Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 16 November 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the 16 November 2022, were agreed and signed as an accurate record, subject the following amendment.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that under reference F/YR22/0764/F, within the third bullet point of the members debate, it should state that ‘Councillor Sutton pointed out that Mr Slater is ‘correct’ in saying that there are passing places on Bar Drove as opposed to incorrect.

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 Councillor Alan Gowler of Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Gowler stated that he spoke on the application previously when it came before the committee in July and the view of the Town Council is still that the piece of land is derelict and suffering from anti-social behaviour, with the applicant clearing a number of hypodermic needles from the site. He added that the Town Council welcome the development of the piece of land and whilst it appears that the detail of the application has still to receive a recommendation of approval from officers, he expressed the view that he fails to understand particularly the concerns in relation to parking, when the proposal does offer parking and there are other places in the town of Chatteris which do not offer parking and therefore the proposal should be seen as a bonus rather than a detriment.

Councillor Gowler stated that the Town Council want to see the land developed and feel that the proposal is in keeping with the local area. He added that there are some very dilapidated buildings around it which could also be refurbished and, in his view, it is unfair to compare them to a new property which would provide welcome accommodation to the people of the town.

Members asked Councillor Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that members spend time reviewing applications and he also looks at the comments and opinions made by the Town and Parish Councils and where possible he always tries to support them within the realms of what it permissible. He made the point that when reviewing the previous applications on the site, application F/YR16/1138/O was for 2 dwellings, which was not supported by the Town Council, however, it appears to be supporting the current proposal which is for three dwellings and he finds it difficult to be able to relate to the comments made by the Town Council in this case. Councillor Gowler stated that he can only make comments on the two applications he has seen since he became a Councillor in 2019 which is the current proposal and the one earlier on in the year which was for two dwellings and was supported by the Town Council.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Darren Smith, the applicant. Mr Smith stated that the proposal site is a complicated piece of land which has three sides but four neighbours. He added that there are two covenants on the land to the east which he owns but has a right of way for vehicular and pedestrian access to 1 King Edward Road shed and 14 High Street land  ...  view the full minutes text for item P79/22

To determine the application.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 Gowler, the Agent. Mr Gowler stated that the application is to replace an existing rundown house with two new dwellings, referring members to the displayed photos which shows the existing house which is in poor repair and will cost a significant amount of money to renovate which is why the applicant is looking to redevelop the site. He stated that the proposal looks to demolish the existing house and construct two new properties within a lower flood risk area within the existing site and should the existing house be renovated it would not alleviate the existing flood risk to the property.

Mr Gowler explained that the indicative site plan provided indicates two dwellings in a location which was recommended by the Environment Agency and the sequential and exception tests were provided earlier on in the year and as the sequential test indicates there are existing sites in Manea which are capable of development and obviously this would fail the test, however, the proposal site should fall under Paragraph 166 of the National Planning Policy Framework as it is within the current developed area of Manea and, in his opinion, it should fall under existing allocated land. He stated that this matter is also part of the Local Plan Policy LP12 A (a) as an infill site and under both of the policies a sequential test would not be required and only subject to an exception test which was provided.

Mr Gowler stated that the site should be classed as a windfall site as paragraph 25 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change guidance is where exemptions can be made to the sequential test where redevelopment is proposed to existing dwellings of an existing site. He added that as the site is a redevelopment site within the existing built form of Manea, in his view, it should be considered and he believes that this was the basis for the properties which are opposite the development site which were approved by the Planning Committee in 2020.

Mr Gowler made the point that under the emerging Local Plan the site also falls within the proposed development area boundary of Manea and, under the new Local Plan, windfall sites would be provided in order to provide 1500 homes and whilst the proposal only has 1 dwelling it still counts.  He referred to the presentation screen and stated that on the Environment Agency Hazard map (Figure 3) it identifies existing flood risk levels, and pointed out that by locating the two dwellings in the corner of the site it is the least hazard area as recommended by the Environment Agency and it is in a lesser  ...  view the full minutes text for item P81/22

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 asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the entrance off Drybread Road is quite narrow and he questioned whether the entry point meets the necessary requirements? Nick Harding stated that from a planning and highway perspective, consideration needs to be given as to what the starting point is and, in this case, it is a garage site. He added that if the garages were in use you would need to consider whether that would generate more, the same or less traffic than the proposed development and whilst the access is not what would be accepted if it was a fresh development, when taking into consideration the context of the proposal then an objection on highway grounds cannot be raised.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that given the fact that the garages appear to have been out of use for some considerable amount of time, consideration does need to be given to the fact that vehicles are a lot larger than they ever used to be. He added that presumably nobody lives there and there is no pedestrian footfall but in time it will become a shared access if there are dwellings built on the site. Nick Harding stated that whilst it appears that the garages may not be in use, the lawful use has to be looked at which is a garage parking court.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that there is no reason not to approval the proposal.

