Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, read out by Member Services from Councillor Michael Humphrey on behalf of Gorefield Parish Council. Councillor Humphrey stated that the Parish Council does not support this application and would draw members attention to its concerns as per the officer’s report. He added that the Parish Council is also concerned on the grounds that this application has been brought to the committee and considers that the use of letter templates to support this application is a misuse of the system.

Councillor Humphrey reminded members that Gorefield is designed as a village of limited growth, yet it has permission for in excess of 50 homes still to be built out. He hoped that unlike the application approved against officer’s recommendation in August 2023, the Planning Committee members will be mindful to support the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson referred to the presentation screen and stated that the application has taken a considerable time to go through the validation process. She stated that the application is for up to nine dwellings within the centre of Gorefield and it is quite a unique site due to the fact that despite it being located in Flood Zone 3, the technical Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that it can accommodate bungalows on the site, which is a significant benefit as nowadays it is rare to be able to build bungalows within the district.

Mrs Jackson explained that the application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved and the indicative layout demonstrates that a spacious layout can be achieved which respects the established loose knit development along Cattle Dyke. She expressed the view that it demonstrates a really good transition between a densely built-up development which is proposed at Dennicks Yard and the very low density along Cattle Dyke, with the proposed density being appropriate and not harmful as mentioned in the second reason for refusal.

Mrs Jackson stated that Gorefield is classified as a small village where infill development is supported by Policy LP3 and she explained that the application site is located between the Dennicks Yard development and the established development along Cattle Dyke and, in her view, it would infill this part of the village without encroaching further into the countryside and the surrounding development. She expressed the opinion that the proposal complies with the spirit of Policy LP3 and that it comprises with residential infilling within the footprint of the village.

Mrs Jackson made the point that she has noted the reason for refusal with regards to the proposal comprising back land development but, in her view, she cannot see how the site is considered as backland when the scheme can be laid out comprehensively and it is no different in terms of its locational aspect from the Dennicks Yard site to the east. She stated that as part the submission a flood risk sequential test was undertaken and given the location of the site within the built-up footprint of Gorefield, the sequential test was carried out on sites within Gorefield, which was the case for the development site to the east and, in her opinion, she can see no reason why the same approach cannot be taken.

Mrs Jackson explained that despite the fact that she has demonstrated that there are no available sites for development at lower risk of flooding within Gorefield, officers have proposed a reason for refusal which states that the site does not pass a sequential test due to the fact that the search area should be the whole of the district and, in her view, the reason for refusal is entirely unreasonable given the location of the site in relation to the village and the fact that the site to the east was limited to the search area of Gorefield for its sequential test. She explained that there are no technical objections to the proposal and the Parish Council have stated that the road is narrow, however, the Highway Authority have raised no objection.

Mrs Jackson made the point that there are significant benefits to the scheme which includes the provision of new housing within a village which would sustain the amenities of the village and the fact that bungalows can be provided which is a rare opportunity in the area. She expressed the view that the reasons for refusal are subjective and the proposal would not cause harm to the settlement, it would comprise residential infilling and it is appropriate in terms of flood risk.

