and that would normally be covered under the technical guidance so on that basis what are the concerns, is it because it cannot at this moment prove that there are no other more suitable sites? David Rowen responded that national planning policy states that sequential tests should be applied to developments in Flood Zone 3, which is not a discretionary policy, and a sequential test has been submitted with the application which incorrectly rules out a number of sites which would be deemed as being alternately available of approximately 60 plots which would be sequentially preferable and the officer view notwithstanding the other issues of the application recommends the application should be refused. Councillor Booth questioned whether these other sites where for 9 plus properties? David Rowen advised that the adopted Supplementary Planning Document in relation to flood and water states that a comparable site is any site which can individually or cumulatively take the development. He stated that one of the applications that has been discounted is for 29 dwellings, there are several that are single plots or two plots that have also been discounted so there is a range of plots that are available within a range of developments which would be sequentially preferable.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the David visiting the village when flooding occurred two years ago and they went around the village where the flooding was in Flood Zone 3 and it was nowhere near this site, it was almost ¾ of a mile away as the crow flies and there has been another application at the end of Westfield Road where members were told Flood Zone 3 and it cannot be built on and the property is so far out of the ground as they have undertaken mitigation but again it is on a hill and if the water ever floods everyone is going to have problems. He asked if officers are not being a bit harsh on this application for development as it lies in Flood Zone 3? David Rowen responded that this is what national policy says that authorities are supposed to do and there is a legal duty to consider planning policy. He stated that in terms of other sites within the village that may have experienced flooding he is not sure what the source of that flooding was. David Rowen made the point that in terms of mitigation this is a PIP application so it is broad land use that is being looked at and there are no details of flood mitigation nor can they be considered. Councillor Marks asked in his experience could this be mitigated against by raising the land level? David Rowen responded ultimately any site can be mitigated from flooding if you raise it high enough but that is not the thrust of national policy, which is to prevent development in Flood Zone 3 in areas that can flood in the first place irrespective of mitigation.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she sits on the flood group at Cambridgeshire County Council and was heavily involved with Manea after the December 2020 floods and she assured members that this part of Manea did not flood.

·       Councillor Booth made the point that the Environment Agency maps are years out of date and do not reflect the reality. He referred to 1.3 of the officer’s report where it is stated that this proposal is out of character for this part of the village being in-depth but about 100 metres further along the road there is Charlemont Drive which is an in-depth development so he has concerns about this observation and looking at properties along Station Road they are not all on the frontage, some are set back, so there is quite a range of different types of architectural styles. David Rowen responded that his reading of Paragraph 1.3 is that while officers acknowledge that the character is predominantly frontage the application site is something of an exception, the buildings are not visually attractive and the paragraph concludes that the redevelopment of the site for housing may be appropriate and potentially more compatible with the adjoining residential use. He stated that in terms of architectural merit there are no architectural designs submitted so it is difficult to comment.

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

·       Councillor Benney questioned whether Manea wants a pig farm or does it want some homes, the site is a mess and whilst this is not a reason to approve, do people want a load of derelict buildings or some nice houses. He feels the only reason for refusal is Flood Zone 3, there may be other sites in Manea that would take this development such as two sites in Westfield Road but they are not being developed and why should these sites be sitting there blocking this site as this is what a sequential test does because if those people do not want to bring those sites forward then that could mean until those sites are built out this site would not be acceptable. Councillor Benney feels there is an application in front of members that does bring community benefit, he would not want to live next door to a pig farm and he is sure that the people of Manea deserve better than a pig farm if indeed anybody would take it on as this. He feels that all members are looking at is Flood Zone 3 and whether this brings community benefit and improves Manea and, in his view, it does, therefore, the community benefit does outweigh policy, flooding can be mitigated against, it will be safe to live in and a PIP application just changes the land usage, with residential being a much better use of land than derelict buildings and a potential pig farm.

·       Councillor Gerstner agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney, the proposal would be beneficial to Manea but members do have to be mindful of Flood Zone 3 as there has been plenty of instances in Fenland where development has been built on or adjacent to Flood Zone 3 in much worse cases. He requested that if this is approved that the subsequent application includes an element of amenity space.

·       Councillor Booth stated that whilst he agrees with the comments made the issue committee has is that the NPPF is telling members that it should not be approved until the sequential test is passed, which officers are saying it has not and it looks like the applicant is ready to move on the development very quickly so it would be this committee going against national policy as officers hands are tied on this but it highlights the issue with the NPPF and the fact the flood maps are out of date and need to be updated.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Booth but members have to weigh up what is the benefit and the benefit is to get rid of that mess.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he lives locally on Charlemont Drive which is in Flood Zone 3 and on a hot summer’s day Mr Risely used to clear his pigs out and residents could smell it for about 2 days, with there being in excess of 1500-2000 pigs. He made the point that the site is now standing derelict, there is still a rat infestation and to get rid of those derelict buildings as you come into Manea would be a good thing as this is the first thing you see. Councillor Marks stated that there has not been flooding in this end of the village in the last 18 years and although it is supposed to be Flood Zone 3 he feels the water will go a lot further down the road into the village before it gets anywhere near this site. He stated that he is in full support of this proposal, he sat in the Parish Council meeting and listened to what they had to say and this proposal will tidy this area of Manea.

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

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the sequential test is being used as a blocking tool due to other land not being brought forward and the community benefit of getting rid of a potential environmental health problem with the rats and untidy site outweigh the potential flood risk issue.

(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 the applicant was known to him via his business but the applicant’s business has been closed for five years so is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)