Agenda and minutes

Linda Albon requested a nomination for Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Municipal Year.  It was proposed by Councillor Rackley, seconded by Councillor Benney and resolved that Councillor Connor be elected as Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Municipal Year. 

It was proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Bristow and resolved that Councillor Hay be elected as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Municipal Year. 

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 24 April 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of 24 April 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 refers)) during its deliberations.

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

David Rowen presented a further update to members and stated;

‘Overall the principle of development is deemed to be acceptable with no outstanding objections from any technical consultees. However developments of this scale are required to provide satisfactory infrastructure provision or to demonstrate that to do so, would render the scheme unviable.

The infrastructure required to be generated by this development is set out on page 20 of the agenda pack. A delegated grant of planning permission was due to be given last year however at that point Cambridgeshire County Council as the Highways Authority required a further financial contribution for off-site Highway works of £45,000.

Further to the lack of progress on securing that additional Section 106 (S106) contribution as outlined in the report, written confirmation has now been received from the applicant’s agent this morning confirming the intention to complete the S106 agreement shortly.

Consequently the recommendation that is set out to members within the agenda is to be amended on the basis of that information being received. The amended recommendation is now;

Members resolve to grant outline planning permission with delegated authority to officers to complete the necessary S106 agreement as well as to formulate the appropriate planning conditions. If no satisfactory progress is made on completing the legal agreement within 28 days of this Committee Meeting, officers be delegated to refuse planning permission for reasons set out in the report.’

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

1.    Councillor Murphy asked for confirmation that this application is for outline planning permission and not full planning permission. David Rowen confirmed that the application is for outline planning permission.

2.    Councillor Sutton said he was confused in relation to the initial recommendation to refuse the planning permission as in many instances, the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being agreed at a later date. He is concerned that the amended recommendation to grant planning permission does not allow a reasonable timescale to arrange the legal agreement.

3.    Councillor Patrick expressed that he would prefer to see this planning application deferred until this legal agreement is resolved.

4.    Councillor Connor agreed but highlighted that the application meets planning requirements and the area will benefit from this development. Whilst the late timing of progress is not ideal, the applicant’s agents have resolved the issue.

5.    Councillor Benney agreed that the Planning Permission should be withdrawn and refused if the S106 agreement does not progress. This should encourage the developer to progress the legal agreement in a timely manner.

6.    Councillor Murphy agreed but stated that a timescale for completion of the legal agreement needs to be stipulated to avoid further delays.

7.    Councillor Connor agreed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P4/19

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.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

Charles Redhead stated that he was speaking on behalf of the residents of Kingswood Road Committee to raise their issues with the planning permission. The residents cannot see any requirement for two access points for the development, as one access point has been sufficient for the current site for over 40 years.

He highlighted that the widening of the new road will include the removal of existing trees and shrubs which has provided a habitat for wildlife in the surrounding area. He drew member’s attention to point 10.22 of the report (page 33 of the agenda pack) where the development is deemed not viable on the basis of either a policy compliant affordable housing contribution or a zero provision. He asked if this means the development will include a 50% shared-ownership provision or is it deemed entirely unviable.

He stated that residents have concerns over the increased vehicular access and subsequent noise as a result of the development. He added that the plans included do not show the area at the bottom of Kingswood Road which provides access to several dwellings. The proposed development shows entry in to this area which will heavily increase vehicular access and footfall. The previous entry to the site had been in place for over 40 years and raised no concerns with the residents.

He thanked members for allowing the opportunity to speak.

Members had no questions for Charles Redhead.

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

1.     Councillor Murphy highlighted that the proposed application complies with 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 for the application to be approved.

2.     Councillor Sutton asked for assurance from officers in relation to the viability of the scheme. David Rowen confirmed that the development has been assessed as unviable in its own right however there is grant funding proposed sourced by Sanctuary Housing which will enable the scheme to be 100% affordable housing.

3.     Councillor Patrick agreed with Councillor Murphy that the proposal complies with planning policy and there is no reason for the application to be approved.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Patrick and decided that the application be APPROVED as per officer’s recommendation.

To Determine the Variation of Conditions.

