Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 19 October 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the 19 October 2022 were agreed and signed as an accurate record, subject to the following clarification/amendment:

·       Councillor Sutton clarified that under reference F/YR21/1072/FDL, first bullet point of the members debate where he mentioned that the anomaly between the two schedules is unprofessional, that he was referring to the person who produced the plans and the comment was not aimed at any of the Council’s officers;

·       in reference to F/YR22/0604/F, first bullet point of the members debate, the word ‘not’ is missing and it should read “it does NOT alleviate the overlooking he can foresee from looking out of the window into the back garden of number 60 and he agrees with officer’s recommendation”.

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Salter, an objector to the application. Mr Salter stated that he lives in Fairview Avenue, which is adjacent to the area of the planning application, and he is also the Neighbourhood Watch Coordinator of the Fairview Estate of 65 houses, with the proposal causing great consternation amongst the residents of the estate and many people have approached him to represent their views, fully supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal. He stated that he intends to comment on four matters, drainage and flooding, employment, Middle Level Commissioners and the Local Plan.

Mr Salter stated that D&M Engineering occupy the buildings and the residents of the Fairview estate are proud to have them on the site and none of them have complained about the company or have supported the application. He pointed out that the company were key workers during the pandemic, and they had and continue to have the contract to look after the Amey waste treatment and collection vehicles including large metal structures at their waste tips. He stated that in the first report it explains that the company are in the process of relocating, however, in his view, this is not correct and the company does not wish to move from the site and has not identified another alternative site in the Chatteris area and he had requested that the Planning Officer should make contact with the company to clarify the situation, however, he appreciates that this was not the normal procedure.

Mr Salter stated that the applicant was contacted and in the latest report the applicant has now stated that the buildings are in a poor and unsafe condition, contain asbestos and are unsuitable for further use. He expressed the opinion that there have been no recent inspections of the buildings and the company is of the view that the buildings are safe for continued use into the foreseeable future but made the point that if the application were to be approved the company would be forced to move and the business would be likely to have to leave Chatteris and change its business model and possibly reduce its workforce.

Mr Salter stated that with regards to drainage and flooding there have been objections to the application which have included concerns about flooding in numbers 1 and 3 Fairview Avenue caused by drainage issues and the two properties in question suffer from annual drainage problems and flooding at the bottom of their gardens and it appears that the level of the new housing will be higher than the land at the two bungalows which will clearly make the situation worse. He stated that he has a scrapbook of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P67/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand stated that the applicant had recently inherited the property which was originally owned by his grandparents who lived in the former farmhouse that was situated in the north-east corner of the application site amongst the trees which have Tree Preservation Orders attached to them. He expressed the view that the application falls to be determined by the Local Plan adopted in 2014 and, therefore, Section 9.4 of the officer’s report should be ignored as it refers to the future replacement Local Plan which is only at its early consultation stage.

Mr Brand stated that under Policy LP3 of the Local Plan, Wimblington is shown to be one of the four growth villages and the next tier down from the four Fenland market towns, with in growth villages, development being acceptable within the existing urban area or as a small village extension and the proposal is for a small village extension which partially fills the present gap between Eastwood Hall and number 33, the old Toll House, with frontage development. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out a photograph which shows on the western side of March Road continuous frontage development extending from 33 to 69 March Road on the parish boundary and then a further photo which shows 33a March Road which is one of several properties of the scale to the north with deep rear gardens up to Linwood Lane byway.

Mr Brand referred to a further photograph which shows three recent executive dwellings built at New Woods Drive with a shared private access road opposite the site and made the point that the current application proposes the same arrangement of a shared private access road with executive self-build dwellings. He pointed out that the application is also considered to be against rural area policy, LP12 (a) , even though Wimblington is a top tier growth village and referred to the policy at paragraph 4.73 which states that the Local Plan has no fixed area boundaries around each settlement and the report states that the proposal is contrary to five points of the policy as well as the two footnotes which are related to the first point.

Mr Brand stated that on the first point there is continuous development opposite the site and further to the north which, in his opinion, is developed footprint and it makes the proposal acceptable as there is nowhere in the Local Plan where it states that there is a limit mentioned for infilling gaps opposite existing developed frontage. He questioned what is special about this view compared to all other Fenland views to justify the point made which states that the development will have an adverse impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item P68/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand made the point that he was not the agent for the previous two refused applications or for the pre-application enquiry, with the pre-application enquiry being for seven dwellings would have made use of the whole paddock extending beyond the rear boundary of Thistledown, creating a finger of development into the open countryside. He stated that this proposal only seeks to extend to the Thistledown rear boundary and to develop the former vegetable garden and a small section of the paddock enclosed within this area.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that there are two main issues which need to be determined which are whether the application complies with policies LP3 and LP12 and whether or not the proposal will harm the Conservation Area. He expressed the view that the application complies with Policy LP3 as Doddington is a growth village, which is the highest village category with elsewhere the lowest, and growth villages allow development within the existing urban area or as a small village extension and the scale of three proposed dwellings is in accordance with this policy.