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

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Mrs French and Murphy declared that, whilst they are both members of the Cabinet, they are not pre-determined on this application and will approach it with an open mind)

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 Peter Humphrey, the Agent. Mr Humphrey stated that there is an opportunity to provide three self-build plots and he is aware that there is a large shortage of self-build plots and as Doddington is a growth village it will help in a small way to deliver some self-build plots because his client has got people looking to purchase them. He stated that the site will enhance the edge of the village development, it is also close to the adjacent Askham village community and also close to a village of holiday lodges and whilst the proposal may not be in the village it is very close to an approved ‘village’ next door, and it has dwellings both left and right.

Mr Humphrey explained that the applicant is looking to develop the land at the front as it is not suitable to farm as it is small and very difficult to work. He stated that the house types have been redesigned since the first application in accordance with the Parish Council’s comments and that if the Parish Council and officers require more amendments then these can undertaken on any reserved matters application.

Mr Humphrey stated that the Parish Council are not against the development, the Environmental Health team have no objections to the proposal and the conditions that the Highway Authority have asked for can be complied with. He made the point that there were 6 letters of support and one letter of objection to the proposal which is sited in Flood Zone 1.

Mr Humphrey stated that the emerging Local Plan proposes 311 dwellings, and this is less that one percent of the proposal and it will provide employment during the course of its construction, and asked members to support the proposal.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·       Councillor Connor questioned whether the proposed site is likely to be approved in the emerging Local Plan? Mr Humphrey stated that it is his understanding that the site is not within the new boundary, but when you look at the red line, there is also an area of red that shows that officers are content with development encroaching towards the applicants plots albeit not included. Councillor Connor stated that if the proposal was approved it would equate to 311 plus 3.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he has seen at 5.3 of the report where it states that the highways authority has no objections. David Rowen explained that there is no recommendation for refusal on highway grounds for the current proposal and the previous application was refused on highway grounds due to the fact that there were three individual access points, with the application now being amended so that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item P83/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 Mrs Shanna Jackson, the Agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application submitted is for a scheme for up to four dwellings and has been submitted in outline with matters committed in respect of access only. She added that the Parish Council support the application and eight letters of support from residents along Sandbank have also been received.

Mrs Jackson referred members to an application for a single dwelling on the land to the immediate southeast of the site which was also recommended for refusal, however, members considered that the single dwelling would adjoin the built form and was in a growth village and would not constitute ribbon development and the application was approved. She made the point that the application before the committee is the same in many aspects as the plot next door and, in her view, it is in a better position as it would infill the gap between the building plot to the southeast and the remainder of the built form to the northwest along Sandbank.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that given its position between existing buildings it cannot be considered as ribbon development, and she agrees with the views of the Parish Council who have stated that the site is in the village. She made the point that Wisbech St Mary is a growth village where new development is encouraged and under Policy LP3 of the Local Plan it states that development including village extensions are appropriate in such locations and the proposal would provide four new dwellings within the growth village and even if the site was considered to be outside of the existing footprint, Policy LP3 would still allow for such development as it provides for extensions to the built up area and, therefore, the principle of development is supported in policy terms.

Mrs Jackson explained that the further benefit to the application includes the footpath to the front of the site which will link to the footpath which is included as part of the neighbouring plot, and it will provide a safer pedestrian access route for the parents and children of future residents and those that currently walk to the primary school. She made the point that it will also help with the speed reduction of traffic along Sandbank which is something that the Parish Council is working towards.

Mrs Jackson stated that the indicative drawings show that quality homes and spacious plots can be achieved on the site and the proposed finished floor levels will match those of the neighbouring plot to the southeast. She added that the further detail on how this will be accommodated into the building in design terms will  ...  view the full minutes text for item P84/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that members had indicated on the site visit the importance of the bottom end which incorporates the plot for turning as it is a very narrow road and most of the existing residents along the road appear to park on the road and, therefore, there is nowhere to turn. He added that should the proposal be approved it is very important that there is sufficient space to turn, and that the Parish Council have also highlighted the same point. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that it has been further complicated with regards to the other entrance from Riverside and the development on the other side and, therefore, it is important that if approved then strict controls be included with regards to access and turning for the remainder of Riverside Gardens and not just the proposal plot.  David Rowen responded that access is committed as part of the application and the arrangement at the turning head is incorporated as a detailed matter as part of the application.

