Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tracy Ranger 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 and David Boyce, the landowner. Mrs Jackson explained that the application is for single self-build dwelling and the proposal has been recommended for refusal as it has been stated that the sequential test has not been passed due to there being other sites available in Wisbech, however, she highlighted to members that the site address is located in Leverington and, therefore, in her view it made sense to carry out the sequential test in the area of Leverington. She explained that the sequential test that was carried out demonstrated that there are no other sites available for development within Leverington and, therefore, the test is passed and the test also demonstrates that the site is technically safe from flooding, presents a community benefit and, therefore, the exception test is also passed and there is no issue in respect of flood risk.

Mrs Jackson referred to Paragraph 10.1 of the committee report, where it states that the development is acceptable with no adverse impact on character or amenity and only fails because it is considered that there are other sites available in Wisbech which are at lower risk of flooding, despite the fact that the site address is in Leverington and Leverington Parish Council have been consulted. She expressed the view that there are no issues with the proposal and that it has been recommended for refusal purely on an administrative error and she asked for the reason of refusal to be overturned, and that planning permission is granted.

Mr Boyce explained that he is a fifth-generation farmer who has purchased the land in order to retire two horses onto and when the building commenced around the site, this placed a great deal of stress on the two horses and they died, leaving the site redundant as he had no other use for it. He explained that he farms in Outwell, and the site is located in area where he can justifiably drive a tractor between the two locations, with it being a small site it is not very viable for farming outside of where he lives.

Mr Boyce made the point that he consulted the Fenland District Council plan which states that Leverington Parish Council is indicated in LP56 (02) in the plan so he consulted with Leverington Parish Council who provided their own comments and thoughts to him, and they received the initial correspondence along with further correspondence regarding the referral to committee due to the fact that they are the statutory consultee as opposed to Wisbech which was outlined by officers. He referred to a map from the Boundary Commission shows that Leverington Parish Council area is where his land sits and he explained that the applicant is looking to build a house with equestrian facilities on it in order to maintain some of the essence of the site and developing it for its best possible use.

Mr Boyce stated that if the committee are planning to refuse the application, he would ask that they provide him some advice and guidance as to what they feel is acceptable to develop on his land. He made the point that development has already taken place around his site, and it sits within the Council’s planning framework and is located within the boundary of Leverington.

Members asked Mrs Jackson and Mr Boyce the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor stated that the committee are determining the application before them, and it would not be right or proper to ask any member of the Planning Committee what they would consider. He added that if it is refused it is down to the applicant to work with the agent in order to submit another application.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mrs Jackson to elaborate on the point that she had made with regards to a community benefit? Mrs Jackson stated that the community benefit would be to provide housing within a sustainable location, and it is better to concentrate new housing in built up areas rather than spreading out into the open countryside.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked why there was no drawing submitted with the application? Mrs Jackson stated that she does not know why one was not included, however, as the application was validated there is enough information present in order for it to be determined. Mr Boyce stated that he was advised that if under development of the site was the reason for refusal then a separate drawing would have to be submitted, however, as only one dwelling is proposed a drawing has not been included.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she has reviewed the comments made by Leverington Parish Council and they were unable to comment on it due to the fact that they had no visual drawing to review and comment on.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for clarification as to whether the site is located in Wisbech or Leverington? Mr Boyce stated that as far as the Boundary Commission lines are it is in Leverington and he referred to an email from Tracy Ranger who consulted with Leverington Parish Council who are a statutory consultee and they were consulted on both occasions, the original and the current application. He explained that as a parishioner it is clear to him that it is in Leverington and within the planning framework it actually states that it is Leverington.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for clarification to be provided concerning the confusion between Wisbech or Leverington and the fact that the sequential test was undertaken for Wisbech? David Rowen stated that the site is clearly located in the Parish of Leverington but when the built form of Wisbech is looked at, the site follows the built form of Wisbech as it is a continuation of the town of Wisbech as you go up Sutton Road, with there being a considerable gap between the application site and Leverington village. He drew members attention to an application which they had determined a few months ago, which was located on the opposite side of the Sutton Road which was considered in the same manner as being in the built form of Wisbech and members made a decision on that basis.

·         David Rowen explained that in respect of the Flood Risk Assessment and the issue of the sequential test, he is not aware that a sequential test has been submitted for Leverington and he added that the Flood Risk Assessment which was submitted as part of the application, in the section which refers to the sequential test, actually refers to the northern and western parts of Wisbech and undeveloped areas of land to the north and south west of the town predominantly Flood Zones 2 and 3. He added that it states that due to the suitability and availability of sites in Flood Zone 1, the Council have been obliged to consider the areas which fall within areas 2 and 3. David Rowen explained that the Flood Risk Assessment submitted in respect of the sequential test appears to actually make reference significantly more to Wisbech than it does to Leverington.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that as the application was not accompanied by any drawings how did it pass through validation? David Rowen stated that as the application is in outline form, there is no requirement to submit indicative elevation drawings.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that as there is no sequential test that has been submitted and, in her view, the application is incomplete and should be refused.

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