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 Reverend Helen Gardener, the applicant and Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that applicant is a charity based in Tydd St Giles and part of that charity’s objective is to manage land for the benefit the Parish of Tydd St Giles so the application seeks to develop land for market dwellings to increase its value and then the land will be sold on meaning that the money obtained through that sale will then be available for the charity to fulfil its objective. He stated that the charity has already received some interest in the land.

Mr Lunn-Towler explained that historically the charity has supported various groups and individuals which include student grants, equipment for the church, swimming lessons for the school and a wheelchair for an individual as well as property adaptations. He made the point that the application is, therefore, considered to deliver a community benefit should it be approved and to outweigh the conservation concerns.

Mr Lunn-Towler made reference to the officer’s concerns with regards to the character of the proposal and stated that Kirkgate Street has undergone significant growth over the last 10 years and since 2016 the land east of the application site has been developed on both sides of the road for residential properties resulting in land surrounding the Listed Building being developed for residential use and, in his opinion, the character in this area has already been established and the proposal seeks to integrate into that. He expressed the view that the proposal aims to keep the majority of the existing trees on the boundary line adjacent to Kirkgate to maintain a key feature, which will be required to facilitate the new access points and he made the point that the application is considered to enhance the area and provide a community benefit to outweigh the officer’s recommendation.

Reverend Gardner stated that she is one of the Trustees of the Brigstock and Wren Charity and is the ex officio due to her status as the Vicar of Tydd St Giles, with the purpose of the charity being to support the residents of the Parish of Tydd St Giles, along with Four Gotes, Foul Anchor and Tydd Fen. She stated that the charity helps individuals in need to pay for items, services, facilities, and educational costs and it also assists organisations that benefit the residents of the parish and for the relief of need.

Reverend Gardner provided a summary of the more recent payments that have been made which included a £5,000 grant to Kinderley Primary School to go towards swimming and she explained that they have recently received a good rating from Ofsted who had commented that the whole school being offered swimming lessons was one of the contributing factors that went towards the school being offered the good grade and the head teacher has passed on their thanks to the charity. She explained that swimming is something that the charity is able to support on a regular basis and the school has also been given a grant of £1,000 recently for equipment.

Reverend Gardner added that the charity is able to offer energy grants and food vouchers and she stated that the demand for those has gone up a lot in the last two years. She explained that educational grants are provided to those students post 16 who are attending colleges or undertaking apprenticeships and grants are also offered to undergraduates as well as mature students including those that are retraining.

Reverend Gardner made the point that the contributions are made when requested to organizations such as the school, the lunch club, community events and she stated that for complete and open transparency the church also receives contributions as well with the most recent grant to help the church to install equipment for live streaming which following the pandemic has become very important. She explained that individual grants are based on their merit which have included a swimming pass for a young person with specific educational needs and tools have also been provided to enable attendance at the men’s shed as well as a contribution being made to young people in their travel costs to attend college. 