·         Councillor Sutton asked officers to clarify why the dwelling could not have been built on Brewery Gardens because there are four plots there which are in Flood Zone 1 and, in his opinion, a dwelling would fit there quite comfortably. Alison Hoffman explained that part of applying a sequential test is to see whether or not a site is available and once the first clod of soil has been moved and a commitment to build has happened, a site is deemed as no longer available. She added that she is aware that the applicants at Brewery Close in that particular instance were very keen to commence development and their intention was to build out that site and as the site was not available it would not be factored into the sequential test. Nick Harding confirmed that work has commenced on the site.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that now that information has been confirmed by officers, in his view, the report has been written without any detail of that evidence and it did not detail Brewery Gardens specifically but referred to two other sites which were available. He added that the proposed dwelling would not fit on those sites and the report did not mention why it could not be built on Brewery Gardens at all. Nick Harding agreed with the feedback from Councillor Sutton and clarified that at 10.8 of the officer’s report it states that the submitted sequential test information fails to identify any sites with extant permissions which would be at lower flood risk and that no other sites are known, and the sequential test is, therefore, passed.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that officers would  ...  view the full minutes text for item P85/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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.

Peter Humphrey, the Agent, had registered to speak under the public participation procedures but indicated that he did not wish to exercise this right.  Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the concerns of the local residents appear to be that of noise, and he asked whether any consideration has been given to an acoustic fence along the frontage? Mr Humphrey confirmed that an acoustic fence on the boundary which will stop the headlights into the neighbours’ properties and also reduce the noise can be installed, which the applicant is happy to implement. He stated that he is happy for a condition to be applied including changing the weld mesh fencing to timber acoustic fencing.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed that this would be more appropriate.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does like to encourage the expansion of local businesses, but there is the need to be mindful of the residents of Coney Walk and Blue Lane. He is happy with the acoustic fence and the tree planting, but he made the point that he is concerned with the lighting on the site and for the residents he is of the opinion that it will be a nuisance and he asked whether there was any mitigation that could be included in the proposal? Mr Humphrey explained that earlier an amended lighting layout had been sent to officers but stated that he would be happy for a condition to be included which could be agreed with officers so that there are not lights which are intrusive into the neighbouring properties. He suggested that bollard lighting could be introduced so that staff could see to walk to their cars, but it would not shine over the top of the fencing. Councillor Connor stated that he would prefer that type of lighting, rather than what has been suggested currently which is a 3 metre high lighting scheme and the suggestion from Mr Humphrey has gone a long way to alleviate his concerns.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he is aware that the Police are not in favour of bollard lighting as it does not show up faces of people when they are walking and, therefore, there may need to be a compromise which Mr Humphrey can resolve with officers.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a public right of way on the site and if it is to be closed during the development then a Traffic Regulation Order will need to be applied for which has a minimum of 12 weeks to obtain. Mr Humphrey stated that the design has been moved away so that the footpath and parking do not impact on the right of way.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he is glad to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P86/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Shanna Jackson, the Agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for two dwellings and has been submitted in outline form, with matters of access committed only. She explained that the proposal has 16 letters of support and has been recommended for refusal by officers for reasons which include principle, visual impact, flood risk and highway safety.

Mrs Jackson explained that with regards to the principle of development, the national and local housing policies direct new housing to locations amongst existing housing and within an existing settlement. She stated that there is a dwelling to the immediate south of the site and there is also continuous residential development opposite and whilst the proposal does not strictly adhere to the infill definition as detailed in Policy LP3 of the Local Plan, it is within the spirit of the policy as it constitutes new housing which is amongst other residential development.

Mrs Jackson explained that the site is opposite an existing footpath which links the land to the village centre by foot and future residents will be able to walk to local amenities including the pub and the primary school and become part of the local community which is what the national and local policies require. She made the point that set against the backdrop of the existing dwelling to the south and the continuous frontage development opposite, in her opinion, there would be no visual harm caused by the proposal in principle as the site is already within a residential location and the specific design details of the development would be secured at the reserved matters stage.

