Agenda item

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey referred to the site plan and explained that the site is currently residential and there is an existing tree belt which actually divides the garden and makes it into a natural plot, with the cottage that is currently on the site being small in size and the garden is out of proportion with the cottage. He expressed the opinion that there are many factors that lead the site to a natural plot and the plan demonstrates that it is an infill plot and under LP3, the policy allows for such settlements as Tydd Gote to have infill plots and it is clear that the application site is on a corner and you can still have an infill on the corner between the two properties, Green Acres and Chestnuts.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the Planning Officer has a different view and is of the opinion that it is not an infill site, however, in his view it is. He made the point that the officer’s report appears to demonstrate a concern for the loss of the frontage hedge and normally he would look for that to be retained and should members want the hedge to be retained then the applicant would be willing to leave it by way of a condition.

Mr Humphrey stated that there were 8 letters of support and none of objection which is pleasing to see in such a small hamlet. He asked members to review the plan and make their own judgement as to whether the application site is actually in open countryside because, in his opinion, it actually forms part of the existing developed village of Tydd Gote.

Mr Humphrey explained that reason three of the officers refusal refers to no ecology or biodiversity net gain (BNG) but this was not required at the time of the application and the application was validated prior to 2 April as a minor application, however, he would be prepared to provide BNG on the site if necessary as part of a requirement with the retained garden and he asked the committee to consider the application as infill development and support the application.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification with regards to the BNG statement that Mr Humphrey has made. Mr Humphrey explained that one of the reasons for refusal is that there is no ecology report, and it is his understanding that an ecology report was not required at the time that the application was submitted. Councillor Mrs French stated that normally if it is an outline application that does not need to be supplied as it is a minor application. Mr Humphrey stated that is correct.

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Humphrey whether he would be prepared to provide an ecology report? Mr Humphrey confirmed that he would.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for the cottage to be indicated on the plan. Mr Humphrey shows on the plans where the cottage was situated.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has looked up the meaning of infill and it is materials that fill or are used to fill a hole and he made the point that, in his opinion, that is what the application is doing as it is filling the gap.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he agrees with that view, and he cannot see how it can be classed as open countryside when there are properties around it.

David Rowen stated that Mr Humphrey had referred to the third reason for refusal with regards to BNG, however, the third reason makes no reference to BNG and is purely focussed on the biodiversity checklist which is submitted with all planning applications and has been the case for a number of years. He added that the checklist has been completed with a response of no being applied to each question despite one of the questions asking whether the application will involve any proposed tree work when there are obviously a number of trees on the front of the site which will require removal. David Rowen explained that the answer to that question should have been yes and, therefore, a follow up survey would need to be carried out to deal with the potential of bats in particular and that is the reason for the justification for refusal reason three.

David Rowen clarified the issue as to whether the application is deemed as infill or not and he referred to the officer’s report which provides two sources of definition of infill one of which is in the Local Plan and the other in the planning portal. He explained that the planning portal explains that it is a development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings and a gap within an otherwise built-up frontage. David Rowen expressed the view that he cannot see how this development could be classified as within an otherwise built-up frontage given the considerable gap that there would be between the proposed development site and The Chestnuts. He added that he does not think that officers are necessarily saying that it is open countryside and, in his view, are stating that it is a transition and having a loose knit form of sporadic development that is prevalent at the current time and it typifies that and contributes to the character of the area.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has reviewed the reasons for refusal and added that a frontage is a frontage regardless of whether it has a curve or a bend in it and, in his opinion, the application meets the definition of infill because it is in between two buildings. He added that with regards to the second reason for refusal, under LP12 in his opinion, any house adds to the sustainability of a settlement, and it will provide a lovely home for somebody. Councillor Benney stated that with regards to ecology, the application could be refused just on that aspect and then a resubmission be invited with an ecology report or deferral of the application. He questioned whether officers would be prepared to accept an ecology report to address the third reason for refusal.

