Agenda item

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey referred the committee to the presentation screen and explained that the white arrows depict development and the white square next to the red site is an isolated dwelling. He explained that the centre of the village can be seen on the bottom left-hand side which is where the pub, school and church are located, and the proposal site is much closer to the centre of the village that most of Friday Bridge.

Mr Humphrey explained that the site which is edged in white is a site for six plots which was recommended for approval and was approved by the committee, referred to as the Maxey 6. He explained that the application is a resubmission of the previous planning in principle refusal, however, the current application has some differences, one of which being that it is an outline application, there is a single point of access not nine accesses, it has received highways support,  the Planning Committee membership is different from the previous determination and the application has been encouraged following officer support for the Maxey 6 which is 220 metres away.

Mr Humphrey stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1 on flat agricultural land, Friday Bridge is a limited growth village and the Maxey 6 site was supported by officers which is also in accordance with LP12. He made the point that the application site is adjacent to development which is what is needed on LP12, and the site is on a straight road with one letter of objection whereas the Maxey 6 site had 22 letters of objection and is on a rather bad bend.

Mr Humphrey referred the committee to the Maxey 6 officer report which states that the site forms  a gap in the existing frontage which, in his opinion, conforms to the core shape of the settlement. He explained that there are dwellings either side of the proposed site which has also been allocated in the emerging Local Plan.

Mr Humphrey explained that on the officer report for the Maxey 6, officers had stated that there was no distinctive character of the local area in terms of design and also that the gap would be a visual loss to the street scene but on balance is a suitable place for development. He stated that within his application, a proposal for a footpath extension has been included to make the application LP15 compliant and also similar to the Maxey 6 application.

Mr Humphrey explained that with regards to ecology he had requested that the application be deferred to a future meeting to allow his team and the planning officers time to assess the report and any implications, however, this request was refused, pointing out that there is no dyke fronting the application and the ecology report has now been submitted and an email from the ecologist which substantiates that the application can be supported. He explained that the ecologist has stated that the PEA report identifies that further surveys are recommended for water voles in relation to the drain at plot 1 and great crested newts in relation to the presence of the ponds but although there is no evidence of water voles noted during the survey, it is the wrong time of the year to survey which is what further requirements for further surveys have been outlined to take place in the Spring.

Mr Humphrey stated that the ecologist also stated that the section of the suitable drain relates to the garden adjacent to property 1 and if a minimum of a 5-metre standoff could be provided to the top of the drained bank this would mitigate any potential impact on water voles and then further surveys could be dispensed of. He explained that the ecologist had advised that with regards to great crested newts, there are two ponds within 250 metres and there was also a pond within 250 metres of the Maxey 6 application, but no ecology was requested.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the ecologist has stated that the ponds will require further investigation in the Spring and in section 7.7 where it refers to District Licensing the Ecologist explained that the site is in the Natural England Amber Zone showing that there is some  considered potential for them to occur and access would need to be agreed in order to survey the ponds, however, the fallback position would be to put the site into a District Licensing scheme, where a fee is paid in relation to the potential scale on great crested newts and this approach has been used in Fenland and West Norfolk. He stated that he would request the application be considered in the interest of consistency with the Maxey 6 application and further ecology to be supported by the committee.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Humphrey to clarify what type of sewerage system he intended to use and how was the issue of surface water going to be addressed? Mr Humphrey explained that there will be a connection to the main sewer and surface water will be attenuated within the red line.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether Mr Humphrey would consider the inclusion of street lighting? Mr Humphrey responded that he would be more than happy to include streetlamps.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that during the officer’s presentation there was a photograph displayed which showed a 40mph speed limit sign but in the report, it states there is a 60mph limit and she asked for clarification on the speeding limit. David Rowen stated that it is his understanding that adjacent to plot 1 is where the split for the 30mph to 40mph zone occurs. Councillor Mrs French stated but the report states 60mph. David Rowen stated that the evidence from the site is that it is a 30mph to 40mph dependent on direction of travel. Councillor Mrs French referred to a comment made by Elm Parish Council which states that the 60mph speed limit along Needham Bank causes a hazard for vehicles using the site access so it is maybe that the Parish Council that have made an error.