Mrs Jackson explained that the Environment Agency have not objected to the proposal which must demonstrate that the scheme is technically safe from flooding and the sequential test has passed on the basis that the village of Tydd St Giles applies, however, there is a difference of opinion as officers consider that the whole of the district applies. She stated that in the event that it is considered that the sequential test has passed, the application contains the necessary credentials to pass the exception test.

Mrs Jackson referred to the reason for refusal concerning highways and added that there have been no objections received from the Highways Authority, the site is located along a long straight road where visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m can be achieved in either direction as well as sufficient space within the site to allow for turning and, in her opinion, the proposal is acceptable in highway safety terms. She expressed the view that the proposal would bring new housing to the village of Tydd St Giles which has been acknowledged  ...  view the full minutes text for item P87/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Mr Peter Humphrey, the Agent. Mr Humphrey referred to the presentation screen and explained that the white triangles displayed highlight the developed frontage pointing out to the committee the only other gap on the southern point where it shows FDC Draft Local Plan and there is an allocation for the other open space for 6 dwellings and then further along on the slide it shows the proposal that the committee are determining. He expressed the view that the proposal should be one of the simplest, easiest Planning in Principle application that has been submitted as it is only for frontage and it is of a very similar format to the rest of the village.

Mr Humphrey added that there is an estate to the top left-hand side of the slide on the screen but, in his view, the majority of Friday Bridge is frontage, and frontage development is more sustainable making the point that why would there be a backland development where a new road would have to be implemented with all of the amenities when there is an existing frontage. He stated that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and there are 16 dwellings after the proposal site and before you reach The Stitch and there is already a footpath up to Laddus Drove which is to the south of Needham Bank, but he would be happy to extend the footpath along this site frontage to make it safer for everyone in the village.

Mr Humphrey referred to the presentation screen and explained the proximity of the site to the assumed village centre which contains the school, pub and shop and expressed the view that the site is so much closer than The Stitch and 50% of the village but the opinion of officers is that the site is in the wrong location. He made the point that the draft Local Plan proposes infill only gaps and it also proposes 230 dwellings for a limited infill village and, in his opinion, the proposal before the committee is more logical.

Mr Humphrey stated that there is shortage of plots for people to build their own properties but officers have stated that there is not a shortage on self-build plots, however, in his view, there is a difference in the Council’s self-build, custom build register of plots that people want to buy and build their own. He stated that the proposal site is a classic site which can be divided up into 9 plots and the plots will be sold quickly as he is aware that there is a demand for available plots and he asked the committee to consider and approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item P88/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Mr Peter Humphrey, the Agent. Mr Humphrey stated that in his view the benefit of Planning in Principle (PIP) applications is that they are better than pre-applications due to the fact that a formal recommendation is obtained and there is not a large cost implication for his clients to pay out in order to ascertain whether it is worth submitting an application. He added that they are also reviewed and turned around quickly by the officers with a quick decision, with a PIP application reverting back to previous times where a red line would be shown on a piece of land and the Planning Department would make a decision in outline, but the name has changed to a PIP.

Mr Humphrey referred to the presentation screen and pointed out site and the continuous built frontage and explained that there is a house beyond the development site which acts as a stop. He added that he cannot understand the officer’s point of view when they state that it is not continuous built-up frontage as it is natural infill.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the site is also very close to the developed executive homes on Bar Drove and it is the development which is furthest north as you look at Bar Drove which is adjacent to the proposal site where there is just one side frontage. He made the point that he does not mean to change the description when he states ‘self-build’, in the sense that the Planning Officer’s mean and explained that his objective is to deliver plots and he does not want them labelled as self-build as he wants to have more marketable plots but he is aware that this is an area where people do like to build their own houses.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that he would class this as a village gateway site and there are 230 houses proposed in the draft Local Plan and the application before members offers four plots which will help employment during construction, and he asked the committee to support the proposal.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the proposal would include a footpath and Mr Humphrey stated that the proposal does not include a footpath.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the proposal is intrusion into the open countryside and extends the village when there would appear to be plenty of building opportunities at some stage. He added that there is a built form which finishes at the road junction to the southwest and there is an isolated fen type settlement just beyond  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/22

To determine a Tree Preservation Order within a Conservation Area.

David Rowen 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 asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is glad to see that the emergency Tree Preservation Order was added in September, and expressed the view that the trees do need to be preserved.

Proposed by Councillor Miscandlon, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the Tree Preservation Order should be CONFIRMED.