Mr Brand stated that Part A of LP12 for rural areas lists requirements to comply with the policy and stated that the first is that the site is in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint disagreeing with the officer’s assessment where it states, at 10.3, that the site borders Thistledown to the south and New Street to the east. He made the point that the site is in the heart of a village location and meets the three further qualifications mentioned in the report as the site is not on the edge of the settlement or detached from the continuous built-up area.

Mr Brand referred to 10.5 of the report where it describes the site as being in an elsewhere location, but disputes that point as LP3 states that elsewhere applies only to developments outside the four listed village categories which are above elsewhere. He referred to paragraph 4.74 of the Local Plan which clarifies elsewhere locations and the types of development permitted and stated that the proposals’ location is fully compliant with Policies LP3 and LP12 as Doddington is a growth village, and the Local Plan has no fixed development area boundaries which is detailed in paragraph 4.73. 

Mr Brand made reference to the 2011 Doddington Conservation Area Appraisal at paragraph 8.75 which refers to 25–53 New Street as a group of essentially unified detached and semi-detached dwellings which hold significant visual prominence warranting their Conservation Area inclusion. He stated that at paragraph 8.79 it specifically mentions number 35 due to the open entrance giving a view through to the paddock at the rear. 

Mr Brand referred  ...  view the full minutes text for item P69/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Lidbetter, an objector to the application. Mr Lidbetter stated that, since September 2021, he has resided in a property called Rathsome which was shown on the officers presentation and is the new build house adjacent to the north-west boundary of the applicant’s site. He stated that prior to purchasing his property he called the Council’s Planning Department to ascertain the future planning policy for Coxs Lane and its locality and the Planning Officer advised him categorically that no further development was planned for Coxs Lane and, therefore, he purchased his house.

Mr Lidbetter stated that a few weeks later a large sway of the adjacent orchard was cut down and also an oak tree which was on a site outside of the applicant’s ownership and soon after that a planning application was submitted, which is linked to one in 2019 which was refused by the Planning Committee by a large majority. He expressed the view that Coxs Lane has a charming rural countryside appearance and is very well used by walkers, runners and dog walkers, however, it is a very narrow lane with no passing places between his property and Sunnyside which is further south of his property.

Mr Lidbetter stated that the only passing places on the lane are the driveway entrances serving the five properties which are on Coxs Lane, plus the access road which serves the houses located on Barton Green, and that the increase in vehicular traffic from the proposed development will create a far more hazardous scenario for pedestrians using Coxs Lane. He expressed the view that the proposal before the committee appears to be an exact copy of the previous planning application submitted except for the provision of a pedestrian footpath which is routed over land owned by the applicant, with this footpath being a cul de sac path and only of use to the residents of plots one to four of the application site and the regular users of Coxs Lane will not benefit from it.

Mr Lidbetter stated that location of plot 1 is extremely close to his property and will invade his family’s privacy. He stated that should approval be given, in his opinion, it should be limited to a maximum of three properties but preferably two in order to retain some severance of a rural environment along Coxs Lane.

Mr Lidbetter referred to the comments made by Wisbech Town Councillors, some of whom are very familiar with Coxs Lane and who discussed the proposal on the 18 July and stated that the proposal will constitute over development of the site and the nature of the proposed development is more suited to an urban area and is out of keeping with the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item P70/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Lunn-Towler, the agent, and Mr Popat, the applicant. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that there are no objections received, the refuse team do not have any concerns and Wisbech Town Council are in support of the application and although there is no parking as detailed in the officer’s report that is acceptable, with there being room for cycle storage as indicated on the site plan which is in the rear garden and the site is located in an area of low flood risk. He referred to a statement from the Highway Authority who have expressed the opinion that the site is in a sustainable location with very good connections with public footpaths to the amenities and services of Wisbech Town Centre and accessible to commercial and employment areas in Weasenham Lane.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the application is supported by Policy LP3 with regards to the settlement hierarchy, with the proposal itself being for one additional bedsit which is bedroom six which would be on the first-floor level, and it is of the scale similar to those shown on the plans as bedroom 2 and bedroom 3. He added that the proposal will provide a cost-effective form of living accommodation, with reduced living costs due to the layout it will require limited heating and the reduced costs are further incentivised by walking, cycling and transport links.

