Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 29 May 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of 29 May were confirmed and signed as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendments.

·         With regard to minute number P5/19 concerning application F/YR18/0458/F, Councillor Murphy clarified that the point he raised should read ‘Councillor Murphy highlighted that the proposed application complies with the National Planning Policy Framework. He added that if the planning permission complies with Policy LP15 of the Fenland Local Plan, which ensures suitable vehicular and pedestrian access there is no reason that the application should not be approved.’

·         Coucillor Hay highlighted that also in minute P5/19, there is an error and it should read that Councillor Patrick agreed with Councillor Murphy that the proposal complies with planning policy and there is no reason for the application not to be approved.

To determine the application

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.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards referred to the officer’s report stating that Gorefield is a small village under LP3 development will be considered on its merits but will normally be limited in scale to residential infilling and, in his opinion, this is the case with this proposal as it infills between the existing dwellings on the High Road and the existing drain which is consistent with other developments that have been approved in the district. He highlighted that the site is within the village as it falls within the 30mph speed limit, adding that the built form opposite extends beyond the proposed site. The proposal does fall within flood zone 2, however there have been recent approvals in the district that have been at a much greater risk of flooding being in flood zone 3.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the site is within the built form of the village and therefore the search area should be Gorefield for the sequential test purposes. The officer’s report states the sequential test confirmed that there are no other available sites in the lower flood risk areas of Gorefield.

He added that all villages need growth to support the local amenities and Gorefield benefits from a public house, shop, post office, butchers shop, school and preschool and additional houses would provide further support to these businesses.

Mr Edwards stated that he had attended a Parish Council meeting and some of the points that were raised during the discussions at that meeting included that there was a need for new houses, that it was a logical area for development is infill development within the 30mph speed limit, would naturally slow down traffic with dwellings on each side of the road, there was a need for a mixture of housing types and it would balance the village. He highlighted that Gorefield has a diverse mixture of houses which includes the High Road, where houses, bungalows and chalet bungalows and provides opportunities for first time buyer’s families and retired people. The applicant owns the adjacent farm and as they are reaching the age of retirement the next generation will be more involved in the day to day running of the farm with the first plot nearest the farm being for the applicant’s son.

Mr Edwards concluded by reiterating that the site is within the built form of Gorefield and will help reduce vehicle speeding in the area. It will provide much needed new housing in the village and is supported by the Parish Council, Cambridgeshire Highways and 9 letters of support from local residents and he asked members  ...  view the full minutes text for item P11/19

To determine the application

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.

Gavin Taylor presented the report and update to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Lee Bevens the Agent.

Mr Bevens firstly clarified a point contained within the officer’s report which refers to the adjacent site being a working farm and this is not the case, It is a

Business which occasionally throughout the year cleans and repairs farm sprayers. From discussions with local neighbours there have never been any issues with regard to noise issues from the site. He added that with regard to the officer’s report and the details of reasons for refusal, the application site is not in an area of open countryside and that there is not a developed footprint for Eastrea. In his view there have been recent approvals for developments along Wype Road which have seen frontage development like the scheme that is proposed and as the application site is located within a 30mph speed zone suggests that the site is in a built up area. He made the point there have been no objections raised for Cambridgeshire Highways. The proposal is opposite another large detached bungalow at 127 Wype Road and, therefore in his opinion, the application is not contrary to the policy in the Local Plan that the Officer has referred to.

Mr Bevens stated that the housing allocation for Eastrea had not been met as noted within the latest village threshold statement of June 12. He made the point that the site is next to a farm which is not an unusual factor in the Fens and here has been a great deal of weight to the impact of noise raised in the officer’s report but the business on site repairs sprayers for other businesses and does not carry out this work all year round with the works often carried out at other locations.

Mr Bevens stated that the issue of noise has been highlighted by the Council’s Environmental Health Team, however, this was not raised when the original application was submitted and nor was it raised when the Council approved the scheme directly to the north of the site for 6 houses at 182 Wype Road. The owners of 182 Wype Road, the farm, did not raises any objection based on noise issues for that development and only raised concerns when they visited the site on 29 May with the majority of neighbours close to the site support the application.

Members asked Mr Bevens the following questions:

·         Councillor Lynn asked for clarification over the operating hours of the farm as the officer’s report states that it is open and operational 7 days a week. Mr Bevens confirmed that the farm is open 7 days a week, but the business that operates from the farm is a mobile business and 90% of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P12/19

To determine the application

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.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Lee Bevens, the Agent.

Mr Bevens stated that the scheme is a culmination of 2 years of work and looks to address the reasons for refusal of a previous scheme to find a cost effective and sensible solution to an overgrown site that has the potential to provide much needed low cost housing. He stated that Cambridgeshire Highways have no objections and other issues have been addressed and the number of dwellings proposed is a maximum. The officer has raised reasons for refusal which include Policy LP3 which states that the development will be considered on its merits and he believes that the proposal has met all the criteria to be approved under the policy. 

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposal can provide small, lower cost market housing, where there is a need. Access is the only matter committed and there are no objections from highways. The proposal will address the fact that Benwick has not met its housing allocation in the latest threshold statement with 18 dwellings still outstanding. He added that there is good visibility in and out of the site and the proposed scheme will avoid piecemeal development in the village and will also support local businesses with new customers. He commented that all sites in Benwick are liable to flooding as it lies within flood zone 3 with the proposal improviNg the overgrown site which has been subject to complaints and anti-social behaviour.

Mr Bevens stated that his clients have agreed to the Section 106 contributions which will benefit the village in terms of open space money and an infill only development would land lock the full potential of the site. He made the point that under LP14 a detailed flood risk assessment and sequential test have both been submitted and the sequential test had been met, with Benwick lying largely in flood zone 3 and there are no other undeveloped unavailable sites in the village. He added that if housing is to be provided in Benwick then every site would fail the sequential test which would mean that the housing targets would not being met. He referred members to an approval of a development in Turves in 2018 where the officer noted that because the entirety of Turves is located within flood zone 3 at the time of its designation as a small village that the development should go ahead and it was approved.

Mr Bevens referred to surface water provision with there being levels of hierarchy that should be met, the first is to use infiltration, then to use water courses and the third is to use sewers with the preferred route being via a water course which runs along the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P13/19