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 the committee will remember the application when it came before them in October and was deferred. He added that there is one reason for refusal and that is that the site is located in Flood Zone 3 but expressed the view that there have been numerous sites in Fenland which have been approved previously in Flood Zone 3 providing that the Environment Agency raise no objections and they have not raised any with this application.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the objection in the officer’s report already confirms that the principle of residential development of this site is acceptable, that the site is infill development and is within the continuous built-up form of Murrow and would not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity. He made the point that there have been no objections to the application from any consultees, neighbours or any persons in Murrow and the application has the support of the Parish Council, Environment Agency, Tree Officer and Highways Officer.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and stated that on the map the red line identifies that the proposed site falls within the built up form of Murrow as the officer has stated, with to the northwest of the site there is a thin strip of land on which a dwelling was approved in 2016 and 2019 under the current Local Plan and the site falls within Flood Zone 3. He stated that, at the meeting in October 2023, members of the committee requested further information with regards to the surrounding properties, making the point that the applicant was Fenland District Council for the  dwellings in Inhams Close and Pentelow Close and those buildings were built out with a few only being in private ownership and others owned by Clarion Housing.

Mr Hall explained that all of those properties are located in Flood Zone 3 and discussions have taken place with Anglian Water who have an asset to the west of the site, and they are happy with the proposal. He expressed the view that the site should be approved against the recommendation of the officer as there have been no objections from the Environment Agency and the principle of development is policy compliant, it is infill development and the other sites on adjacent roads in Murrow in Flood Zone 3 have also been approved under the current Local Plan, with an independent Flood Risk Assessment being approved by the Environment Agency. He made the point that the proposal will provide ideal starter homes within the built-up form of Murrow.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked that as the proposal is in Flood Zone 3 could Mr Hall provide the details with regards to what mitigation can be put in place as there have been dwellings in Manea which have been raised two metres out off the ground and now the dwelling looks like a tower standing on its own and appears to look very out of place. Mr Hall explained that the properties next to the site have a floor level of 150ml above the ground which is the minimum, with the Flood Risk Assessment for the current proposal asking for the floor level to be 0.3 metres. He added that there are other mitigation measures such as they are masonry built, not timber framed, and other measures inside where you can introduce plaster board horizontally, plastic sockets, plastic vents over any beam block floor vents and all of that is within the Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency have approved those mitigation measures.

·         Councillor Connor asked for confirmation of what objections have been received against the proposal? Mr Hall stated that there has been no objection from any consultees, no neighbours and nobody from Murrow.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and asked for clarification as to when the dwellings shown were constructed? Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and pointed that in the northwest corner there are other dwellings which have been approved under the current Local Plan which have received approval in 2016 and 2019.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to the officer’s report where it states that there are currently five sites and seven dwellings within the submitted sequential test area and asked what area that is referring to? Nick Harding stated that it is within Murrow. Councillor Marks asked how many dwellings are located in Murrow? Nick Harding stated that he does not know the number of dwellings which are in the settlement of Murrow, however, that figure is irrelevant when applying the sequential test along with considering past development within the village as the sequential test considers whether there are locations in the settlement which are consented, are allocated in the Local Plan which can go ahead of this proposal and the applicant has submitted several planning permissions which have not been implemented and, therefore, they need to be used up before the current site can be considered. Councillor Marks asked whether it is not undertaken on a percentage basis, and he questioned how the number of seven dwellings has been reached before the current proposal can be taken into consideration? Nick Harding explained that they are the sites which have planning permission. Councillor Marks questioned whether the permissions would go down on a one to one basis? Nick Harding stated that effectively that could happen due to the fact that there could be a settlement which does not have a specific settlement target and there are no issues with regards to the five-year land supply or housing delivery. David Rowen added that some of the properties do not fall within Flood Zone 3 and they will be in Flood Zone 1 and are at a lower risk of flooding. Nick Harding stated that because of decisions made on planning applications that are at a lower flood risk than the current proposal, that is why they have been granted planning consent and at the time of considering those applications, there were no sites at lesser flood risk or were in Flood Zone 1 and did not need to pass the sequential test.