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he cannot see anything wrong with the application and there has already been another application approved on the corner. He expressed the view that the application looks as though it is just a continuation of other properties around the area and, therefore, it will be an asset and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he recalls the application being refused previously and if the current reasons for refusal are looked at, under LP12 there has to be reasonable support, however, there is only one letter of objection and the other site in Friday Bridge had 22. He expressed the view that the fact that there is only one objection gives an indication to him that there are no major objections to the site. Councillor Benney added that it is adjacent to the built form of Friday Bridge and everything that is built effects the character of the land wherever you are. He made the point that he does not know why it is only linear development as there is a big field behind there as the field appears to run to an estate and by only having a small number of houses, in his view, it lends itself to ongoing development which villages all need. Councillor Benney made the point that the village has a shop and a pub, and the businesses need people in them to spend their money. He added that under LP19, in his view, Mr Humphrey has covered the mitigation and the harm to the protected species can be mitigated against. Councillor Benney stated that when reviewing the reasons for refusal, LP12 is subjective and LP19 can be mitigated against. He added that the Maxey 6 outline application was approved and was only located 200 yards away and, therefore, adds to weight to the approval of the application before the committee.

·         Councillor Mrs French started that she is looking at policy LP12, Rural Area Development Policy and it states that new development in villages will be supported where it contributes to sustainability of the settlement and does not harm the wide-open character of the countryside. She expressed the opinion that she cannot see any harm and the proposal would not be against the policy and, in her view, actually complies with LP12.

·         Nick Harding explained that members need to consider the previous refusal and understand what has changed in the material planning circumstances since the last refusal. He added that the Maxey 6 has been approved, however, the circumstances both physically and in planning terms are very different to the proposal before the committee now which was very clear from the presentation slide. Nick Harding added that members need to consider and provide reasons for looking at the current application differently from when the committee had considered it previously. He added that in his professional opinion there is no change and added that when considering applications which are identical in planning terms then the same conclusion should be reached irrespective of any changes in the membership of the Planning Committee.

·         David Rowen stated that the requirement in law when considering the ecology is that the committee need to be fully satisfied that there are no ecological implications when determining an application and the Government guidance on that is quite clear and a failure to do so maybe considered as a failure not to have adequately considered all of the material planning considerations of that case.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that as this is an outline application surely those matters can be resolved under a reserved matters or a full planning application. David Rowen stated that this is the point in time when the Council would be granting planning permission for development on the site and at this time the Council needs to be adequately assured that the appropriate survey work has been done in respect of ecology and that it is fully considering the implications of granting planning permission on the site in terms of ecology. Councillor Mrs French stated that if the application were to be approved then it could be conditioned at the outline stage.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view it is the same site but with only one entrance instead of several entrances and Mr Humphrey has indicated that he is going to introduce a pathway as well as lighting. He added that the proposal does have similarities, but it is a different application.

·         Nick Harding stated that the previous application was not refused as it did not include the additional benefits, it was refused due to the fact that the principle was not acceptable because the application was a PIP application (Planning Permission in Principle) and members were deciding whether or not in planning terms it was fundamentally acceptable or not and the committee at that time decided that is was not acceptable and harmful. He added that on that basis members need to consider what has changed.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that it is a totally different application and a different type of application. He added it has a different access and has the support of the Highway Authority and the previous application was refused by a different committee although he cannot recall which way he voted at that time and if he voted in support for it last time then why should he change his mind this time.

·         Councillor Marks sated that he has looked at both application sites and it is an onwards build. He added that he cannot see that there are any issues, and he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that when he looks at the Maxey 6 site and the new site, the Maxey 6 site had a highway objection due to access whereas the current application before the committee appears to be more straightforward in his opinion. He added that there is an isolated dwelling and he questioned whether the proposal would not be classed as an infill development, and he stated that he would be happy to support the proposal.

·         Nick Harding clarified that the previous PIP application was not refused on highway grounds.

