Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 20 September 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the 20 September 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

There was a 15-minute adjournment so that members could consider information that had been tabled.

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated. He advised that to assist with any questions that members may have there are two Environmental Health colleagues and Andy Cole, the Council’s Consultant, from Caen Environmental Consulting present.

Andy Cole gave a presentation to summarise his findings and recommendations. Mr Cole stated that he is a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner and holds the membership of the Institute of Acoustics and has significant experience in the regulation and assessment of environmental noise, predominantly in a local authority context. He stated that he was asked to review the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) and provide a written response to the Council with his observations and any recommendations.

Mr Cole stated that his observations initially were that the NIA had been undertaken by people who know what they are talking about and he was satisfied it was in accordance with all the right policies and guidance, noting that the initial findings for the assessment identified, quite rightly, that there could have been a significant noise impact and, therefore, that would then have been not acceptable in planning terms. He advised the applicant redesigned the project, with the redesign including a whole range of mitigation measures including retaining the current kennel as an acoustic barrier for non-noisy activities only, upgrading sound insultation of the proposed kennels, mechanical ventilation with doors/windows kept closed, a new acoustic barrier, limiting the amount of dogs to 120, acoustic screening for exercising and the toilet area and identifying best practice measures to be used in Noise Management Plan (NMP), which he assessed and was satisfied they were all the things you would expect that would represent best practice.

Mr Cole advised that his initial findings were that if the proposals in the NIA regarding the mitigation measures were implemented in full the project should be acceptable but he was also aware of the wider context around the apparent levels of community sensitivity and that there have been historic noise complaints regarding the existing kennels so he wanted to consider this further. He noticed that the historic complaints, although they have not resulted in a statutory noise nuisance being proven, relate to use of the existing kennels and the proposed development under consideration will result in those kennels not being used for kennelling, with the buildings remaining in place acting as an acoustic barrier and could be utilised for non-noisy activities.

Mr Cole stated that he also noticed that it is not a boarding type kennel, which is relevant as animal boarding kennels have a greater potential for noise largely down to the dogs not being as settled as they would be in kennels such as the one under consideration today. He advised that the NIA predicted that in a worst case scenario, with mitigation in place, that there would be an overall general reduction in noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item P56/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the site is ripe for development so she will support the application.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with these comments and will support approval.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that this a Fenland application and he is Portfolio Holder with responsibility for assets, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that members will recall that this application was presented to the 5 April 2023 Planning Committee meeting where members agreed to defer the application. He advised that the application is by Robert Sears for 5 dwellings in Manea, close to the railway station and members were advised that one of the plots was for Mr Sears’ daughter who was taking an active part in running the farm accounts.

Mr Humphrey made the point that Mr Sears pointed out that the farm was taking 240 acres out of food production and being sown with a mix of seeds for all year round bird foraging and food supply. He stated that members were advised that the application was for 5 executive plots where members had already agreed that the site was within the developed village and was closer to the school than the site at Fallow Corner Drove for 29 dwellings as shown in the emerging Local Plan.

Mr Humphrey reminded members of the proximity of this site to the newly refurbished and invested rail station, where NPPF prioritises new development with good access to public transport hubs, such as rail stations. He stated that they will be providing a footpath, using triple glazing, heat source air pumps, PV cells and light columns, all to enhance and make the site more acceptable.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that the committee wanted to approve the previous application but were advised that they could not until the ecology report had been carried out and approval received from Natural England, which has now been agreed, and also Highways approval was obtained for moving the speed signs and footpath crossing. He stated that the Planning Officer has confirmed that both reasons for the deferral have now been overcome and it has been accepted that there was an update from Highways today to state that they are now happy, although it has not been formally approved as there is the need to get a legal order signed by their solicitors to coincide with the works, while reasons 1 and 2 of the refusal had been accepted previously by members.

Mr Humphrey welcomed members support of this application as previously.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if these dwellings were going to be self-build properties? Mr Humphrey responded that they could be as this is the type of market that Mr Sears was looking at selling the plots to.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked what arrangements are going to be made with regard to sewage and surface water? Mr Humphrey responded that there will be individual proper treatment plants.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the applicant is prepared to pay for the moving of the signs and TRO? Mr Humphrey responded in the affirmative.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item P58/23

To determine the applications.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is the right place, the development looks good and might enhance that corner.

·       Councillor Benney wished anybody who has invested money in anything good luck at the moment and it is nice to see somebody going to the trouble of extending their business.

·       Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of the other councillors.

F/YR23/0237/F

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

F/YR23/0249/LB

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

(Councillor Imafidon declared that he is the freeholder of the Dukes Head, and left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Musson, an objector. Mr Musson stated that he is a resident of Hawthorne Gardens and is representing all of the residents to express their concerns about this proposal. He made the point that Hawthorne Gardens is an unadopted private road, maintenance of the road and the landscaped area is the responsibility of the Hawthorne Gardens Management Company Ltd, which is administered by the residents.