Reverend Gardner explained that most of the charity’s income comes from allotments and this means something very different in the Fens compared to what it means in an urban area and there is also some money invested for which it receives some income and under their constitution, they are unable to use the capital monies and are only able to use the income. She made the point that if the application is approved and the land is sold then it will be for the benefit of the community.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that the charity work is very commendable, and he asked whether any monies received as a result of the sale of the land will only help the village of Tydd and the surrounding villages. Reverend Gardner stated that it is specifically for the residents of Tydd St Giles. Councillor Benney stated that it is a very commendable charity.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the application is for outline planning permission, and asked that should the proposal be approved will the properties be similar to those that are already there? Mr Lunn-Towler stated that when considering the design, he would refer to those recently built properties to the north of the site which are adjacent to the Listed Building and would look at that kind of style and adopt that principle.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether the two new build dwellings which are under development at the present time was a decision made by the committee? David Rowen stated that the decision was made by the committee and was approved against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he notes that one of the reasons for refusal states that the proposal will harm the setting of the nearby Grade 2 Listed Building resulting in dominance and a permanent erosion of what is left of it. He added that when dealing with a previous application at that time he questioned how close a Listed Building has to be and he was advised that there is no specific distance. Councillor Imafidon stated that when he visited the site there were at least two new build properties which appear to be abandoned. He stated that in order for the committee to remain consistent in their decision making the two dwellings were approved by the committee but the recommendation by officers for the current proposal is to refuse. Councillor Imafidon made the point that the application site appears to be at the same distance from the Listed Building in his view. David Rowen stated that the Conservation Officer’s comments at paragraph 5.1 of the officer report sets out that the development which has already taken place along Kirkgate has already eroded the setting of the Listed Building and consequently the importance of the remaining open space around those Listed Buildings becomes increased as that is effectively the remainder of the setting. He added that whilst permission has been granted clearly for those existing properties that does not necessarily set a precedent for the further encroachment and incursion into the setting of those Listed Buildings.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned, whilst he understands the officer’s response, how long the preservation of Listed Buildings is going to be for as whilst he appreciates conservation and the preservation of Listed Buildings should this to be the detriment to future development when more houses are required. David Rowen stated that the question is that essentially the Council has a legal duty set out in the in the 1990 act to have regard to preserving the setting of Listed Buildings and the advice that has been provided by the Council’s conservation professional that this development would encroach within and harm that setting. He added that the officer’s professional opinion is that there are no material planning benefits to the wider public that would outweigh that harm and consequently the officer recommendation is before the committee.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that this issue appears to be raised every time that there are applications near Listed Buildings, and she has repeatedly said that the committee need to have further training with regards to Conservation and Listed Buildings.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that in the adopted Local Plan, Tydd St Giles is described as a small village where development is considered on its merits and she understands that the application is for four detached executive style homes, with, in her view, the style seeming to be sympathetic to the setting. She added that officers have mentioned encroachment and harm in relation to Listed Buildings and she understands that two are across the street and one is the other side of some other buildings on the same side but there are some buildings in between. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked officers to describe how the proposal will specifically impact the Listed Buildings? David Rowen stated that this is an outline application with all matters reserved so there is no indication as to what the final properties would be if members are minded to grant outline planning permission. He added that the agent indicated in his presentation that the intention would be that effectively if outline planning permission is granted the site would be sold on, and, therefore, the actual design of any dwellings in the future would be a separate matter to be considered at that stage. David Rowen added that in terms of the actual impact again the Conservation Officer has stated that essentially this kind of informal group of buildings is very much the type of group that you would have seen at the edge of a settlement and very much marks the transition between what was the historic core of the village and the wider open countryside and as a result of that the buildings would be seen in an open context. He made the point that the assessment is that the existing or the existing development which has taken place has already eroded that edge of settlement feel and made these buildings more located within the core of the village and as a result of that the context in which those buildings were originally developed and the context in which they have been seen historically is therefore eroded. David Rowen added that the significance of those buildings is diminished as a result of that erosion and being seen more in the context of other built form rather than being seen as buildings or a group of dispersed buildings in in more of isolation.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that officers have used the word eroded quite a lot and she understands from the officer’s report that it says that the majority of existing vegetation is due to remain which to her is something really positive, however, whilst she understands what officers are saying with regards to the outline planning permission and that in the future the site will be sold, she is still not confident on how it will erode the historic buildings that are there.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he undertook a site visit and noticed that there are buildings right next door to the proposed site and, in his view, the committee need to be consistent in their approach to decision making, with the reasons that officers have listed for refusal, LP16 and LP18, being very subjective. He added that consideration needs to be given as to whether the application is considered to be harmful or whether it can be accepted as progress and development, with the fact that right next door to the application site there are dwellings which have already obtained planning permission and the two houses opposite are being built out. Councillor Benney expressed the view that committee cannot sit back and not develop, with villages crying out for homes but the right type of homes which he feels the proposed dwellings would be the right kind on the plots and that the harm if any is minimal as it will not cause monstrous harm to the setting of the Listed Buildings and just because something is built does not mean it is harmful as it can enhance that and make it better. He added that he sees no reason to refuse the application and certainly with a community benefit for this charitable trust that is doing so much good for the village although he recognises that this really is not a concern of a planning application because that is about land usage but, in his opinion, he feels that that there is very clear community benefit that will go back to the community and he thinks that it is a good solid application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Council Benney and added that whilst there is a Listed Building to consider, there are a number of areas throughout the country that have Listed Buildings that also have brand new buildings beside them. He made the point that consideration should be given to that when considering the design of the building which will come back to planning should this be given permission. Councillor Marks added that consideration needs to be given as to whether members are content as to whether the land in question should be built on and to consider the benefits it can give to the community. He made the point that things do need to progress and move on and buildings that are listed are probably 150 years old but it does not mean that they are right or wrong but equally building there will provide four more homes and it gives money back to the village which is being ring fenced for the village which is good. Councillor Marks expressed the view that he cannot see any reason why the application should be refused.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the dwellings are going to be surrounded by vegetation and trees, so they are not going to be seen much anyway. He added that the application is in outline form and, therefore, if it comes back to us and members do not like the proposal when it comes before the committee at the next stage it can be refused.

·         Councillor Connor stated that if the dwellings are built as sympathetically as the other two dwellings are which are opposite then, in his view, they will be absolutely fantastic, and he thinks it will only enhance the setting and he will be supporting this application.

·         Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, reminded members that whilst the charity is a very good cause and the committee have heard the benefits that they propose they are not planning merits and they should be divorced in the committee’s mind from when making their decision as to whether to grant planning permission or not. He added that there is no mechanism whereby those benefits are being secured through the planning process.

·         Councillor Marks stated over a number of years there have been other applications which have come before the committee, where there has been no mention of any charity and the committee have determined the application on face value for what it is and, in his opinion, it is good use of land and although there are Listed Buildings in the vicinity that is not unusual. Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is a good use of land and regardless of its association with the charity he will still support the application.

·         Matthew Leigh clarified that one of the reasons for refusal relates to the impact the application will have on the Listed Building, with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) being clear when it refers to Listed Buildings, differently to where they are with traditional sites. He added that if there is any harm to the character of the area then consideration needs to be given as to whether there are any public benefits which would outweigh the harm.

·         Councillor Benney stated that conservation is only one of the many consultees involved when dealing with a planning application and it would appear that conservation has had an enormous amount of weight given to it as there are no other objections to the proposal. He expressed the view that all of the other positive factors need to be considered when determining the planning application and he feels the application is a solid planning proposal and for that reason the other elements of this outweigh the possible potential harm but, in his opinion, he does not see that harm and whilst he accepts there is harm in the professional opinion of the officers but that difference of opinion does not make people right or wrong.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion the application will bring public benefit, much needed houses and it will sustain the village.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough made the point that, with regards to the public benefit, under LP12 of the Local Plan it states that new development will be supported when it contributes to the sustainability of that settlement and, in her view, it will bring forward four very nicely built houses as family homes. She expressed the view that villages do need to have fresh blood and new residents to sustain them in her opinion.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED, against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply suitable conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the application does bring with it some community benefit, it will make good use of land and will bring forward four much needed homes.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she had been lobbied on this application)