Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application is for two dwellings and is submitted in outline form with matters committed in respect of access only. She explained that the site is located on the approach into Tydd St Giles, and it presents an excellent opportunity to provide high quality dwellings positioned on the entrance to the village setting the scene from the southern approach.

Mrs Jackson explained that Church Lane is the main route into Tydd St Giles from the south with Kirkgate being the main route into the village from the east and the proposal will result in development on either side of Church Lane which would reflect the character of Kirkgate which also has housing on either side of the road and as a result both main routes into the village would be characterised by high quality residential development on both sides. She stated that a footpath extension is proposed to the east of the site which will link the dwellings to the village centre to the site by foot and will also benefit the housing opposite.

Mrs Jackson made reference to 5.3 of the officer’s report which states that the Highway Authority has deemed that the application is acceptable and whilst the application would not strictly meet the definition of infill as set out in Policy LP3, it would reinforce the cluster of development in this particular location and as such the proposal would be in line with what infill development seeks to achieve. She explained that since the previous refusal on site a barn conversion has been approved to the south and this has resulted in a change in character making this part of Church Lane more likened to a residential location than to open countryside and it is for this reason that it can be argued that there is no conflict with Policies LP3 or LP12 of the Local Plan.

Mrs Jackson stated that a sequential test has been undertaken on site which has demonstrated that there are no alternative sites available for development within the village and the reason for refusal states that the area of search should be the whole of the district but, in her view, it is not possible to pass a sequential test if the whole of the district should be searched for a site at a lower risk of flooding and if this stance was to be applied across the board then there would be a fair chance that there would be no new housing outside of the land allocations in villages such as Tydd St Giles which in turn would cause a lack of growth and turn villages stale, meaning a failure by the local authority in their requirement to provide new housing. She stated that it has been demonstrated that the site is technically safe from flooding and the actual risk to life and property in this location is low which the Environment Agency have agreed with, therefore, on that basis the site and development is technically safe, so, in her opinion, the benefits gained by providing new quality homes in this location would outweigh the concerns raised with the sequential test.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the proposal would provide new housing in an area which would enhance the entrance into Tydd St Giles and would also reinforce the existing residential cluster therefore being supported by Policies LP3 and LP12 of the Local Plan as well as Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). She stated that whilst the sequential test is not passed according to officers, in her view, the benefits gained by providing housing in the location would outweigh the sequential test and its issues particularly since it is proven that the site is technically safe from flooding and, therefore, there is no conflict with Policy LP14 of the Local Plan or Section 14 of the NPPF.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether there is a school in Tydd St Giles as he presumes that new homes will be aimed at families? Mrs Jackson stated that the application is in outline form, with the site being able accommodate two family homes and Kinderley Primary School is almost opposite the site. She confirmed that there is also a bus service.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mrs Jackson to identify where the barn conversion is located on the presentation screen? Mrs Jackson advised members that it is the barn that officers referred to with regards to the change of use from commercial to residential.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the dwelling Windy Willows is next door to the application site along with the barn conversion and school. He asked Mrs Jackson whether she considers the application site as being in an elsewhere location due to the properties around it? Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the application site is within a cluster of existing development, not isolated and she does not consider it to be elsewhere.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked officers to clarify why they consider the application site to be in an elsewhere location when there is other development in the vicinity and adjacent to the site? Gavin Taylor stated that Policy LP12 is the main policy for identifying whether sites sit either within, adjacent or outside of existing settlements and that adopted policy sets out whether the developed footprint is sitting where it should be or where it should be adjacent to. He added that it states that the ‘developed footprint of the village is defined as the continuous built form of the settlement and excludes individual buildings and groups of dispersed or intermittent buildings that are clearly detached from the continuous built up area of the settlement, gardens, paddocks and other undeveloped land within the curtilage of buildings on the edge of the settlement where the land relates more to the surrounding countryside than to the built up area of the settlement and it excludes agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of the settlement’. Gavin Taylor explained that when you consider the site in context and on the opposite side of the road it is built up, the application site is separated from the continuous built frontage of Tydd St Giles. He explained to the committee that there is a distance of 350 metres which separates the site from where the built form picks up from that side of the road and, therefore, in accordance with LP12 of the adopted Local Plan it does not fulfil the requirements on that basis and sits outside of the continuous built frontage. Gavin Taylor advised members that the application was refused by the Planning Committee in December 2022 for that reason and, therefore, members should consider that.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that was before the barn conversion was approved and when referring to the continuous built form there is a barn conversion and Windy Willows is an old property and has been there for some time and he does not understand why the application site can be considered as an elsewhere location. Gavin Taylor stated that the footnote associated with LP12 sets out that developed footprint excludes individual buildings and groups of dispersed or intermittent buildings and, therefore, the barn which has permission for conversion and the single farmhouse which is sited to the south of the application site is intermittent or dispersed development and it, therefore, fails to meet the criteria of developed footprint on that basis. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that this is down to personal interpretation.