Mr Musson stated that access to the construction site as stated on the application is via Hawthorne Gardens, with the presumption by the applicant that the residents will accept this and they do not. He brings to the committee’s attention three discrepancies on the application, the document location plan and existing site plan drawing number 6574EX01 is, in his view, incorrect as it shows the existing boundary as extending into the rear garden of 120 Leverington Common but it does not, the existing boundary is in Hawthorne Gardens.

Mr Musson stated that the application form under foul sewers asks is the applicant proposing to connect to the existing drainage system and the answer given is unknown and queried whether this has been decided and will it connect to existing services of 120 Leverington Common or into the services of Hawthorne Gardens. He referred to the application form under trees and hedges, the applicant has indicated there are not any adjacent buildings, this is incorrect and Fenland Local Plan LP16 states under Paragraph 10.15 that the proposal would not adversely impact the street scene of Hawthorne Gardens or the landscape character of it but, in his opinion, it will.

Mr Musson expressed the view that the amenity area in Hawthorne Gardens is a landscaped border adjacent to the north boundary of 120 Leverington Common that was included in the Hawthorne Gardens planning approval in 2018 and has been looked after for the past 4 years by the residents and is maturing into an aesthetically pleasing year round shrub border that attracts birds, pollinators, provides flowers, berries and foliage cover, with this border and the 6ft close boarded fence behind it being paid for by residents in the original purchase price of their property and would have to be destroyed to gain access to this site. He stated that the Land Registry Title Deed states that the residents of Hawthorne Gardens shall not do anything that may damage the management company area or allow another person to do likewise.

Mr Musson expressed the opinion that Hawthorne Gardens was not constructed to take heavy commercial vehicles as confirmed by the site developer and residents were advised to allow such large vehicles to use the road would cause damage, not only to the road surface, but also to drains, particularly the surface water drain running the length of the access road from Leverington Common and residents are concerned about who would pay for such damage. He feels that precedent for  ...  view the full minutes text for item P60/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Professor Wickham, on behalf of the applicant. Professor Wickham stated that there has been correspondence with interested parties and the three main points are that this is a detailed application as the principle of the matter has been decided, with matters of highways and drainage also having been considered and deemed acceptable. He expressed the opinion that the proposal is entirely compliant with Policy LP2 as this is a growth village and is an allocated site so is policy compliant with national policy.

Professor Wickham stated that in terms of detailed matters they have had a satisfactory exchange with officers and amendments have been made to dwellings against existing residents and to allay concerns about Fen View on Fallow Corner Drove and that relationship has been altered during the negotiation period so the site to back distance exceeds normal standards and there are no windows overlooking that particular direction. He stated that there have been one or two other detailed amendments.

Members asked questions of Professor Wickham as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he welcomes the application but is disappointed that there is no Section 106 money as there is a site value of £7 million and no offer of contributions and would that be something they would consider? Professor Wickham responded that there is no requirement in the terms of the grant of planning permission at outline stage.

·       Councillor Benney acknowledged that there is no requirement but as a Planning Committee member he would like to see some kind of Section 106 and would there be any contribution forthcoming as there is a need for this in the local area, Manea School could do with some money and so could the doctors surgery, with this application creating another 29 dwellings which could mean 60 extra people who would put a demand on the local healthcare system. He understands where Professor Wickham is coming from but as a councillor in the adjacent ward that is part of Chatteris it would be nice as a token of goodwill to see an offer of something that would go towards local services and local amenities and is this something that can be found out of the £7 million investment? Professor Wickham responded that there was a viability assessment that indicated that this was not required or appropriate and whilst he understands the point it should have been welded into the process much earlier at the grant of the outline planning permission, this has obviously been raised as a fresh matter to them today and they will consider it and discuss it but he cannot promise it.

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is fine, he does understand the applicant’s position and there is a process, accepting that a viability assessment has been undertaken but there have been other agents sitting in the same position  ...  view the full minutes text for item P61/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that he welcomes the officer’s report where it states the principle of development is acceptable as seen from the photos during the officer presentation the site is surrounded by residential development and is clearly located in the built-up form of Murrow. He advised that when he undertook a site visit there was a mixture of properties in this immediate area, both two-storey and single storey, with the majority being two-storey semi-detached, which is what they have shown to match in with the street scene.

Mr Hall expressed the view that when you read through the officer’s report there are no objections from any consultees or any neighbours and within the current Local Plan Murrow is regarded as a small village which allows for residential infilling, with this proposal considered to be residential infilling. He expressed the opinion that the officer’s report sums up the application well and is actually quite complimentary stating that the proposal is infill, is in keeping with the area and the core shape of the settlement, the properties will not prejudice the surrounding pattern of development and will appear visually interesting and architecturally sympathetic and he feels the officer has been very fair and has been very proactive working with them.