Mr Popat stated that he has been renting the flats to local people for a number of years and many of them have been referred by the Housing Options Team, with many of the residents being single people with ties to the area or are employed locally. He expressed the view that he is aware that there is the need for this type of smaller unit in this location due to the engagement that he has had with the Private Sector Housing Team, and he explained that he has been in contact with them along with the Fire Service since 2017 to look at way to improve the layout of the communal staircase, with there being plans in place to have the issues with the staircase rectified before the pandemic but due to Covid those plans have been delayed.

Mr Popat made the point that there are plans in place to refurbish the building completely with energy efficient heating systems, a full insulation program along with new kitchens and bathrooms and a new fire alarm system, with these improvements allowing all the units to be self-contained making it a more pleasant environment for the residents to live in. He explained that the main reason for the application was to assist an elderly resident currently residing on the top floor, who needs to reside on a lower floor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P71/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Muriel and Martin Aldin, the applicants. Mrs Aldin stated that she has moved from Scotland with her animals to be nearer her family due to her age so that they are able to look after her. Mr Aldin explained that his mother is 86 years old and the family suggested to her that she moved back to the area so that the family can care and look after her as a family unit.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent, read by Member Services. Mrs Patrick stated that the application has the support from the gypsy traveller liaison officer, a family tree to show the links of the applicants to the Aldin family along with confidential evidence of the situation her clients are in. She expressed the view that evidence has been shown the site is imperative to aid Mr Aldin's mother and wife's mental well-being and safety as a family unit together.

Mrs Patrick expressed the opinion that this is a very similar application to the approved F/YR22/0338/F- Seadyke Bank, Murrow, F/YR21/0309/F- Garden Lane, Wisbech St Mary, and F/YR21/1501/F- Wolf lane, Leverington, which are all small plots in nature, all in Flood Zone 3 and all within close proximity to one another. In relation to the Flood Zone 3 area, if the committee consented to this application, she feels this could be addressed by installing an emergency loft window for access to the roof in the event of a flood if it is agreed appropriate.

Mrs Patrick stated that Mr Aldin is self-employed and fully self-sufficient, they will not put a stress on Council services, and they do not own any other property that they can move to, they bought this piece of land on the basis that it can also house their beloved horses and such.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has noted from the report that there is no up to date GTNA (Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment) and asked when that is likely to be available? Nick Harding stated that a new team of consultants are now engaged with this assessment, however, there are no timescales available as to when the completion date will be. Councillor Connor stated that he has been advised that the timescale is likely to be approximately six months before that will be ready.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is commendable that the family are going to look after their mother.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that, in the last version of the five-year land supply, it indicated that there is a five-year  ...  view the full minutes text for item P72/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application is for up to nine dwellings and has been submitted in an outline form with all matters reserved, with the application being an excellent opportunity, in her view, to provide high quality executive style housing which has the support of March Town Council and also from many local residents. She stated that the application has been recommended for refusal on four reasons which include the impact on the character of the area, flood risk, highway safety and ecology issues.

Mrs Jackson stated that the committee report considers that the proposal would cause harm to the character and rural nature of that particular part of Upwell Road, and whilst the comments of the officer are noted, in her opinion, that view is subjective. She stated that the site will provide large executive dwellings which will positively promote this particular part of March and, in her opinion, it would be of a significant benefit rather than cause harm.

Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal sits comfortably in the natural boundaries of the site, whilst still providing an access for modern farming equipment to access the rear land and provide an easement for the drain to the east. She expressed the view that the generous plot sizes will still enable the views of the open countryside which will still be visible from the Upwell Road highway and the semi-rural character of this part of March will not be lost as a result of the development.

Mrs Jackson stated that she is aware that part of the site falls within Flood Zone 1 and also that plots 6 to 9 are within Flood Zone 3 but the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that all of the dwellings will be technically safe from flooding and the Environment Agency has raised no objections. She explained that the finished floor levels will be consistent across the site and technically no dwelling will be at greater risk than another despite the change in flood zones and, in her opinion, there is no increased risk to people or property in terms of flood risk.

Mrs Jackson referred to the third reason of refusal which relates to highway safety and expressed the view that she finds the reason somewhat harsh given that the details of access are not committed for consideration at this current stage. She stated that within the indicative drawings the individual access points have been shown as this is a requirement for planning validation and she pointed out that there are concerns with regards to the access points which are in the 40mph zone due to the insufficient  ...  view the full minutes text for item P73/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Archie Hirson, the applicant. Mr Hirson stated that he is seeking approval for four dwellings on Station Road in Manea, which was previously before the committee in July 2022 when it was deferred for an ecological report and sequential test details to be provided. He explained that the documentation is in line with the plans for the village and meets the critical tests applied and that the key points are fully supported and there are no objections to the pre-submitted documents from the consultees.