Mrs Jackson asked the committee to consider granting planning permission with appropriate conditions.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor asked Mrs Jackson to clarify why the application is only for 9 dwellings as it could be considered that the site is underdeveloped just for nine when it could be capable of 15 or 16 dwellings? Mrs Jackson stated that if you look at the development site to the east which is the Dennicks Yard redevelopment it is very dense along with the Cattle Dyke development to the west which is very loose. She added that she tried to make a transition between the two and nine dwellings sat really well on the site as biodiversity net gain also had to be provided and there are areas which include pockets of landscaping. Mrs Jackson explained that it felt right in terms of the sizes of the houses and the transition.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether the refuse truck can access the development site? Mrs Jackson explained that the layout of the site is not committed at the current time but there is scope to build it to an adoptable standard so it can include turning for large refuse vehicles.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view the site has merit and very often many sites are crammed in and do not make good use of land and when a low-density application is submitted such as this then it is criticised for being a low-density application. He stated that the application site is located in Flood Zone 3 and referred to the planning training he received where members were advised that if it fails the sequential and exception test then when considering the application before the committee he does not see how it can be supported. Councillor Benney stated that he would only refuse the proposal on the grounds of the exceptions test, and he expressed the view that the houses would be good solid houses and would make lovely homes for people regardless of the fact that the site is in Flood Zone 3.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Benney that the design looks good, but it is in Flood Zone 3 and it is disappointing that there is not a sequential test properly sorted out otherwise the application could be supported. She expressed the opinion that if flooding could be overcome it is a good application.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that when the density of a site is looked at the Government guidance is clear that the Council should be looking to deliver the maximum it can on sites that it wants to develop if it is felt that the site is appropriate to be developed, with the agent indicating that the density is trying to act as a transition between the denser development to the east and the lower development to the west. He referred to the presentation screen and highlighted that there are 8 properties which are just adjacent to 5 properties and that when considering the density in relation to the width of the site it is very generous and he advised members that if they do feel that the site is developable then the number of dwellings for the site should be higher. Matthew Leigh stated that consideration has to be given as to whether a site for backland development should be developed and whether properties are put on there. He added that there is the inclusion of a landscaping scheme and a development of nine dwellings does not require an affordable housing contribution whereas a scheme of 10 does and, in his opinion, if the scheme was to come forward properly then the number of dwellings would need to be substantially higher. Matthew Leigh made the point that whilst it might be an attractive scheme when considering the plot widths, they do not reflect the adjoining site and whilst an attractive lower density scheme may be nice to have, in his view, nice dwellings is not enough for the site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that members are often told that the amenity space is not big enough and applications are refused and whilst he accepts that land usage has to be considered the proposal before the committee is spaced out and looks good, however, the flood zone issue still needs to be considered.

·         Councillor Benney referred to the presentation screen and stated that on the left-hand side there are 8 houses as opposed to five and highlighted the spaces around the houses on the left, making the point that if a development took place today on that land there would be a significantly higher number of houses placed on that site. He added that planning is an evolving thing that changes all the time and as land is becoming more valuable, therefore, there is an element of higher density. Councillor Benney questioned whether members want to see small houses all crammed in on an area or would they rather see some nice houses for families to be able to grow. He added that as much as policy may dictate, members know that there is the need for a mix of house types and whilst he could support the proposal, ultimately the site is located in Flood Zone 3 and the application cannot be passed without an exception and sequential test.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that if the committee are considering approving development in Flood Zone 3 then there needs to be consistency.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that in Wisbech most of the area falls in Flood Zone 3 and if the application was in Wisbech, apart from the density, then the officer’s recommendation would likely to have been one of approval.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that when looking at the indicative plan there is space for four cars and detached garages and whilst he accepts that planning evolves, he would implore members to refuse the application on density. He added that the application is a very poor use of land as it is and whilst it does not mean it needs to be a highly dense scheme like you find in an inner city area, in his view, you can have very nice attractive houses but adding slightly more.

·         Councillor Marks stated that his concern is how can bungalows be located in Flood Zone 3 that the agent has said should be approved. Matthew Leigh explained that consideration needs to be given with regards to not building in flood zones and then the issue of trying to overcome the exception test by building properties up and officers are stating that they should not be built. Councillor Marks stated that the agent had alluded to the fact that there was some loophole to state that bungalows can be built in Flood Zone 3.

·         Councillor Connor invited the agent, Shanna Jackson, back to address the committee with an explanation concerning the point she had made. Mrs Jackson advised members that the Flood Risk Assessment was carried out on the basis of it being single storey dwellings and that has been stated in the Flood Risk Assessment information as it is in a very low area of surface water flooding despite the site being located in Flood Zone 3.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the site is located in the countryside, and it is in a village and executive homes are required which she feels should be taken into consideration.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application should only be refused on flooding grounds, and he added that there may come a time where the application site can pass a sequential test and, therefore, could come back before the committee. He added that to refuse the application on low density could mean in time an application could come before the committee with a block of flats on it.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation but solely on failure of a sequential test.