Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Jacqueline Kerr, an objector, read out by Member Services. Mrs Kerr stated that the land adjacent to the build site has been flooded since 10 December 2023 and Mr Grainger has been using a petrol pump, which she has heard daily, from morning until 6 in the evening, since 10 December 2023 up until 3 January 2024, which she confirmed to Planning on Wednesday 3 January and a conversation with the Planning Officer prior to Christmas, with the water having been moving towards the built plot and has also encroached onto her property. She added that they have also been pumping water out from her property towards the drain in Cats Lane so the water can then drain into the dyke opposite her property and initially they used a petrol pump, however, that broke which resulted in them using an electric pump, which would not have been obvious to any neighbours as to what they were doing.

Mrs Kerr expressed the view that had it not been for Mr Grainger pumping the water into his dyke, east of the building plots and her husband doing the same thing daily for three weeks, the water would have gone onto the build plots, south of the water and from seen from the photos it would have been seen that the water was level to the Norway maple, protected under TPO04/2022. She expressed the opinion that the photos also show the water running parallel to the west boundary of the proposed site and the east boundary of Shallon, with this water being feet away from the building plots, and the photos were taken on 14 December around the time that Mr Grainger started to pump water from the top part of his land but also on 3 January 2024, with the photos of 3 January showing Shallons outbuilding which would be level and adjacent to the south boundary of the building plots east of Shallon.

Mrs Kerr stated that Mr Grainger states in his recent notes “has the water come uphill from our land”, which she feels indicates that the land slopes towards the building plot and is why the water was starting to encroach onto the building plot for the above application. She made the point that following three weeks of water being pumped, her land and the field south of the application site, still has water on it.

Mrs Kerr expressed the view that the applicant has already confirmed that the lie of the land slopes towards Cats Lane so after days of heavy rain, it would have been thought the water would have by now reached the building plots and they have not as the water has been pumped into the dyke east of the field and photos have then been taken on 3 January and sent to the planning Department to show a smaller area of flooding compared to if there was not any water being pumped at all. She feels to build on the site is absolutely ridiculous as any water from future heavy rainfall will have nowhere to run to.

Mrs Kerr expressed the opinion that the applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate a sequential and exception test in accordance with the NPPF, Local Plan and SPD, which was the refusal of the previous application F/YR22/0935/O and remains outstanding, and, therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policy LP14 and the NPPF in terms of flood risk. She stated that although the Planning Officer has now uploaded her report to the Planning Portal and has recommended refusal, she fears history will repeat itself.

Mrs Kerr referred to F/YR23/0548/O whereby this application failed the sequential test and yet the Planning Committee passed it and feels it is essential that the above comments and photos were brought to the attention of the Planning Committee on 10 January 2024. She stressed that if the application is not refused, she will ensure that it will be put to the Secretary of State and she will also seek legal advice towards a Judicial Review against the Council and Planning Committee as this will be blatant disregard of the NPPF, local planning policies and will go against the committee’s own Code of Conduct. She cannot stress enough how important it is to refuse this application outright not just for her sake, her neighbours but also the Council.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Chris Walford, the agent and Darron Grainger, the applicant. Mr Walford stated that the application seeks approval for two building plots for executive style dwellings on the front section of existing paddock fronting Cats Lane. He explained that the proposed area for development adjoins the built form of the village and there are also dwellings on both sides of the application site.

Mr Walford explained that the general character of this section of Cats Lane is large, detached properties, well spaced on large plots fronting the road and the revised proposal for two dwellings reflects the character profile and is considered to be a logical and contextual continuation of development on the edge of the settlement. He made the point that Tydd St Giles is defined as a small village within the Local Plan where residential infilling will be accepted and there is an ongoing debate as to whether the site is infill or not as there are houses on either side of the site and if members consider it as infill, then it is policy compliant, however, if it is not classed as infill, there are no other opportunities for infill in the village then the only opportunity for the village to grow will be for development to take place on the outskirts and on the edge of the village settlement.

Mr Walford stated that this appears to have been a thought process adopted by the Planning Committee on previous applications, such as one in Turves and Gorefield, both of which were on the outskirts of the settlement and, in his view, it is felt that the proposal meets both sides of the infill debate. He stated that because the site abuts the existing settlement it is considered to be part of the village and not open countryside and members of the committee made comments when considering the applications previously in Turves and Gorefield which included if a site abuts the village development then how can it be classed as an elsewhere location and he stated that he agrees with that viewpoint.

