The application sought planning permission for the proposed an additional Manager’s accommodation with a double garage to the approved Wellness Centre on the site. The internal layout is separated into two and the ground floor will provide two entrances. One entrance would be for the Manger’s work space which will include a meeting training room and mangers office with an en-suite bedroom towards the rear with a kitchen area for the Duty Manager when covering the Wellness Centre. The second entrance would lead to the residential part of the property. The dwelling proposed would be two storeys high with a flat roof and include a detached double garage and store, substantial rear private garden area and hardstanding to the frontage. The new development would also be enclosed with a 3m high boundary fence.

 

The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and is surrounded by open land and the majority of the site is located within the highest Flood Risk Zone 3.

 

The Chair asked if there were any complaints received, and he wanted clarity on the height of the fencing around the building. The Principal Planner confirmed that there had been no complaints received and there was no clarity on why the fencing was 3 metres.

 

Councillor Rice had some sympathy for the applicant, he referred to the Lower Thames Crossing which will potentially be built and therefore should allow the applicant to have a 3 metres fence around the wellness centre. There were no objections received from the Flood Risk Manager.

 

The Principal Planner advised that there were no objections from both Environment Agency and Floor Risk Management subject to the proposal complying with sequential and exceptions tests as required by both the Environment Agency and national planning guidance.  The vast majority of the site will be in high flood risk zone 3. The use of the building as predominantly a dwelling puts it in a more vulnerable use when compared to the use of the Wellness Centre.

 

Councillor Rice stated that this would be the finishing touches to the Wellness Centre. The Principal Planner advised that the site area falls upon land which would form part of the landscaping for the Wellness Centre.  The proposed dwelling would be contrary to both local and national Green Belt policy.

 

The Applicant, Joy Jarvis, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support. She confirmed that the fence was in fact 2 metres and not 3 metres and the plans, as submitted, were incorrect.

 

The Chair informed that the above statement from the applicant would need to be amended on the application.

 

Councillor Churchman asked if the flood risk assessment was generic on the site or if it was one that had been paid for by the applicant. The Chair agreed with what was being shared by the applicant. The Strategic Lead – Development Services explained to the Committee that the map shared was sent from the Environment Agency shows the majority of the site in high risk flood zone 3. The Principal Planner showed Members the live map of the site taken from the Environment Agency maps which indicated that the site was in the high flood risk zone 3, and a site which benefitted from flood defences. 

 

The Principal Planner advised that, as with the previous planning application for the Wellness Centre, a Flood Risk Assessment would be required for this application. The applicant had provided a Flood Risk Assessment.  The Environment Agency did not object to the dwelling in principle, subject to the proposal complying with certain tests as required by both the Environment Agency and national planning guidance as the proposed dwelling would be classified as a more vulnerable use.  No evidence had been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the dwelling could not be provided in a less high risk flood zone and so the sequential test had not been met in full. For the exceptions test to be met the development would need to demonstrate that the proposal would provide wider sustainable benefits to the community.  The applicant has not demonstrated that the dwelling would provide wider sustainable benefits.  Given the proposal has not met both the sequential and exceptions tests the proposal is considered to be contrary to local and national flood risk policies.

 

The Chair asked if the original application for the Wellness Centre was also in the highest flood risk zone 3, which it was confirmed as in flood risk zone 3, 2 and 1. There is a potential risk for the flooding of the Wellness Centre and the planning approval for the Centre included a number of planning conditions relating to drainage and flood risk.  The applicant has submitted drainage and flood risk details for discharge for the Wellness Centre and these details have been agreed.

 

The legal advisor commented that it was not just the Council’s test it was something required by the NPPF.

 

Councillor Rice said it was clear on page 217 that the dwelling would be located on the edge of the flood risk zone 3 and there had been no objections against the application. It is evident that the applicant has spent a significant amount of money on providing a flood risk examination on the site.

 

The Principal Planner explained that the dwelling would be in flood risk zone 3 with the far end of the rear garden being located in flood zone 2. It would be an area that could be affected by flood risk.

 

Councillor Rice advised that this could be conditioned as it had been done in the past.

 

The Principal Planner explained the flood risk concerns to the Committee in relation to the proposed dwelling and that there had been no further evidence provided by the applicant.

