Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 4 December 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of 4 December 2019 were confirmed and signed.

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)) during its deliberations.

Sheila Black presented the report to members.

Member asked questions, made comments and received response as follows;

1.    Councillor Lynn said whilst he had no issues with the principle of development, he was disappointed to see that there would be no Section 106 (S106) contribution.

2.    Councillor Benney agreed but highlighted that issues surrounding viability assessments are out of local authorities control and unless Central Government change the formula used, this will continue to be a problem.

3.    Councillor Mrs Mayor agreed but highlighted that this application is for a retirement complex and its benefits will be felt across the wider community. She supported the application.

4.    Councillor Connor agreed and supported the application.

5.    Councillor Sutton concurred but highlighted that the assessments are carried out by experts and the Council cannot argue with these. He added that on many occasions outline planning permission is granted subject to S106 contributions only for viability assessments to be carried out and the scheme deemed unviable. He said officers spend a lot of time processing S106 viability assessments and suggested that their time may be better spent elsewhere as the majority of assessments deem schemes unviable.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Benney and decided that the application be APPROVED; as per officer’s recommendation.

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)) during its deliberations.

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

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mark Frost.

Mark Frost thanked members for the opportunity to speak at today’s meeting and explained that he has been a resident of Berryfield for fifteen years. He stated that residents had been given an undertaking that the development would be in-keeping with the current estate and would include an extension to the open space. He stated that this proposal is not in-keeping with existing properties in Berryfield and there is no provision for open space.

He stated that the lack of open space will cause issues for residents of the new development as their children will have nowhere to play safely and stated that children living on the estate would have to walk quite a distance to get to open space. He added that there will be further danger as the proposed development will not benefit from a pavement extension of the existing footpath. Pedestrians will be required to walk in the road to access the site and the road is unlikely to be adopted which can cause a number of issues with street lighting and refuse collection as well as access for the farmer to his adjacent field.

He informed members that the applicants had provided false information in their original planning application as they do benefit from full access to the site from Berryfield and urged members and officers to look into this further.

Mark Frost stated that residents are extremely concerned at the flooding risk to the development and highlighted that there had already been incidents of sewage coming out of drain covers on-site. He stated that should a flood or incident occur once the development is complete; the Council will be held accountable by residents. He stated that current residents on the estate should be protected from disruption during the construction period and asked that if planning permission is granted, a traffic management plan must be implemented to allow residents to enter and exit their homes safely. He stated that the road is already heavily congested with parked vehicles and will only worsen once construction vehicles are on-site. 

He disputed the applicant’s claims that the site currently has no wildlife inhabiting it and diseased ash trees and said this is completely untrue. He said subsoil on the development has been exposed for almost a year and this has led to many species of wildlife on-site which will need further investigation. He stated that the site was due to be fenced off however this has still not been done and as a result is often victim of trespassers. 

He concluded that the development does not provide anything to the community and asked members to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P62/19

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)) during its deliberations.

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

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mark Frost.

Mark Frost explained that a viability assessment drawn up on behalf of the developers had deemed the scheme unviable and predicts the developers could lose up to £1million based on current market values. He stated that the Outline Planning Permission had been granted subject to a S106 legal agreement however the developers are now stating that complying with this would reduce their profit margin significantly.

He stated that the residents of Berryfield believe the Council have an obligation to uphold such an agreement as it is not the Council’s responsibility to ensure the developer makes a certain level of profit. He argued that the S106 agreement must remain and if a reduction is given to the figure requested, the Council are not acting in the best interest of local residents.

He urged members to ensure that the applicants uphold their end of the agreement by either providing affordable housing or a S106 contribution instead. He highlighted that the contributions had been allocated to a number of schemes including; the expansion of Westwood Primary School, improvements to March Library, Estover Playing Fields and March Railway Station.

Mark Frost stated that the applicants have provided the Council with evidence that the site is not viable if they are required to make a S106 contribution and the residents wish them to make this contribution or walk away from the development. He said residents are not happy with the offer of £10,000 and full payment is required to support the community. He added that the development is purely being built out of ‘greed not need’ 

He said as elected members, it is the Council’s responsibility to look after the interest of residents and not developers and asked that they make the right decision for those they represent.

Members had no questions for Mark Frost.

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

1.    Councillor Benney stated that whilst he sympathises with residents, there is little members can do in relation to viability assessments. He stated that if the case was to be appealed and costs awarded this would cost the Council and ultimately residents. He highlighted that the Planning Committee must not make bad decisions against policy.

2.    Councillor Connor agreed with these comments.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sutton and decided that the application be APPROVED; as per officer’s recommendation.

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)) during its deliberations.

Sheila Black presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Miscandlon.

Councillor Miscandlon thanked members for the opportunity to speak and explained that both local residents and Whittlesey Town Council believe that this application is not compliant with policy as development will be detrimental to local residents. He stated that the development will overshadow neighbouring gardens which can have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of those that reside there.