Mr Walford stated that as the site is classed as being part of the village, the sequential test is justified and acceptable and in terms of flooding he is aware of many surrounding Fenland fields which are currently suffering from standing water and as it stands the area for development does not have this issue which is in Flood Zone 2 and 3 but the proposal will be carried out with sustainable detailed drainage design to ensure that it will not increase flood risk and the flow can be attenuated and discharged into drainage systems around the site. He explained that in terms of benefits to the village, other settlements nearby such as Newton and others mentioned, have seen support for development that would sensibly grow the village in order to sustain and promote their facilities and amenities and he feels the same about Tydd St Giles and expressed the view that by delivering logical sites the application is the way forward.

Mr Walford explained that the application has no objection from the Highway Authority, Tree Officer, Environment Agency, Drainage Board, Wildlife Officer or Natural England.

Mr Grainger explained that there have been many comments over the last week with regards to the water on the application site, however, it is not the site and he has no control over the weather which has impacted the whole country or over the actions of others who take it upon themselves to fill in ditches and remove trees along his boundary. He stated that the Council and the North Level Drainage Board are aware of this new issue which will be resolved in the Spring when the ground can be worked on.

Mr Grainger stated that there is no flooding on the application site due to the fact that it can drain into the shire drain and it is the highest part of the land that he owns, making the point that he simply wishes to build homes for his family on land that he owns, and stated that he is not a builder but has the opportunity to provide homes for his family, without them needing deposits and mortgages. He explained that he has five children and two grandchildren, and he lives in Fenland and his job is to provide for his family which is his wish.

Mr Grainger stated that his land is in Tydd St Giles  and is surrounded by houses as well as his own which was built in the 1700’s and he sees the proposal as in infill site located between properties and the land is not being used for any purpose at the current time and has not been farmed in over 30 years.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for confirmation as to where the flooding was in the photographs that the objector had highlighted in her objection and also further detail as to where the pumping was from and where was it being pumped to. Mr Grainger explained that there has been a new build dwelling constructed and they have backfilled a ditch, removed the trees that were there and raised the land by a foot so the water can no longer get to where it was going and, therefore, it is his intention to install a pipe from that side to his side which will move the water. He added that the Council are aware of the issues that he is having but the issue has arisen only since the fence has been erected and it is not a historical problem. Councillor Mrs French stated so a new house has been built and the owner has taken it upon themselves to fill in a ditch. Mr Grainger stated that it is the large new build which has filled the ditch in and also at the back of Shallon, there was also a drain which led out to the front and historically the owners of that property have filled in the drain at the back and also one at the front of their property. He added that when he purchased the land because it was filled in it did cause issues, so he dug it out and North Level IDB have put a culvert under Cats Lane. Mr Grainger explained that he was there for three days and on 6 January he went back to the site and was able to drain the water in 7 hours. Mr Walford added that at any reserved matters application, a drain could be introduced down the side and along the back and then water could be carried back to where it should go. Mr Grainger stated that it just requires one perforated pipe to solve the problem of somebody else’s water.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification concerning the details of how surface water and sewage on the application site will be dealt with. Mr Walford stated that due to the location it will be a treatment plants and there is a drain there so it can be disposed of nicely and surface water will either go to the drain and then they will pay for discharge or they could attenuate into the drain which can be agreed via a drainage condition or through the reserved matters stage. Mr Grainger made the point that the water was pooling on a Flood Zone 1 site and there was nothing on 2 and 3 and the reason is why it is 2 and 3 is due to the close proximity to the shire drain which has been raised with the Environment Agency.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it would appear that officers need to be reviewing the conditions associated with the new build property and take enforcement action to ensure the filled in ditch is dug back out.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he has concerns with regards to flooding and he questioned whether members are considering approval of planning permission on something where there already appears to be historic problems and what guarantees are in place that the pipe which will be going over somebody’s land stays empty. He stated that the neighbours have already highlighted that they are already experiencing flooding issues and whilst the flooding episodes may not be down to the applicant there does appear to be instances of flooding which were not occurring previously, adding that the applicant has made the point that it took him 7 hours to pump away the water. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that in addition to the concerns over flooding, the application was already refused previously, and he cannot see what the difference is with the current proposal apart from the number of dwellings.

·         Councillor Benney stated that apart from the application being reduced down to two properties there are no other changes. He added that it has been eleven months since the application came before the committee and he has the same view as Councillor Marks, that there are flooding issues to consider, and the Parish Council did not support the previous or current proposal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees that there is not much change and only the number of dwellings which has reduced from three to two. He made the point that the issues concerning flooding need to be resolved in the first instance and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Nick Harding stated that the reasons for refusal do not relate to the issue of the ponding of water and the action taken to deal with it and the third reason for refusal is with regards to the sequential and exceptions test.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.  

(Councillor Benney left the meeting following the determination of this item and for the remainder of the items on the agenda)