Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site has been under the same ownership of the applicant for 15 years and has not been agricultural land in that time, with part of the site already being built over with residential dwellings and the site is located within the built-up form of Doddington. He explained that the proposal will include some flood mitigation measures to match in with floor levels of the adjacent already built properties that were approved in 2016, with the properties floor levels being brought into Flood Zone 1, however, he explained that the applicant has confirmed that the site has never encountered any flooding episodes since his ownership.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the houses shown which depict 2 out of the 3 already approved in 2016 which have been built up out of the ground and they are located directly opposite the application site and are under the same ownership. He referred to the presentation screen which displayed the Environment Agency Flood Map and made reference to the three dwellings shown earlier in the presentation and explained that the bottom plot to the south where half of the dwelling is located in Flood Zone 3 and at least another third located in Flood Zone 2.

Mr Hall explained that the middle plot, which is yet to be built, is located partially in Flood Zone 3 and partly in Flood Zone 2, leaving the nearest one to the north being located in the Flood Zone 2 line. He made the point that those three properties are also accessible from the same drive which is located in Flood Zones 1 and 3.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the Environment Agency, Environmental Health or Highways to the proposal and floor levels have been shown to match in with those dwellings that were approved in 2016 to bring them into the Flood Zone 1 area. He explained that the access is already in place as well as sewer connections and utilities and the proposal would finish off the development in this area as there is no other land that this could be built on.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to the planning permission, which was granted in 2016, and asked whether there was any flood mitigation measures included at all? Mr Hall stated that he was not involved with that development, however, currently there is a Flood Risk Assessment for the site which has not raised any concern from the Environment Agency, and they do not believe that the possible flooding at the site is from rivers or sea, and they recommend that comments of the Internal Drainage Board are sought. He stated that it is his understanding that there was no Flood Risk Assessment submitted for the site in 2016.

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether the trees on the left-hand side are existing trees or new ones which are going to be planted? Mr Hall explained that on the northern boundary there are trees there and the intention is to plant trees on the left-hand side should the application be approved.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity with regards to the 2016 application and whether any detail concerning flood risk was included. David Rowen stated that in 2016 a detailed plan was submitted with the application which indicated that all three dwellings were located outside Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, in Flood Zone 1 so a Flood Risk Assessment would not have been required and that application was determined on the basis of those properties not falling within the flood zone. He stated that it now appears that the Environment Agency map indicates that those properties are now in Flood Zone 2 and in the meantime, it is not clear whether the Environment Agency maps have altered in terms of modelling or whether the houses have actually been built in the correct place. David Rowen stated that the committee need to put that particular application aside and to determine the application before them, whilst considering the planning policies which are relevant which state that if a site is located in Flood Zone 3, then a sequential test needs to be undertaken, which is the starting point in terms of addressing flood risk.

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

·         Councillor Marks stated that determining this application is proving to be more difficult on this occasion due to the issues concerning flood risk, with there being factors to consider when making the decision as there may have been changes to the flood map which has possibly been moved according to officers and the fact that the agent has stated the same mitigation with regards to floor levels can be incorporated so that it reflects that of the floor levels in the application approved previously. He expressed the view that it is a good application apart from the issue of flood zones and from what the agent has said the Environment Agency has said that there is no risk of flood from rivers or sea, however, it will be the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) who have to give their opinion, and they do not provide any detail to Planning Officers.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she does have concerns with regards to the flooding issues and added that North Level do comment on planning applications, but Middle Level Commissioners do not. She expressed the opinion that those members who hold positions on the IDB’s need to be highlighting this at the next meeting that they attend. Councillor Mrs French stated that she cannot support the application.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that what equates to a hill in the Fens is literally just up the road, namely Primrose Hill, and, therefore, any surface water will flow further down to the road. He expressed the opinion that a precedent has already been set with other buildings around and in line with it.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he does see anything wrong with the application and it is a good use of land, but it is located in Flood Zone 3. He added that some members are representatives on IDB’s, and he is aware that they are struggling with the excessive amount of rain which has caused flooding over the last few years in certain areas and much of that has been caused by people filling drains in which stops the flow of water. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the National Planning Policy Framework gives guidance that development should not take place in Flood Zone 3 unless the exception test can be passed and that is not available today. He made the point that he does not like the exception test as he feels it is a block to development and whilst that land has not flooded and possibly never will, in light of the recent training members had and the fact that the site is located in Flood Zone 3, he does not feel that members have any other choice other than to refuse the application. Councillor Benney stated that the right decision is to refuse the application based on the guidance and policy.

·         David Rowen made reference to the other application which members had highlighted and he explained that the approved plan which was submitted in terms of the site layout showed three dwellings on a more staggered arrangement which were placed in such a way so that they were outside of Flood Zone 3 and the layout that is shown on the submitted details provided by the applicant show the properties in more of a line and does not appear to accord with what has been approved. He stated that he wished to give members assurance that the issue of flood risk was adequately considered in 2016 and onsite circumstances appear to have changed in terms of the actual layout and, therefore, it does not set the precedent that some members are indicating in terms of how the current application should be considered.

·         Councillor Connor asked how many reasons have been listed in the officer’s recommendation for refusal of the application. David Rowen stated that there is one reason for refusal as set out in the officer’s report.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)