He explained that the access to the site is via a very dangerous junction which is currently used by farm vehicles, cyclists and horse riders. Increased traffic will make the junction unacceptable. He disagreed with the comments provided by Highways and stated that an in depth study into this is required. He asked members to refuse the application due to the detrimental impact the development will have on local residents.

Members had no questions for Councillor Miscandlon.

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

1.    Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that the applicant does not own the access into the development and asked what impact this would have. David Rowen explained that land ownership is not a planning issue and should not form part of member’s consideration.

2.    Nick Harding reminded members that this is a Reserved Matters Application and access does not form part of this application. He highlighted that the lane is a public highway and irrespective of ownership, benefits from a right of way.

3.    Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she does not support the application due to the varying size of proposed dwellings and the impact this will have on neighbouring properties. She added that she has further concerns about the impact of increased traffic from the site and disagreed with Highways comments.

4.    Councillor Sutton supported the proposed layout. He said during the Committee’s Site Visits he had been concerned about the width of the access into the site but had since revisited the site and was now satisfied that there is space for vehicles to pass one another.

5.    Councillor Meekins stated that members must accept that Highways are happy with the application and planning permission cannot be refused on this basis.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Meekins and decided that the application be APPROVED; as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor abstained from voting)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared an interest by virtue of the fact that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council)

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)) during its deliberations.

Sheila Black 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 Councillor Haggata (Chatteris Town Council).

Councillor Haggata stated that he is attending today’s meeting as Chairman of Chatteris Town Council’s Planning Committee. He stated that he strongly supports the application based on comments received from local residents. Local residents have highlighted that the building has been derelict for a number of years and they are keen to see development due to ongoing issues with anti-social behaviour and vandalism on the site. He read out to members several letters of support from residents and asked that their comments are considered during deliberations.

Members had no questions for Councillor Haggata.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, Ian Mason (Chatteris Past, Present and Future).

Ian Mason thanked members for the opportunity to speak and explained that the property dates back to 1757 and is still standing today. He highlighted that previous applications submitted had been for the conversion of the existing building and said it was disappointing that the Planning & Heritage statement submitted neglected to include information about the building’s heritage.

He informed members that the building has had many uses over the years including being used as a Quaker House until the 1920’s. He said based on this, the property should be considered a heritage asset and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that neglect of an asset should not be a reason for demolition. He highlighted to members that the building is included as part of the ‘Chatteris Town Walking Trail’ which visits historical sites in the town.

Ian Mason informed members that he has significant concerns in relation to a potential burial site within close proximity of the development as there is no documentation that confirms it has ever been relocated. He highlighted that if the application is approved and it is determined that the burial site is still in-situ this will be both detrimental to the development and costly. He asked members to take this into consideration during their decision making.

He concluded by informing members that a visit to Chatteris from Historic England is scheduled to take place in the near future and he had hoped that this building would receive the recognition it deserves as an important heritage building.

Members had no questions for Ian Mason.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from David Brooks (Applicant).

David Brooks thanked members for the opportunity to speak and explained that he had lived and worked in Chatteris for 30 years. He stated that he intends to use the proposed dwellings as homes for both himself  ...  view the full minutes text for item P65/19

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)) during its deliberations.

Sheila Black 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 Councillor John Clark.

Councillor J Clark thanked members for the opportunity to speak and stated that whilst he knows the applicant he has no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in the property. He explained that he had grown up in this area and is familiar with both the site and applicant. As a former member of St. Wendreda’s church choir, he is keen to ensure development does not cause detrimental harm to however in his opinion; the proposal will only enhance the area.

He highlighted that the replacement dwelling will be a similar size to the previous site as there was previously a large wooden shed which was in poor condition. He reminded members of the 29 letters of support the application had received, including a letter of support from the minister of St. Wendreda’s and a Planning Officer who lives in the locality.

Councillor J Clark disagreed that the development will have a visual impact on the church and argued that the nearby eco-house built by Tommy Walsh has far greater a visual impact than this proposal. He reiterated that the application will be an improvement to the locality and asked members to support the application.

Members had no questions for Councillor J Clark.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Matthew Hall (Agent).

Matthew Hall thanked members for the opportunity to speak and explained that the applicant had resided in the property for 62 years before it was destroyed by fire in April 2019. He highlighted that the application proposes that the property be set further back into the site and on all boundaries to prevent obstruction of views to the church.

Matthew Hall highlighted to members the differing property styles located in Church Street. He explained that the proposal had been developed over a number of months and confirmed that the applicant would be happy to agree to conditions in relation to external materials. He reiterated that the property will cause no overlooking or overshadowing to neighbouring dwellings and has received a lot of support from both local residents and the minister of St. Wendreda. He asked members to approve planning permission.

