Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 9 June, 2021

The minutes of the meeting held 9 June 2021 were confirmed and signed.

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Jonathan Wilson, an objector.

Mr Wilson stated his main concern is the severe flooding he experienced two days before Christmas, with the fire brigade attending within an hour pumping water from his home for about four hours, but the water was not abating, and eventually the new housing estate behind him began to fill up with water and it was not until they started pumping from that area that the water began to abate from his house. He expressed concern regarding this new development in that the water from his house and the estate behind went straight into that field where these properties are proposed to be built and consequently, if flooding occurs again it will present a problem for this new development.

Mr Wilson stated that he has heard talk of putting in necessary infrastructure to help with this problem, but he feels it should have been put in when the other development was built in the first place. He made the point that he has lived in his property for ten years and this has never happened before on this scale, but it is getting worse.

Mr Wilson expressed the view that he has been told the pumping station is not up to coping with any more than what is already in place and if this development goes forward what assurance can be given that this will not happen again? He stated that residents need answers and clarification because the flooding was horrendous.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Chris Walford, the Agent.

Mr Walford stated since 8 September 2020 he was led to believe this application would be a delegated approval, with the case officer e-mailing him that the Local Flood Authority had removed their objection to the application, there were five resident objections on file and no outstanding objections from any of the consultees, which meant the application could be delegated by officers and, therefore, Planning Committee would not be required. He advised members that the applicant subsequently instructed solicitors to prepare the Section 106 and the unilateral undertaking at great expense believing permission was granted subject to paperwork being in place, with that paperwork being completed on 19 May 2021 and sent to the case officer.

Mr Walford stated that he was then told a sixth objection had been received and, despite it being received after the consultation period, policy was that it needed to be counted and, therefore, a committee decision was required. He made the point that this is an application with full officers’ support, deemed approved in principle since September 2020, with all the legal paperwork signed and ready to go and, therefore, he is asking members to approve the application.

Mr Walford stated, in response to the comments made regarding flooding, that the site is in Flood Zone 1, with no issues from the Local Flood  ...  view the full minutes text for item P13/21

To determine the application

The Chairman informed members that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

To determine the application

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Member received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Craythorne, an objector.

Mr Craythorne stated that he has four principle objections to this application in that it is an intrusion into the open countryside and opens the door to further development not in keeping with the village, it could not go ahead without severe disruption to all the existing residents of Ingham Hall Gardens and Brewery Close for a number of reasons, the proposed access road has access granted to the applicant, but part responsibility for its maintenance falls upon the other beneficial users of the road and the proposal does not meet the conditions of the Parson Drove Neighbourhood Plan, which was formally adopted at Full Council on 6 August 2020.  He displayed an aerial view of the whole village showing the proposed development and expressed the view that you could see from this view to the west Murrow Bank to Church End and throughout the whole of the village if you draw a line from the rear boundaries of the existing developments in Ingham Hall Gardens, Brewery Close and John Bends Way there is no development whatsoever beyond these boundaries anywhere in the village, therefore, he feels that this development is an intrusion into open countryside.

Mr Craythorne showed a photograph which shows in more detail what he is trying to emphasise, there is the rear boundary of Brewery Close, Ingham Hall Gardens and John Bends Way and this development is entirely beyond this boundary.  In terms of severe disruption to existing residents, he referred to the Design and Access Statement where it is proposed that up to 28 vehicle movements could be generated from this development and he made the point that Ingham Hall Gardens is a quiet cul-de-sac of bungalows almost exclusively occupied by retired persons and in addition there would be the noise and mud on the road caused by the construction of this development.

Mr Craythorne referred to an extract from item 6.2 of the Design and Access Statement, which states “ the proposal will result in the installation of a new sewage treatment plant which will benefit the wider community”, but as Director of the Ingham Hall Gardens Residents Association he is aware of the condition of this plant and has been assured it is nowhere near the end of its life so it does not need replacing and they are continuing to build a contingency fund for when replacement is necessary. He expressed the opinion that there are additional rules for sewage treatment plants issued by the Environment Agency on 1 January 2015, which states if you are building a development of more than one property, you are governed by a rule that if  the number of houses multiplied by 30 metres is less than the distance to a public sewer you must connect to that public sewer, with this development generating a figure of 270 metres and the distance to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P15/21

To determine the application

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent.

Mr Walford stated that this is an application for what he would call two large self-building plots within the built form of Elm, which is a designated village within the Local Plan for limited growth where small development will be encouraged.  He drew members attention to the slight anomaly in the agenda where it refers to Elm in the description, but in Paragraphs 2.4, 10.8 and 11.1 it refers to Friday Bridge.