Mr Hall referred to 9.22 of the report where it states there is a concern regarding loss of privacy to No.5 and then under 9.19 it states that this is acceptable, which has just been confirmed by Nick Harding. He stated that the reason for refusal is due to flood risk, they provided an independent Flood Risk Assessment and there was no objection from the Environment Agency, following this they then provided a sequential test which was approved and the officer kindly worded a condition in relation to the exemption test, renewable energy and the overall performance of the dwellings, which was agreed to as well as an extension of time.

Mr Hall reiterated that the site is infill development within the built form of Murrow, there are no objections from residents or consultees, it will provide two small semi-detached properties that matches in with the surrounding properties and is ideal for development.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Connor stated that this seems a little bit like deja vue as there was the impression that everything was good and did he receive any indication of the application being approved? Mr Hall responded that during the application the officer worked with them and it all looked very promising on the public access so he e-mailed the officer to get an update and read out a couple of points from the e-mails “Hi Matthew I have just reviewed this one and have no objection and I note the target date is 13 July and I will try and process this before this date” and “apologies there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item P62/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Sutton, the agent. Mr Sutton stated that the application is before committee today due to the Parish Council views differing from the Planning Officer, who has recommended the application be refused. He made the point that an application for 5 dwellings on this land has been before committee twice before, once refused based solely on access and then approved by committee with access committed.

Mr Sutton stated that this application is a full application for 5 executive style dwellings as opposed to a reserved matters application following on from the outline approval and this has been undertaken so they could adjust the red line boundary of the site as it was felt that the dwellings they were trying to get approval on would benefit from slightly larger front gardens for parking and landscaping and larger rear gardens to suit the dwellings and to enable them to get a package treatment plant with drainage within those gardens as opposed to a septic tank, which meant moving the red line to the rear of this development back. He stated that there are no objections from statutory consultees, Highways have asked one or two questions relating to access and visibility but it is the same access point that committee previously approved with the same visibility splay, with the land in question either being in highway ownership as a highway verge or the applicant’s ownership.

Mr Sutton stated that Highways have suggested details regarding the footpath and have also suggested that these details will be subject to a Section 278 Agreement together with a condition that can be placed on the application of the technical approval of that Section 278 Agreement prior to works and he does not think this would be unreasonable. He referred to the refusal reasons, with the first one being principle of development but made the point that there is an existing approval for 5 dwellings on this site so the principle is, therefore, established and the second reason being an adverse impact on the occupants of Plot 1 due to proximity of the windows but this is a window on the side elevation to Bedroom 4 and as stated there is 2.6 metres between the buildings and the windows are offset, the roof line at this point is pitched away from the neighbouring property and there is not a big gable wall, so he feels there will be limited adverse impact if any.

Mr Sutton referred to the third reason for refusal due to access but as previously stated that has been addressed and flood risk and sequential test, a sequential test will show that this site is available to this applicant currently and would, therefore, pass. He hopes that members will give appropriate weight to the fact that there is already a permission on the site and limited weight to the emerging Local Plan that highlights this as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P63/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matt Taylor, the agent, read out by Member Services. Mr Taylor stated that this is an outline application as per the officer’s information provided to member with a recommendation for approval. He made the point that following positive pre-application advice from the Council they submitted an outline application using the existing access road to the proposed property, with the plans showing an indicative building on the site with a large parking and turning area to the front, which would allow vehicles to pass or wait if required.

Mr Taylor referred to the Highway comments which state that “since the site access already exists, on balance it would be difficult to refuse this development solely from the highways perspective” and they commented on bin refuse collection in which the site plan was revised to show that it is within the 30 metres travel distance required and Highways have also highlighted conditions which they find mutually agreeable. He stated that in respect to the comments on the fire appliance this will be dealt with under Building Regulations and with the new more stringent approved document B updates and the general public wanting better safety in their homes a sprinkler system could be specified and installed.

Mr Taylor expressed the view that the dwelling indicated is demonstrating that no overlooking to the neighbouring properties and was a chalet style to reduce an over bearing impact on existing gardens and again this would be dealt with at a reserved matters application in more detail. He feels that some comments from the residents indicate retaining the perimeter of trees for privacy and this would be allowed for and included in the landscaping at a reserved matters application.

Mr Taylor referred to the comments from Planning and Highways regarding the access road and lighting, making the point that there are many side streets and backland developments around the area without street lighting but a development could have lights such as low level LED posts or wall mounted lighting and they would welcome any condition that would need this to be approved at reserved matters due to any light pollution to existing residents.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French queried the Highway comments where it refers to 4 x 1-bedroomed units and asked for confirmation that it is one dwelling and it is not being divided into units? Danielle Brooke agreed there was some discrepancy here which had not been picked up but it is a four bedroom two-storey unit. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would hate it to be four flats which would impact the neighbours.

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

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he used to live 50 metres away from this access road for several years, six nights out of seven last  ...  view the full minutes text for item P64/23