Sheila Black presented the report to members.

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

1.     Councillor Sutton said he fully supported the application.

2.     Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she supported the application and asked how often the odour from the site will be assessed. Sheila Black confirmed that the odour report will take into account all aspects and there will be no requirement to re-evaluate unless the Council receive any complaints of odour which then will be considered the Environmental Health team.

3.     Councillor Benney stated that residents of Chatteris had raised concerns about the removal of the wheel-washing facility however this was a condition during the development stage of the scheme. Now that the roadways are sufficient, he can see no issues with this. He agreed that any further reported issues with odour should be reconsidered by the Council.

4.     Councillor Connor stated that he supported the application.

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

(Councillor Benney declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he attends Chatteris Town Council planning meetings but takes no part in discussions)

(Councillor Murphy declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning matters)

(Councillor Connor declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he has been lobbied on this agenda 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 refers)) during its deliberations.

Councillor Benney left the Council Chamber for this agenda item.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

1.    Councillor Murphy said it was refreshing to see a site proposing the development of 2 sought after bungalows. He said the proposed dwellings will have ample space and have been designed well.  He stated that he fully supports the application.

2.    Councillor Bristow asked if the existing tree on the site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). David Rowen confirmed that there is no TPO attached to the existing tree.

3.    Councillor Connor supported the application.

4.    Councillor Mrs Bligh agreed and supported the application. Whilst this is seen as back-land development, there should be allowances for certain applications.

5.    Councillor Patrick agreed and highlighted the ample amenity space proposed.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Connor and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he lives in close proximity of the proposed development and left the Council Chamber for the entirety of this agenda item)

(Councillor Murphy declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning matters)

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.

Councillor Benney returned to the Council Chamber for this agenda item.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

1.    Councillor Patrick agreed that the location is not suitable for development and he fully supported officer’s recommendation to refused planning permission.

Proposed by Councillor Patrick, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Bristow declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Whittlesey Town Council when this application was considered. He did not take part in any discussions or vote on this agenda 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 refers)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Goat (Applicant).

Mr Goat thanked members for the opportunity to speak. He explained that the existing dwelling on the site is small and not fit for requirement. He has 4 adults living in the property with 17 acres of livestock. Whilst the proposed dwelling is larger than the existing house, it will not be excessive in size.

Members asked Mr Goat the following questions;

1.     Councillor Benney asked for confirmation that the proposed dwelling will heated from an Air Source Heat Pump. Mr Goat confirmed this and added that the property will also benefit from passive-house insulation and rainwater collection.

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

1.     Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that this site forms part of her Ward and whilst she is aware that each area surrounding Wisbech St Mary is unique, she sees no issues with this development. The applicant wishes to improve their living accommodation and the proposed dwelling sits on a large plot.

2.     Councillor Benney agreed and said whilst the proposed dwelling will be significantly larger than the existing house, this should not be considered. If the applicant was to build a property of equal size, this would not be fit for purpose. He welcomed the development as the property will be positioned on a large plot.

3.     Councillor Bristow asked for confirmation of the square footage of the outbuildings. David Rowen confirmed that the proposed footprint of the garage is 169m2 and the existing garage is approximately 45m2.

4.     Councillor Bristow asked if there are any dwellings of a similar size to the proposal situated in the locality. David Rowen said there are large dwellings located nearby however he is unaware of the planning history of these properties. He highlighted that the one situated nearby sits on a corner plot.

5.     Councillor Lynn said when members visited the site during their site visits, it is clear that the existing property is in need of renovation. He believes the proposed application will enhance the area.

6.     Councillor Rackley agreed and said the plot would suit a larger dwelling. He highlighted that there are no nearby neighours and he supported the application.

7.     Councillor Sutton referred to point 11.1 of the report (page 105 of the agenda pack). He supported the application and referenced other similar developments locally that have had planning permission approved.

8.     David Rowen reminded members that whilst the principal of replacing the existing dwelling is not an issue, it is the scale of the proposal. He informed Councillor Sutton of the differences between this application and the similar developments he referenced. He explained that the recommendation to refuse planning permission is based on the scale of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P9/19