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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that she is seeking full planning permission for the construction of 18 dwellings and the scheme comprises phase B of the existing Berryfield’s residential development. She explained that the proposal would result in high quality housing within a primary market town and the principle is acceptable in accordance with local housing policy as well as sustainable development objectives as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mrs Jackson explained that the officer recommendation is one of refusal due to a perceived lack of compliance with the sequential test and failure to provide 10% biodiversity net gain, however, with regard to the sequential test, Paragraph 174 of the NPPF, states that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to the areas at the lowest risk of flooding from any source and that the strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. She explained that this is reiterated in Policy LP14 of the Local Plan and added that the site is located in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood maps for planning and when considering the requirements of the sequential test, the dwellings and their private amenity spaces have been placed in Flood Zone 1 and are, therefore, in land at the lowest risk of flooding.

Mrs Jackson made the point that with this in mind no property or person would be placed at risk and the proposal would comply with the aims of the sequential test, however, the reason for refusal states that the sequential test is not passed due to the fact that the access road falls within Flood Zone 2. She referred to Paragraph 175 of the NPPF which states that ‘the sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no development within the boundary, including access or escape routes would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding’ and she would interpret that as being where a Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the development is not at risk of flooding then the sequential test does not need to be applied.

Mrs Jackson referred the committee to the consultation responses which had been received and that the Environment Agency have not raised any objection to the development on flood risk grounds and the Middle Level Commissioners have stated that the development is capable of providing many benefits, with the Lead Local Flood Authority noting that Internal Drainage Board are satisfied and raised no objections either. She expressed the view that with all of the statutory consultees submitting no objections and then considering the wording of paragraph 175 of the NPPF, in her opinion, the aims and objectives of the sequential test are achieved.

Mrs Jackson made the point that if there is a restriction on placing the development including the access within Flood Zone 1, the land is effectively undevelopable as three quarters of the site would need to be a road. She explained that as a result it would not be possible to design the dwellings to a scale and character which would meet Local Plan standards in the land available and she added that if that were the case it would be very disappointing, given the fact that her client is ready to start developing straight away and in view of the land being proposed for allocation with the emerging Local Plan.

Mrs Jackson stated that the second reason for refusal relates to a failure of the provision of 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) on the site and referred members to 10.18 of the officer’s report where it states that the application is not subject to the statutory 10% BNG due to the application submission taking place in 2023. She explained that the BNG requirements were not implemented until the beginning of 2024 and, therefore, in her view, the second reason for refusal is unreasonable.

Mrs Jackson explained that the site is currently in active agricultural use and, therefore, the actual biodiversity interest is not as high as it could be. She added that when taking that fact into consideration and given the land that is available to her client in Flood Zones 2 and 3, the provision of the necessary 10% BNG uplift would be quite achievable, and this is something that she would happily accept as a condition on part of any planning permission.

Mrs Jackson stated that the benefits of the scheme will comprise the provision of new housing within a primary market town which can be delivered immediately. She added that the objection with regards to the sequential test is unfounded given that the dwellings and private gardens are located within Flood Zone 1 and the Flood Risk Assessment and statutory consultees have confirmed that there is no risk of flooding.

Mrs Jackson made the point that with regards to BNG there is no obligation under legislation to provide a 10% uplift, however, she added that she would be happy to accept a condition to provide the necessary detail if required.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that the application is for 18 dwellings, however, there is no provision for affordable housing and no contribution towards the health service and schools and she asked who she thinks is going to pay for those services because in her view 18 homes will result in a minimum of 36 children and there does not appear to be any provision included within the application. Mrs Jackson explained that the viability assessment has been reviewed and it has been confirmed that it is not viable to provide that and, in her view, the development is the same as any other development where there are no contributions required, and the costs are picked up elsewhere. She added that it is her understanding that 18 units would not trigger health provision anyway and with regards to education and affordable housing it is much the same as anything else and it would go into the system as normal.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that her question was who is expected to pay for the funding if the applicants are not? Mrs Jackson explained that it will the County Council. Councillor Mrs French made the point that it will be the taxpayers.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she feels that members should go straight to a proposal.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the dwellings are in Flood Zone 1 and a road which is partly located in Flood Zone 2. He stated that in his opinion it is a very good application, and he added that that with regards to the absence of the BNG, the application was submitted before that policy was introduced in April 2024 whereas the application is dated in 2023. Councillor Benney made the point that if that is the case, the application was submitted in good faith and the fact that there is an absence of BNG is something that can be debated as there are attenuation ponds which would add BNG and is something that could be conditioned quite easily as it could be seen as a BNG gain.

·         Councillor Connor added that he concurs with the points made by Councillor Benney, and he added that when he visited the site and reviewed the report all of the dwellings are located in Flood Zone 1 with the road being located in Flood Zone 2. He added that the committee need to be consistent, and he referred to another application in Chatteris which was quite similar which the committee determined. Councillor Connor stated that the Middle Level Commissioners and Internal Drainage Board all appear to be content with the proposal and he made the point that he would consider going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         David Rowen stated that, with regards to the point raised concerning BNG, the application is not recommended for refusal because it is failing to deliver the 10% increase in biodiversity value as set out in the Environment Act which was introduced in early 2024 but the application is recommended for refusal on the basis that there would be a net loss of BNG contrary to Policy LP19 of the Local Plan and, therefore, the points made by the agent to the committee are incorrect.

·         David Rowen explained that with regards to the access road, there is a new NPPF which has been published which is explicit that where any form of built development, whether that be houses or roads, is at risk of flooding, which is the case with this application as the road is in Flood Zone 2 then the sequential test needs to be applied. He added that there is no sequential test to accompany the application and, therefore, from those two perspectives, officers are of the opinion that there is a clear conflict with policy arising from the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site well and she is aware that the road floods and when March suffered from flooding in 2020, the whole of Elm Road was flooded. She expressed the view that the application does look acceptable apart from the flooding issue, however, the committee should not be granting applications which are going to create further problems for other people on other pieces of land and she feels this application would cause problems.

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

(Councillor Marks registered that the applicant is known to him via business and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councilor Mrs French registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)