·         David Rowen stated that a great deal of reference has been made to the Maxey 6 application and he highlighted the slide provided by the agent. He made the point that the current proposal is in very different context to the Maxey site and there is row of established development on the opposite side of the road and a consolidated row of development either side of the site whereas to the east of the proposal site there is one sporadic dwelling and a further gap and on the opposite side of the road there is a farm grouping and then an open space. David Rowen added that he is aware that Mr Humphrey made reference to the number of objections to the Maxey site, however, he expressed the view that the number of objections received maybe down to the number of houses in the vicinity of the application site. He referred to the PIP on the site which was refused due to character harm because the committee felt that it was unacceptable and the principle of developing the site would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and nothing has changed in respect of this individual application site in that regard and the applications are both equal.

The committee in reaching their decision received the following comments:

·         The Legal Officer reminded members of the Council’s Code of Conduct which states that where a similar development has been refused and members change their mind and want to approve it, that is classed as maladministration unless members can give reasons why there has been a significant change in circumstances. He expressed the view that there has been no significant change and, therefore, members need to take that into consideration bearing the history of the site.

·         Councillor Hicks asked if this applied to him as he is a new member of the committee and he never got to vote on this application previously so this is completely fresh and new to him. The Legal Officer responded that the significance is that the decisions made are made corporately by the Council and the Code of Practice does not state that a change in membership of a committee absolves those new members from being bound by the previous decisions of that same committee.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Legal Officer is giving advice as a solicitor but the ultimate decision lies with the committee.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that it is like his hands are tied and this is a new application to him, although he is aware of the ramifications of it and questioned why it is before committee if members have to vote a certain way? Nick Harding explained that the application is a brand new outline application and the Scheme of Delegation requires the application to come before the committee. He stated that with regard to the point about not being a member of the committee at the time of the determination of the PIP and it is not felt reasonable for hands to be tied it is no different to the situation faced by the Council as a local authority whereby an outline application has been refused that has been appealed and granted by an Inspector and officers then have to go on and deal with a reserved matters application and officers cannot say they are not dealing with the reserved matters as they never liked the principle of development in the first place. Nick Harding made the point that when it comes to dealing with what decisions have been made on applications for the same parcel of land in the past, he reminded members of the training they had received that said there needs to be regard to past decisions which are relevant to the application that is before committee today so it does not matter when a councillor became a member of the committee or when officers started working for the Council, if a decision has been made in the past and it is not agreed with professionally or as a member if that decision is pertinent to the determination of the new application there must be regard to it. He referred to the reasons for refusal, the site is rural in character with open fields to the south, east and north and fulfils an important part in the character of area by providing open countryside between the southern and eastern parts of Friday Bridge and are those facts the same today and, in his view, the answer is yes as there are still open fields to the south, east and north and why is it no longer an important part of the character of the area, what has changed on this site since it was last refused which has changed the character of this parcel of land and, in his view, nothing has changed.

·         Councillor Marks stated he understands the comments of Nick Harding, however, he did not do a site visit last time but he has now seen the site and believes that this is the right decision this time to approve the proposal and surely councillors can change their minds. He stated his reasoning is that his view is that he cannot see the proposal would be harmful, the application has changed slightly by accesses, lighting, etc, but the core factor is that he does not think it is outside the village.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that the Council is further down the line with the emerging Local Plan since the last refusal and this site is allocated building land in this plan. He feels to say that a decision has been made that is cast in stone and cannot be changed is wrong as new things come to light and viewpoints change. Nick Harding stated that it is not allocated land within the emerging Local Plan. David Rowen added that the relevant policies of the application do not conform and, therefore, would be contrary to the emerging Local Plan as well as the adopted Local Plan.

·         Councillor Connor asked when the Maxey 6 application was passed? David Rowen explained that the application was passed in earlier in 2023 and, therefore, postdated the decision on the PIP application. Councillor Connor stated that if the Maxey 6 application was passed after the failure of the first one, the 6 dwellings which were passed as per the officer’s recommendation has already altered the street scene and set a precedent.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the characteristics of a Fenland village are houses which are built at the side of a road and not back infill. He added that looking forwards that sort of development should continue rather than building estates behind properties.  Councillor Marks expressed the view that he sees the proposed development as infill.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions including matters pertaining to ecology being satisfactorily  resolved, to include a full lighting scheme and pathway. Nick Harding added that should matters pertaining to ecology not be approved then the report will need to be brought before the committee.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that it is a good application, the development will benefit the area, the new development will contribute to the sustainability of the settlement and does not harm the wide-open character of the countryside.