 

The Chair said if the Wellness Centre was a smaller size, there would be enough space to have a Manager’s area on site, would this be accepted as one with the dwelling. The Principal Planner explained that the original proposal considered the Wellness Centre as one main building which included a 2 bedroom manager’s flat.  This proposal is for a separate building which is contrary to Green Belt policy and for which there has been no justification to allow an exception to that policy.

 

The Chair began the debate and said the application was interesting, although he could understand the concerns from both parties. The original building was a pub and the borough is lucky enough to have a developer willing to build something useful for the area. The Chair was minded to support the application, although he shared his concerns with the 3 metre fence that was proposed. There had been no objections received from members of the public and the Wellness Centre would be a chance of success for the site.

 

Councillor Rice said it was evident that the applicant needed a separate living accommodation and if it was an individual application for one dwelling then it would have been refused. The site was an out of use pub for around 20 years and there were never any concerns of flood risk zones at this point. This application had been ongoing since February 2018 and had only just been presented at Committee. Councillor Rice was mindful to support the application as a business.

 

Councillor Lawrence agreed that the application should be supported as the dwelling would be necessary to keep the wellness centre open.

 

Councillor Shinnick said she would be in support of the application.

 

Mr Taylor explained that the building of the Wellness Centre is going ahead but the site does flood and referring back to the comment made from Councillor Rice in relation to the Lower Thames Crossing, stating the crossing would have no relevance to this application as it would be about 1 mile away from the site. There are concerns with the ongoing change of the dwelling as it was always going to be a part of the business they should have sought planning permission originally as one whole application. He was opposed to this application as it was also in the Green Belt and in flood zone 3 which would be a concern.

 

The Vice Chair echoed Mr Taylor’s comments explaining that he felt the same as there is harm to the Green Belt and flood risk concerns.

 

Councillor Piccolo said he was concerned about the professionalism of the applicant. How did they not know they needed a certain level of staff facilities, the dwelling is large and has other business uses within it.  These rooms could easily be modified and change the scheme overall. He felt the applicant was taking advantage of the planning permission as the dwelling could be used within the wellness centre.

 

Councillor Rice proposed for this application to be approved against Officers recommendations, as it will be beneficial for the senior members of staff.  He agreed the Green Belt needed to be protected but the reality is we are going to be building in the Green Belt.  This is one dwelling and it will make the business viable.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Rice and seconded by The Chair, Councillor Kelly to approve the application, against Officers recommendations.

 

The Strategic Lead – Development Services referred the Committee to the Constitution on page 133 points 7.2 “The mover of the motion should clearly specify or write down the motion including the reason for departing from the Officers recommendation. Both the reasons and the motion should be put to the Committee orally and in public even if the reasons are tentative. Any such motion must be seconded”. “The Planning Officer should always be given the opportunity to explain the implications of what has been proposed to the planning committee in public before any vote is taken”

 

The Strategic Lead – Development Services advised the Chair that the Committee would need to clearly address each of the 3 reasons for refusal.

 

The Chair summarised the debate and offered the following reasons for Members going against Officer’s recommendations:

 

1. Is a need for the business to have a Senior Manager on site;
2. Without Senior Manager being onsite they cannot obtain insurance;
3. The Council needs to provide lots of homes in the Green Belt in the future, and this will just be one home;
4. Planning conditions could be used to link the use of the dwelling to the use of the business;
5. No loss of openness to the Green Belt by the development.

 

The Strategic Lead – Development Services advised that the item should be deferred to allow Officers to consider the reasons in detail and the implications of such a decision. The Strategic Lead – Development Services reminded the Committee that there are 3 reasons for refusal which must be addressed; in deferring the item, Officers would also provide clarity around the flood risk issues discussed.

 

Councillor Rice requested for the applicant to supply the flood risk management report to Officers as it actually showed the work which was completed.

 

The Chair also added that as 4.4 in the report, it was evident that there were no objections given on this application.

 

The Strategic Lead – Development Services said in bringing back a report this would explore all issues raised, and it would need to be clear on the flood risk position.

 

The Council’s legal representative stated that the Strategic Lead – Development Services had adopted the correct approach in this instance.

 

Deferring the application:

 

For:                  (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Colin Churchman, Angela Lawrence, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

 

Against:           (2) Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair) and Andrew Jefferies

 

Abstain:           (0)

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be deferred to allow Officers to prepare a report outlining the implications of making a decision contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation and to provide clarification on the flood risk zone.