Members had no questions for Matthew Hall.

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

1.    Councillor Sutton said whilst he has taken into consideration the officer’s recommendation, most of the comments received from local residents and the minister have been in support of the application. He agreed that there is a vast array of property types in the locality and the proposal will not have a detrimental visual impact on  ...  view the full minutes text for item P66/19

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)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

Gareth Edwards thanked members for the opportunity to speak. He explained that the site extends into two neighbouring gardens and benefits from a number of existing outbuildings. He highlighted that the development will be located behind the adjacent Upwell Park site and therefore be a continuation of the built form of Upwell Road.

Gareth Edwards stated that the site benefits from established boundaries which the applicant was advised would encourage wildlife. Whilst no requests for biodiversity reports have been made, the applicant is happy to comply with this if necessary. He highlighted the support from all statutory consultees as well as March Town Council and neighbouring residents. He stated that the site will appeal to both self-build and small local developers and is very similar to other developments located throughout the district.

Gareth Edwards reiterated the established boundary on the site and reminded members of the existing outbuildings in-situ already. He asked members to approve the application which will provide completed development on a prime route into March.

Members asked Gareth Edwards the following questions;

1.    Councillor Sutton asked if there had been any discussions with owners of the plot immediately adjacent to Upwell Park. Gareth Edwards confirmed there had but the owners were not interested in including their site in this development.

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

1.    Councillor Murphy agreed with officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

2.    Councillor Hay agreed and highlighted the appeal which was dismissed by the Planning Inspector on another similar site in Upwell Road and added that granting planning permission will set a precedent for others.

3.    Councillor Sutton stated that he regularly drives past the site and has no issue with the visual impact the development may have. He stated that as members have refused a similar scheme in Upwell Road he has reservations about approving this application as the Planning Committee must be consistent in its decision making.

4.    Councillor Benney supported the application and said the application would provide 9 properties for local residents set within a nice development.

5.    Councillor Mrs Mayor asked when the other site in Upwell Road was considered by the Planning Inspector as part of the appeals process. David Rowen confirmed that the appeal took place in October 2019.

Proposed by Councillor Meekins, seconded by Councillor Murphy that the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

A vote was taken and the proposal failed.

6.    David Rowen reminded members of an appeal decision at another site located on Upwell Road and stated that members must consider the Planning Inspector’s comments in relation to the prevailing pattern of frontline development and his statement that Upwell Park is an  ...  view the full minutes text for item P67/19

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)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

1.    Councillor Connor stated that he can see no issues with the site and supported the application.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Meekins and decided that the application be APPROVED; as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Benney, Clark, Hay and Murphy declared an interest by virtue of the fact that they were members of Cabinet and have been involved in the decision making in relation to this proposal. They took no part in the discussion or voting for this item)

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)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

Gareth Edwards thanked members for the opportunity to speak and stated that development of the site will match the dwellings opposite to complete the built form of the area. He reminded members that under the Local Plan, Chatteris is considered an important area of development for the district.

He stated that the three plots will appeal to local self-build developers as there is currently a shortage of suitable building plots in Chatteris. He confirmed that the applicant has agreed to install hedging to the boundary to prevent future spread of development and the application has received no objections from statutory consultees. He added that the site is not currently used for agricultural purposes and will provide a diverse housing mix to the town. He asked members to approve the application.

Members asked Gareth Edwards the following questions;

1.    Councillor Hay asked why the applicant has only applied for planning permission on a small portion of the site. Gareth Edwards confirmed that this was to ensure development matches the built form of the properties opposite. He reiterated that the applicant proposes boundary hedging to stop further spread of development.

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

1.    Councillor Benney agreed that this would complete the built form of the road and will improve the appearance of the surrounding area. He welcomed quality development in Chatteris and said the town needs developments like this.

2.    Councillor Meekins disagreed and highlighted that the drawings show that the site will extend the built form of the properties opposite.

3.    Councillor Murphy stated that the road currently has a ‘stop line’ of development and this should be adhered to. He stated that if planning permission is granted for three dwellings, this will no doubt spread over time. He agreed with officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

4.    Councillor Sutton agreed that the site would complete the built form and questioned why an application had not been submitted to develop the whole site as this would have been appropriate.

5.    Nick Harding informed members that he would need them to provide planning reasons if they are minded to approve planning permission. He reminded members that Highways do not approve the proposed access and footway and recommended that if members grant planning permission, it is subject to a satisfactory plans being submitted by the applicant.

6.    Councillor Marks asked if a condition could be added to planning permission in respect of street lighting. Nick Harding confirmed that this would be the decision of CCC.

7.    Councillor Sutton asked why the development would require a footpath as there is one the opposite side of the road. David Rowen explained that there is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P69/19

To consider the appeals report.

David Rowen presented the report to members with regard to appeals decisions in the last month.