Mr Walford made the point that the proposal has the support of the Parish Council and also 14 letters of support have been received.  Officers have considered the site to be out of character, but, in his view, the fact that it cannot be seen from the road would not adversely harm the character or the appearance of that area, therefore, it is considered low impact development and on a field which has been cut to a domestic level of grass for many years and used in connection with the applicant’s adjacent dwelling.

Mr Walford referred to a case on Main Road, Elm, on the same stretch of road but further down, F/YR17/0469/F, which was refused by the Council for being behind the existing linear pattern and would result in backland development considering harm to the local character contrary to policy, with this application being appealed and was won as the Inspector did not consider that the backland development in this case would have been harmful to the local identity of the area or character and was, therefore, not contrary to LP16.  He expressed the view that this application is relevant to this proposal as their application is well screened from the main road, would not affect the street scene or the local identity.

Mr Walford referred to the objections from neighbours, with one of them in relation to the area becoming an estate or a large development, but this proposal is only for two dwellings and there is a pre-application from Highways to show their access can only sustain two dwellings and he can reassure members that this will only be an application for two self-build properties.  He feels the site and its character does not set a precedent for backland development in the area, which has been confirmed in the officer’s report.

Mr Walford expressed the opinion as agents they see a huge shortage of self-build plots in all of the villages and where there are sites or schemes that can deliver low impact development within the village centres it should be supported and he asked members to help them do this.  He expressed the view that bringing executive type housing to the villages, which supports the villages and its services, should be supported.

Mr Walford stated in relation to the flood risk issue on the reason for refusal, he spoke to the flood risk specialist yesterday who produced the report as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item P16/21

To determine the application

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent.

Mr Walford stated that this application is for a log cabin serving two key purposes, the first as a show home for the existing business, Barretts Leisure, and the second for an on-site residence for the applicant and owner of the business, Mr Hardiment.  He acknowledged that officers are bound by Local Plan policy and this application does not fit the mould for a typical functional dwelling in an elsewhere location, which he feels is why this is a decision that should be made by the committee.

Mr Walford made the point that the application has Parish Council support, is in Flood Zone 1 and has no other consultee issues.  He stated that the log cabin was originally permitted in 2005 as a show home only so the placement of the log cabin in this location is not an issue, with the added use to allow the owner to live on site to help him with the efficiency of the business, both financially and operationally.

Mr Walford referred to the concerns raised by officers regarding the dual use of a show home and a cabin at the same time, but this is a scenario that the applicant is accustomed to within his industry in leisure and is planning to keep the dwelling clean and tidy ready for the start of each working day when he might have a potential customer, but most would be by appointment only.  He stated that they are happy for this to be secured by condition that it will be for the owner of the business only.

Mr Walford asked members to consider this low impact proposal for use of a building which has already been permitted on site in a way of improving and helping financially the operation of a small business in the local area.

Members asked questions of Mr Walford as follows:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked how many show homes are lived in and why there is a need to live in the demonstration house?  Mr Walford responded that there is a liveable cabin on site that is being used for the purpose of showing customers what is on offer and the applicant for his own reasons would like to move on site to free up his current residence and pump this money into his business.  He made the point that the applicant is happy to live on site in his workplace and asked what is the harm and extra impact of him living on site in his own business accommodation?  Councillor Cornwell stated that he has viewed the site and the cabin is very impressive, but just wondered why he had to live on site and asked if there is anyone living on site now?  Mr Walford stated he would have to check, but does not believe so.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that they have gone some way to mitigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item P17/21

To determine the application

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that members can see from the officer’s report that there are no issues with regard to the principle of development, flood risk, highways or amenity areas to neighbouring properties and on the front of the report it states two-storey property, but it has been deliberately designed as a one and a half-storey property in keeping with properties to the East and South of the site.  He referred to the officer’s report where is states “the proposal does not have a one third garden area”, but the site is 270 square metres and the rear garden would be 85 square metres, which would be a third amenity area and does not include any of the land to the side or the front.

Mr Hall stated that the Tree Officer has visited the site, has confirmed there are no Tree Preservation Orders and is not objecting to the proposal and made the point that the site is not in a Conservation Area.  He referred to the officer advising under 9.8 that the proposed dwelling would be at odds with the character of the area, but under 5.5 the Conservation Officer states the dwelling is of reasonable scale and design and in keeping with the surrounding houses.

Mr Hall expressed the view that when he worked on this proposal he walked around Church Walk and Church Lane, with directly to the East of this site there are three chalet bungalows, two built in the 1980s and one in 1960/70, and at the top of Church Walk, to the south of this site, there is also a chalet bungalow, which was built around 1960s, which is what they are proposing with this application, a chalet bungalow, to match in with the character of the area.  He made the point that comments made at previous Planning Committee meetings is that when you build an extension, dwelling or estate, the character of the area is constantly changing. 