Mr Hirson stated that Manea is identified as a growth village and the adopted Local Plan reflects its range of local services, school, pubs, shops, modern dwellings as well as the railway station which has recently seen a major upgrade. He expressed the view that the recent developments have resulted not only in the historic core of the village now being almost entirely linked to the previously outlined development areas but now the plan looks to create accessible and desirable dwellings in Manea.

Mr Hirson stated that members will have seen when they visited the site that the plot is exceptional in the fact that it is under utilized for needed housing and represents a gap in the shape of the village and the existing linear development precedent set on Station Road. He referred to the issues arising from the previous deferral and stated that in terms of the potential ecological impact, an additional ecological report has been carried out and it has concluded that the potential ecological impact is unlikely in every category with no requirement for any additional surveys and this aligns entirely with the assessments from Natural England and there is no evidence of any potential impact on wildlife in the area.

Mr Hirson stated a detailed sequential test has been submitted and met which has demonstrated that there are no other reasonable available relevant sites at lower risk of flooding. He added that as a result of the sequential test being met an exception test was carried out and was again met and he made the point that the exception test is made up of two points, firstly exception test A where the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and, in his view, there would be considerable sustainable, economic and social benefits in addition to the immediate economic benefits to the local construction professionals and businesses with the economic, social and cultural contribution being ongoing as the residents of the proposed dwellings would bring additional spending to the village as well as using the local services and facilities.

Mr Hirson stated that the dwellings will be built to a modern and green specification which will benefit from  ...  view the full minutes text for item P74/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that he is pleased to see the officer’s recommendation is to approve the application and explained that there was an appeal decision at 32 Eastwood End in July 2021, which advised that Eastwood End was more consistent with a growth village than an elsewhere location and since the date of the appeal, applications have been approved at Eastwood End. He stated that although technical details would be considered at the next stage, the trees that are located at the far eastern corner of the site would be maintained.

Mr Hall pointed out that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and a full measured survey of the road has been undertaken in the area and access and visibility splays can all be achieved in accordance with the County Council requirements. He stated that members will be aware of a condition for a footpath to be set from the development to the east of the site and discussions have taken place with the designer and the County Council and technical approval is to be given, with the footpath extending all along the front of the site which has been approved under a previous application in 2019 for three dwellings to the east.

Mr Hall referred members to the presentation screen and pointed out that the plan indicates three other planning applications that have all been approved by the committee in 2019, 2021 and 2022 and explained to members where the proposed site is on the presentation slide. He pointed out the site where an application was approved in 2021 for three dwellings, with works already having commenced to two of those properties, the site which received approval in 2019 for three dwelling, with two having already commenced construction and the northern site indicated on the map was approved in 2022 for nine further dwellings.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Cornwell pointed out that from the presentation it appears that there is a piece of land which seems to be land locked and he asked whether there is any likelihood of another application being submitted to overcome that? Mr Hall explained that the proposal before members and the site directly to the east for three dwellings are under the same ownership, however, the parcel of land that Councillor Cornwell referred to is owned by somebody different.

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

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that in the emerging Local Plan the proposed site would not be permitted, and no further sites would be allowed at Eastwood End in any event. She made the point that the entrance to the site is very close to the A141 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P75/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he is happy with the officer’s proposal now he has seen the road layout.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he notes that Chatteris Town Council are not in favour of the proposal and expressed the view that it is a loss of a piece of open space which he would prefer to see left as an area of open grassland with planting as it has been there for a very long time and has never been built on.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that it is mentioned in the report about issues with regard to visibility when leaving the car park which may cause problems in her view.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the land has never been built on and you can still access the leisure centre without any problems. He added that the Highway Authority have not raised any concerns and explained that the site has also encountered issues of fly tipping. Councillor Benney pointed out that Chatteris Town Council have expressed the opinion that it is over development, but he does not agree with that view, and he does see any problems with the proposal at all.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does not see any issues with the proposal, and he will also be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that she does not see how the committee can say that there should not be development on this parcel of land when, in her opinion, it is a much more insignificant piece of land compared to the piece of land that has just received approval for four dwellings to be built on in Wimblington.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that there is a hedgerow which surrounds the front of the properties and if that is not maintained it could end up restricting the view of those people exiting the car park and he questioned whether a condition could be applied to ensure that they are maintained regularly.

·       David Rowen stated that would be something that could be considered at the reserved matters stage when it is submitted.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Benney, Mrs French and Murphy declared that whilst a Cabinet decision was made in relation to this application, they are not pre-determined on this application and will approach it with an open mind)

(Councillors Benney and Murphy declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of Chatteris Town Council but take no part in planning matters)

The confidential minutes of 19 October 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

(Members resolved to exclude the public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)