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

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view it is down to personal interpretation whether the site can be classed as an elsewhere location. He added that the site is located in Flood Zone 3 and consideration does need to be given to previous decisions made by the committee.

·         Councillor Marks stated that when considering Flood Zone 3, there is also a barn conversion nearby which must also be in the same flood zone which received approval recently and, therefore, there needs to be consistency with decision making. He added that the application has been refused previously, however, there have been some material changes in the fact that the barn has now become living accommodation and was also more than likely in Flood Zone 3.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he welcomes the application and added that he does like to see nice houses as you enter a village as it sets the tone about how you feel about a village as you drive into it. He added that Tydd St Giles is a nice village, and he does not consider the application site to be in an elsewhere location. Councillor Benney stated that he appreciates that it is an outline application, but the plot is a fair size which in turn will accommodate two nice sized homes and villages need homes, with the village having a school, which he would not want to see close, and the village also has public transport. He made the point that by approving houses it does provide first time homes for people and it is a good use of land. He added that to apply the sequential test across the whole district is unfair and the need for housing would probably lead to overcoming the sequential test as he sees the test as a block to delivery and, in his opinion, the application will make two very nice homes.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that there appears to be conflicting information in the report as the Parish Council are objecting to the proposal stating that the school is full and those supporting the proposal are stating that the application will help the school thrive. She asked whether the school has any capacity? Gavin Taylor stated that he does not know what capacity the school is at but added that consideration would need to be given to what the pupil yield would be for two dwellings and consider that pupil numbers vary and fluctuate from year to year. Councillor Mrs French stated that she cannot see anymore than 4 to 6 children living within the 2 dwellings and schools need supporting along with the village shop.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that 4 or 5 children will not overburden the school and those children will help to fill a gap once older children move on to the next stage in their education at a secondary school.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view that should the application be approved it will set a precedent for the remaining strip of land to be considered for further development.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that  the committee need to consider the application before them.

·         Councillor Marks stated that most Fenland villages are built on main roads and most started as one road in and one road out. He added that the proposal is not for development behind properties as the proposal is for development on the roadside in a Fenland village.

·         Councillor Benney stated that every application is judged on its own merits and some  Fenland villages are linear in design, but committee has had applications before it where there has not been enough depth or too much depth.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he is undecided on the proposal as there appears to be some much conflict in information provided, with there having been three previous refusals on the site, and nothing appears to have changed significantly since the last applications. He made the point that he has to give weight to the views of Tydd St Giles Parish Council as they are the local people who know the area and their village and do not support the proposal. Councillor Gerstner stated that as a committee there needs to be consistency and if the barn was given planning permission then the committee are in a difficult position as the barn is almost next door.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that planning permission was not granted by the Council for the barn as it was inherent within the Permitted Development Order and officers assessed whether or not it met the conditions and limitations of the general permitted development order but nonetheless it was concluded that it adhered to the conditions and limitations and, therefore, it has permission to be converted.

·         Gavin Taylor referred to the point raised by Councillor Hicks with regards to setting a precedent and he added that he has noted through the members discussion the point which has been raised as to whether the site is inside or outside the settlement and if it is concluded today that the site is inside the settlement and complies with the spatial policies of the Local Plan contrary to previous recommendations then the committee would be saying that the land in between the application site and the main settlement would also be inside the settlement. He added that where members have raised concerns about setting a precedent and if the committee determines that the site is inside the settlement, given its relationship with the continuous built form, it would be difficult to determine that the rest of those 350 metres between it and the main core is not also the settlement.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity concerning the barn where officers have stated that it fell within the parameters but appears to be located in Flood Zone 3. Gavin Taylor stated that the sequential test is based on new development on a site and the barn has been in place for many years and, therefore, is existing development and the sequential test does not apply. He explained that the sequential test is about locating new development on land in areas of low flood risk and the existing barn is already creating the surface water issues as it is displacing water because it already has a footprint and under the General Permitted Development Order consideration is given as to what mitigation can be put in place to deal with the risks of flooding. Gavin Taylor stated that a sequential test is not undertaken when dealing with prior approval applications such as this under Class Q of the Permitted Development Order as it is completely different regime because the building already exists, and the sequential and exceptions test is all about new development and land that is not already developed.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that the previous refusal reason back in 2022 set out quite clearly that it was outside the settlement and members would need to cite what has changed in those circumstances to the present time.

It was proposed by Councillor Hicks, seconded by Councillor Gerstner to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation but this proposal failed as it was not supported by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the site is in part of the built form, the fact that the sequential test is taken into consideration across the whole of the district is unfair to the village of Tydd St Giles and the homes will support the bus service, the school and the village shop and will bring a benefit to the community.