Mr Hall stated that the existing property still has nearly 20 metres of south facing garden and parking, which is over half of the site, and the officer’s report states there are no concerns regarding overlooking or overshadowing and all consultees support the application, with the exception of the Conservation Officer.  He expressed the view that the public objections appear to be concerned with parking on Church Walk and the hedge to the front of this site and he has spoken to the applicant, who is happy to cut the hedge back, with some objections saying they want the hedge maintained and the applicant is also happy to maintain its height. 

Mr Hall stated that Church Walk currently serves 7 properties and the Town Hall, with this proposal adding a single property and the Highways officer is not objecting to the proposal.  He reiterated that all consultees support the application, with  ...  view the full minutes text for item P18/21

To determine the application

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent.

Mr Walford stated that this application is for 9 dwellings within the Town Centre of Chatteris and the scheme has the support from both the Town Council and Highways.  He advised members that the applicant inherited the land from his father just over 3 years ago and he is now looking to secure the future use of the site hence the planning application.

Mr Walford stated at present the site is vacant, overgrown and the subject of flytipping and the applicant has recently been contacted by the Environmental Health Team due to complaints from nearby residents about vermin entering their properties from this site, with the applicant taking specialist advice on this matter and is now looking to clear the site and bring a flail mower to bring down the overgrowth.  He informed members that the applicant lives over 100 miles from the site and this is not a long-term solution and a future use for the site must be looked at.

Mr Walford expressed the opinion that allowing residential development on this site would eliminate all of the issues and they are asking members to allow the proposal by giving more weight to the improvements to the site and for neighbours over and above the issues raised by the Conservation Officer.  He stated that officers have found the principle of development on the site as being acceptable and there are also, in his view, other precedents in Chatteris of similar developments of this nature within the heart of the town and this area has been identified as an area for housing growth.

Mr Walford referred to the concerns of officers over the dominance of the shared road and the parking that serves the site, but this is a characteristic of the size and shape of the road layout as well as the requirements put on them by Highways and the Refuse Team to be able to turn vehicles within the site.  He expressed the view to negate any issues of overlooking they have added bungalows to the rear of the site to assist with this issue and reduce the impact on surrounding dwellings.

Mr Walford expressed the opinion that the site identity as shown is essential for this scheme to be viable as due to it being a long and narrow site means it has a long and narrow road and there needs to be a certain amount of dwellings on the site to make it a viable scheme.  He raised concern about getting consent for a lower or inferior amount of dwellings, which would make the site unviable, would not remove its current problems and would be a site that has no use.

Mr Walford requested that members outweigh the issues raised and look to permit a development on this site.

Members asked questions of Mr Walford as follows:

·         Councillor Cornwell made the point that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P19/21

To determine the application

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Craig Brand, the agent.

Mr Brand thanked Alison for confirming that Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology do not require an archaeological investigation on this site. He referred to a slide showing on the presentation screen which showed in blue the area allocated as a Broad Location for Growth identified in the Local Plan as South-West March, which encompasses an area of 72 hectares and shows a minor incursion of 0.3 hectares, the application site shown in red, into the area, which is less than half percent of the total area.

Mr Brand stated that the proposal seeks permission in principle to develop the site with 4 executive self-build plots, with the applicant wanting to build on the plot nearest to Mill Hill Lane to be in control of the retained field and its access.  He showed an indicative site layout plan to indicate how the plots will be set out, in his opinion, to complement the two new houses built off the recently completed private access road.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the issues with Mill Hill Lane and the byway, as referred to in the officer’s report, along with the lack of a footway are the same issues that have been in existence when the previous developments in the last 8 years have been submitted and approved.  He expressed the opinion that the proposed plots will all have access to the new private access road and a safe pedestrian route to Knights End Road is available using countryside footpath No.18, which borders the sites northern boundary.

Mr Brand referred to the impact of the development upon the Grade II Listed barn conversion, Owl Barn Lodge, and showed via a photo on the presentation screen that the barn is only visible when the trees and hedge have no leaves on them and then only the roofline is visible due to the post war agricultural barn extension.  He asked when entering the grounds of Owl Barn Lodge using footpath No.18 can any of the listed barns facing Knights End Road be seen and, in his view, the new houses in Mulberry Close have a far greater impact on Owl Barn Lodge than the application site does, showing photographs to demonstrate this.

Mr Brand made the point that officers have determined the arrangement to be satisfactory in their report and the outline application for the two newly built houses off the private access road was regarded as having a negligible impact on the setting of the Listed barn.  He expressed the view that the application would have a negligible impact on the Listed barn’s setting due to the trees, hedges and post war barn extension.

Mr Brand asked members to allow this tiny fragment of the South West March location for growth to come forward now as, in his opinion, backland development has been approved in the last two years in Upwell Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item P20/21

To consider the appeals report

This item was deferred to the next meeting.