·         Councillor Hicks asked how many of those seven applications fell within Flood Zone 3? David Rowen explained that the sites were in Flood Zones 1 and 2 and one site did not have a flood zone attributed to it.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that regardless as to whether it is 5 or 7, there are no guarantees as to whether they are going to be delivered and she asked officers to confirm how long has it been since those sites received planning permission? David Rowen referred to the sequential test and explained that they received permission in 2022 and 2023.

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that, when reviewing the map, all of the other properties sit within Flood Zone 3 and he questioned what sets that site out from the rest when it appears to be exactly the same as all of the others which have already been built.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she recalls visiting the site, expressing the view that it is a good standalone development as it is a brownfield site and it would make good use of the land, with there being no guarantee that the other dwellings referred to earlier will be built out.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the committee have heard that the issue of the site being in Flood Zone 3 can be mitigated against and the development will not encroach into any open countryside. He made the point that Murrow needs properties and there may be other reasons why builders have not built in other areas, and he is considering supporting the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it is his true belief that the sequential test is a lottery and, in his opinion, the site has an awful lot of positives and it will bring a plot of land into life and the site is crying out for some sort of development so he will support the application.

·         Nick Harding stated that the sequential test is about using the sites which are best in terms of flood risk.

·         Councillor Marks stated that whilst some sites may not be quite right, they should not be overlooked either and the application site can provide two homes for two families. He added that whilst there are seven sites in Murrow there is no knowledge of what is behind them and whilst they maybe in lower flood zones, people do not wish to build on them and they may have brought the land for other purposes such as land banking and the committee may be holding up family type homes. Nick Harding stated that the sequential test considers choosing the sites that have the least flood risk first and if there are a number of sites which are at lesser flood risk and have a planning consent then they should be used up first and if those with planning permission lapse then they fall off the list of available sites that are at lesser flood risk.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a good standalone development and is a brownfield site and is ideal for development. She made the point that risk of flooding can be mitigated against, and she will support the application.

·         Councillor Connor asked for confirmation that it is a brownfield site. David Rowen stated that the officers report states that the site is flat grassland occupied by two trees. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is an old waterworks and is, therefore, a brownfield site.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it is a brownfield site and within the National Planning Policy Framework it states that that brownfield sites should be built out prior to greenfield and, therefore, this site should take preference from the others.

·         Nick Harding stated that as far as he can tell the waterworks are to the left of the application site and the area contained within the red line does not appear to be brownfield in nature.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that it is a brownfield site and if the application is not approved then it will be another piece of land which will end up a dump or left to grow wild and, in her view, it is an ideal place to build on.

·         Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, reminded the committee that the application site is owned by the Council and the committee need to be scrupulous when dealing with the application and it should be treated in the same way as they would with any application. He added that Nick Harding has mentioned that the sequential test policy is embedded in the Council’s own Local Plan but also in the National Planning Policy Framework and to move away from that planning policy needs good planning reason.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that the committee are impartial and always is. He added that the Fenland District Council application before the committee is being treated like any other application would be considered.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply reasonable conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they believe the site is a brownfield site, which they feel according to the sequential test should take priority over other sites, that mitigation steps can be taken in order to overcome the fact that the site falls within Flood Zone 3 and the site will provide two family homes in the village of Murrow.

Nick Harding made the point that he does not feel that the reason provided with regards to the sequential test is adequate. Councillor Marks added that there are other sites in Flood Zone 1 and 2 which appear to have been there for a period of time and it is believed that they are in greenfield sites as opposed to the brownfield site which according to national policy takes precedence. Councillor Marks reiterated that the proposal brings much needed properties to Murrow. Councillor Mrs French added that because it is a brownfield site the site is considered to be more sequentially preferable.

(Councillor Benney declared that this a Fenland application and he is Portfolio Holder with responsibility for assets, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French declared in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters that she is a member of the Cabinet, but this matter has never been discussed )