Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked for confirmation that the application had been deferred previously in order to ask for further information to be provided on the drainage strategy, both foul and surface water as well as the detail concerning the bin collections. He stated that it appears that there has been no change and that no further information has been provided. Matthew Leigh stated that as per the officer’s report there has been no interaction with the applicant.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that as the information that the committee asked for previously has not been provided by the applicant the application is incomplete and, therefore, the application cannot be determined and should be refused. He expressed the view that he is sure that Matthew Leigh will want a decision to be made on the proposal, however, in light of the fact that the information requested by the committee has not been forthcoming and it would appear that the applicant has chosen to ignore that request the application should be refused.

·         Councillor Marks stated he agrees with Councillor Benney, the applicant has either ignored the request for the information to be provided or cannot be bothered and as it is an incomplete application he certainly will not be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she agrees with the points made by Councillors Benney and Marks, however, when considering the information before members, an applicant cannot be punished because they did not provide information that can be conditioned. She added that whilst she is still undecided with regards to her decision on the application, points 6, 7 and 8 can be conditioned.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that whilst certain aspects can be conditioned, the committee specifically requested the detail concerning drainage and foul water. He added that he recalls that there are problems with flooding and also the location where the bins were to be stored. Councillor Benney stated that without a refuse strategy the application is incomplete, and he added that the committee refused an application in Chatteris earlier in the year because it did not contain a drainage strategy.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the road does flood, and he is aware that there were pumps taking the water away via tankers and there was a large quantity of water removed. He added that he cannot give agreement to the application at the present time without seeing the applicant’s drainage strategy. Councillor Marks expressed the view that at the current time the applicant does not appear to be bothered and 6 months is an awful long period of grace for him to be given and there is no way that he can support the application.

·         Councillor Benney added that he recalls that there was a resident of Wisbech Road who was pumping water out into the road and was told to stop by the Police, or she would face prosecution. He added that the committee cannot put the residents at that sort of risk and the applicant has been given the chance and opportunity to come back with the information, but it has not been forthcoming and is an incomplete application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for confirmation of the flood zone that the site is located in, and it was confirmed as Flood Zone 1.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that case law is clear when it comes to making the determination of a planning application and states that an application cannot be refused if a condition can overcome the harm. He added that he understands that there is anecdotal and experience of flooding which has occurred and there maybe concerns as to whether the bin strategy can or cannot be delivered but the the Council have the powers to impose conditions that officers consider as safe to impose and that they have some level of certainty that they are deliverable. Matthew Leigh added that the information is required prior to commencement and those details would be considered and fully assessed and if found to acceptable would then be implemented and it is quite reasonable to impose the conditions particularly taking into account the Council’s position earlier in relation to the highway when initially the Highway Authority had objected, and the Council thought it was ok to condition. He added that he does not see in planning terms what the difference is here considering that the consultees are happy in this situation subject to the conditions, making the point that it would be dangerous for the Council to refuse the application on the basis of a lack of information especially when considering that conditions 6, 7 and 8 will be able to ensure that information is provided to the Council, and it can be fully and robustly reviewed at the correct time.

·         Councillor Marks referred to planning training that he had attended where incomplete and complete applications were discussed. He stated that the applicant has been given time to come back and complete his application and the application is incomplete and does not contain a drainage or refuse strategy and, in his view, as it is incomplete application it needs to be refused.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that he totally agrees.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has listened to the advice and guidance provided to the committee by the Head of Planning, however, as decision makers, the committee can make its own minds up when determining applications. He added that whatever decision is made, it comes down to the fact that it is a committee’s decision and not an individual. Councillor Benney added last Christmas, the bungalows along that stretch of road were running pumps 24 hours a day and as a committee there needs to be confidence that whatever is there is robust and without seeing a drainage strategy then the committee cannot make a decision or comment.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is absolutely adamant that it should be refused, and he would be happy to propose.

·         Stephen Turnbull stated that if a Planning Inspector disagrees with members and that the matter could be dealt with by a condition then there is a risk of costs as well. Councillor Connor stated that if that is the case then so be it, but the committee also have a duty to residents in the surrounding properties as well.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he has heard the advice what the Legal Officer has given, and he added that surely that is setting a precedent for future people to come along and do exactly the same thing.

·         Matthew Leigh explained that the Council has granted permission before for sites with conditions similar to the application before members. He added that the information has not been required for every site and cautioned that committee that to refuse the application on lack of information would not be advisable in his opinion.

·         Councillor Marks stated that members have been advised that if an application is incomplete, it should not be approved and, in his view, he cannot see how it cannot be seen as anything else other than an incomplete application. He added that whilst he appreciates that the application can be conditioned, the committee need to be aware of what is going to be on the site before a decision can be made and it is known that the site floods and if it went to appeal then there could be a cost implication, however, the committee are doing their job by objecting to it. Councillor Marks made the point that he would be content to attend an appeal and put his point across which is that the site floods and the applicant has not provided a drainage strategy at all after being given 6 months grace and for that reason it is incomplete and should be refused.

·         Councillor Benney referred to an application in Doddington where the committee were advised by the Head of Planning that there was not a drainage strategy to accompany the application, and it was refused because of that. He added that at that time the committee asked about conditioning and were advised that they could not condition it. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the two applications are to him very similar, and that application was refused due to the absence of the strategy when it is his understanding that both himself and Councillor Marks would have otherwise supported the application.

·         Matthew Leigh explained that the applicant has supplied some information, however, officers feel that a greater level of detail is required which is materially different to there not being any information. He added that it comes down to officers ability to feel some level of confidence and understanding of the ability for the planning harm and he advised members again to consider the matter carefully.

·         Councillor Benney stated that this was the reason that the other application was refused and whilst there was a drainage strategy it was a discharge point.

Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of approval as they feel that the agent has not provided the drainage strategy, foul and surface drainage, and refuse strategy and, therefore, application is incomplete.

(Councillor Mrs French declared that as she lives in close proximity to the application site and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)