·         David Rowen stated that the point of a biodiversity checklist is to help the agents to identify when they need to undertake reports and if that has been filled in incorrectly and the relevant information has not been submitted then it results in a significant flaw in the application. He explained that when considering the way that Government is directing planning authorities to determine applications as quickly as possible then, in his opinion, the committee need to consider moving away from giving applicants a second attempt of submission of an application. David Rowen stated that the obligation is on the applicant or the agent to submit a complete application with all the supporting information and reports then that is a failing and is one of which the Council should be dealing with in a summary manner and, therefore, the application should be determined on the basis of the information in front of the committee today.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the committee are minded to refuse the application then there is the requirement to identify on what grounds the application is going to be refused.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the Planning Team is already short staffed and encountering a very high workload and if the application is refused then the planning officers will then need to deal with another submission and validation which is just adding to their workload, however, he does agree that there is a piece of information which is missing. Councillor Benney questioned whether there is a simpler way to save officers from undertaking the extra work.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the application was refused then the application could be dealt with under delegation to officer the next time if the BNG was achieved.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the committee could recommend approval subject to the further information being submitted and agreed.

·         The Legal Officer stated that David Rowen has explained that the idea of a biodiversity checklist at the outset is that ecology can be considered at the outset and is designed into the scheme. He explained that if a condition was imposed in relation to ecology it is inevitably second best as there is already an established scheme which has been approved and you can only do things which are mitigating of that scheme whereas if you start from a clean sheet you can design a proposal that is sympathetic to ecology from the outset and that is the grounds for refusal as proposed. The Legal Officer made the point that there is a significant difference between approval with an ecology condition which is disapproved of in Government guidance and ordinarily ecology should be addressed from the outset and the alternative is that it is designed from the outset.

·         Councillor Benney asked the Legal Officer to clarify whether it is frowned upon or illegal? The Legal Officer stated that it is not illegal but the clear Government guidance indicates that it is inappropriate to impose conditions in order to address the ecology issues after permission has been granted due to the fact that it is not possible to design appropriate solutions that meet with what ecology is actually present on site. He added that there is no evidence of what is going to be found on the site and, therefore, it maybe that what is proposed is entirely inconsistent with the ecology present there and had there been a more sympathetic design which was attuned to the ecology then it could have been addressed through some separate design.

·         Councillor Benney stated that after considering the view of the Legal Officer then he would look to refuse the application but only on the grounds of ecology.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the application could be deferred to save time? Councillor Connor stated that he would not be keen on a deferral and if the application is only being refused on biodiversity it should not take much time for the agent to provide the information and then it could be dealt with by officers under delegation or if that is not appropriate then it would come back to committee with just one aspect.

·         David Rowen stated that any future planning application which is either before the committee or at delegated level would be dependent on how it complies with the Scheme of Delegation in terms of any representations. He added that with regards to the comment made concerning the workload of the Planning Team, this application demonstrates that the committee need to send out a message to agents and applicants to state that substandard applications that lack information will not be tolerated and to point out that they need to ensure that the requisite information is provided with the initial submission.

·         The Legal Officer stated that if the application was refused then a fresh application would be required and the BNG would then be obligated as opposed to voluntary. He added that it is an unusual scenario because BNG came into use in February and in this particular application there would be a statutory obligation to provide BNG on a future application.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked when the application was submitted and David Rowen explained that the requirement for BNG applies for all major applications submitted on or after the 12 February and will come into force for all minor applications from 2 April. He added that at the time that the application was submitted there was no BNG requirement.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is for a single dwelling which is minor, and the application was submitted before this new policy was introduced.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if it is not necessary at the current time then if the application is refused why will it be required. David Rowen clarified the position and explained that at the current point in time the application does not have to provide BNG, however, if it is refused and submitted after the 2 April it will have to do so. He added that the application is not recommended to be refused on the basis of not providing any BNG, it is recommended to be refused on a lack of ecology information that is contrary to Policies LP16 and LP19 of the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether the application could be approved without the information. David Rowen stated that they could but given the Government advice with respect to ecology as the Legal Officer has already indicated it is not best practice to do that. The Legal Officer confirmed that it would not be illegal to do so.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there is no reason why the application could not be approved subject to the further information being submitted.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED, against the officer’s recommendation, subject to an ecology condition and with authority delegated to officers to apply reasonable conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the application does constitute an infill dwelling, an addition of a house in this location will contribute to the sustainability of the settlement and will not harm the wide-open character of the countryside and the assessment of impact on protected species can be undertaken via condition to any planning permission.