Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that he welcomes the officer’s report where it states the principle of development is acceptable as seen from the photos during the officer presentation the site is surrounded by residential development and is clearly located in the built-up form of Murrow. He advised that when he undertook a site visit there was a mixture of properties in this immediate area, both two-storey and single storey, with the majority being two-storey semi-detached, which is what they have shown to match in with the street scene.

Mr Hall expressed the view that when you read through the officer’s report there are no objections from any consultees or any neighbours and within the current Local Plan Murrow is regarded as a small village which allows for residential infilling, with this proposal considered to be residential infilling. He expressed the opinion that the officer’s report sums up the application well and is actually quite complimentary stating that the proposal is infill, is in keeping with the area and the core shape of the settlement, the properties will not prejudice the surrounding pattern of development and will appear visually interesting and architecturally sympathetic and he feels the officer has been very fair and has been very proactive working with them.

Mr Hall referred to 9.22 of the report where it states there is a concern regarding loss of privacy to No.5 and then under 9.19 it states that this is acceptable, which has just been confirmed by Nick Harding. He stated that the reason for refusal is due to flood risk, they provided an independent Flood Risk Assessment and there was no objection from the Environment Agency, following this they then provided a sequential test which was approved and the officer kindly worded a condition in relation to the exemption test, renewable energy and the overall performance of the dwellings, which was agreed to as well as an extension of time.

Mr Hall reiterated that the site is infill development within the built form of Murrow, there are no objections from residents or consultees, it will provide two small semi-detached properties that matches in with the surrounding properties and is ideal for development.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Connor stated that this seems a little bit like deja vue as there was the impression that everything was good and did he receive any indication of the application being approved? Mr Hall responded that during the application the officer worked with them and it all looked very promising on the public access so he e-mailed the officer to get an update and read out a couple of points from the e-mails “Hi Matthew I have just reviewed this one and have no objection and I note the target date is 13 July and I will try and process this before this date” and “apologies there was an issue with the Highways consultee not coming straight to me I am waiting for comments which effectively say I have looked into the proposal and we will be recommending approval, delegated, I am to write this one up by the end of the week and send conditions over for agreement which we then can agree an extension of time”.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Benney, a District Councillor. Councillor Benney stated that he was speaking as Portfolio Holder for Assets and rang Mr Hall on Friday night because they had been doing some work on Chatteris Growing Fenland and had been waiting to know whether an application that had been put in has validated or not. He stated that whilst he was talking to him he asked how it was going on Inhams Close and was advised that Mr Hall had been told not to speak on it today, which he was surprised about as there are three people working at Fenland in the Assets Team and they have employed Mr Hall to undertake the architectural work and put the proposal forward.

Councillor Benney advised that Mr Hall sent him the e-mail that he had received stating that they did not want him to speak on this application and he feels that this is not democratic, Fenland District Council does not appeal its decisions so any decision that comes from today will be final and part of asset disposal is selling assets which is costing the Council money to look after, such as with risk assessments and health and safety assessments. He referred to about 5-6 years ago his first day as Portfolio Holder was selling off a piece of land and he was advised by officers at the time that planning permission would never be forthcoming, it was sold off as a piece of land and a planning application was submitted, it was refused and the appeal was dismissed, with another application being put in which was approved. He feels councillors have been criticised for not doing their best to achieve best value for money for the residents of Fenland and this proposal is obtaining best value for the residents of Fenland to reinvest in Council services.

Councillor Benney made the point that there are three people employed to obtain best value for money for the Council and residents and this application is being recommended for refusal. He made the point that from what he has been told by Mr Hall it was being recommended for approval, the sequential test had been approved, the exceptions test was submitted and it is still being refused, he is not sure why and feels that everyone needs to ‘sing from the same hymn sheet’ and feels like people are not working together on this proposal.

Councillor Benney stated he was very surprised by the e-mail, he acknowledged that the application is borderline and the committee will make the decision on it, but Fenland should not be stopping applications being spoken on as this is the democratic process that allows the Council to make good decisions and he finds this worrying and hopes it does not happen again. He feels this is a solid application and there will be more of these coming through to obtain money to reinvest back into Fenland and achieve what the Council is legally required to achieve which is best value for money.

Councillor Mrs French stated that she was not aware of any e-mails being received asking someone not to speak, she has never heard of this before and is not going to dwell on it but this needs seriously looking into and must not happen again. Councillor Connor stated that he has been Chairman for 7 years at County Council and 4½ years at Fenland on Planning Committee and can only reiterate like Councillor Mrs French that he has never had anything like this before.

Councillor Marks asked to look at the e-mail? Nick Harding stated that it is important to understand that the sender of that e-mail was not anybody in the Planning Team so this is irrelevant as to the consideration of the application as if Mr Hall is instructed by an officer in the Council then it would be that instructing officer to decide who represents the Council in the Planning Committee meeting and this issue can be dealt with outside consideration of this application.

Members asked questions of Councillor Benney as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to Councillor Benney mentioning that this would not be appealed by the Council so asked if this piece of land would just sit there or be sold off at pennies rather than at realistic market rate? Councillor Benney stated that the policy is that the Council does not appeal its own decisions so if this was refused then that would either be that it has run its process in terms of trying to obtain best value for money for the residents of Fenland and then it would go to auction just as a piece of land and it has happened in the past where other people have got better value out of the land and the Assets Team is trying hard to get money back into the Council.

Nick Harding acknowledged that this situation has arisen previously, it is unfortunate that the case officer made a mistake in the advice given to the agent, one of which was to say it was a delegated decision as it would never have been one as it is a Fenland District Council application and after checking the case officer’s homework he had missed the fact that the agent in the sequential test had missed the other sites that were consented and still available had been discounted, which is contrary to policy. He made the point that planning permission cannot be granted on the basis that somebody said it was OK but it is fully known that a mistake was made by that officer, which is unfortunate but it cannot be approved and the rules skipped. Nick Harding referred to Councillor Benney’s comments about the Council not wishing to undertake an appeal and the site would just go for disposal and somebody else will reap the benefit where the Council has not, making the point that when it comes to the sequential test in a village like Murrow the ‘wheel of destiny’ is being spun because how the sequential test works is that if there are sequentially preferable sites available at the time of making the application then you will not get planning permission because the sequential test has failed but if those planning consents are all used up and no further consents are granted and then the planning application was submitted the wheel spins in your favour. He stated that as crazy as that seems that is the process that is laid out by Government policy and the advice that goes with that policy.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Hicks referred to the aerial photo which shows housing surrounding the site and he supposes that they are all in Flood Zone 3 as well which has been built on previously so why is it being refused when other houses around it are in the same flood zone? Nick Harding responded that this is just the way that Government policy is in respect of flood risk so in a settlement such as Murrow, whilst there might be a site within the built up extent of the village surrounded by other development, a sequential test still has to be undertaken and if there are sites that have already been approved then planning permission will not be forthcoming until those sites have either expired or been implemented.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how many sites are there in Murrow that have been approved for sequential test purposes? Nick Harding responded that he does not have this information to hand as their systems went down for quite a bit of the morning.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification that it is land for sale on the sequential test because if so on Rightmove there is just one site. Nick Harding responded that it is not just land for sale it is consents as well which have not been implemented.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to part of the objection for refusal being overlooking and amenity to the neighbours but made the point that there have been no neighbour objections. Nick Harding responded that the only reason for refusal is on the sequential test and it was explained earlier that officers looked carefully at the relationship with the proposed development and No.5 and on balance it was felt that it was acceptable. Councillor Gerstner questioned whether the neighbours would have been consulted? Nick Harding confirmed that they would but decisions should not be made on the basis of whether or not somebody has or has not objected.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that this is difficult and she is going to recommend the application is deferred for further information as Councillor Marks stated there is one site for sale and as Nick said it is not just what is for sale. She feels to be fair to the committee and to Fenland’s residents as it is a Fenland District Council application it should be deferred.

·       Councillor Hicks agreed as once a decision is made to refuse an application there is no going back and this does buy a little time.

·       Councillor Marks stated that with a deferral members could get the understanding of how long ago those new properties were classed on the flood zone and classed on Flood Zone 3 as well to understand when they were approved and how they went through as part and parcel of the sequential test.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED for clarification on the sequential test.

(Councillor Benney declared that he is Portfolio Holder for Assets and, once he had given his presentation as part of the public participation procedure, took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)