Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes from the previous meeting of 24 June, 2020.

The minutes of the meeting of 24 June 2020 were confirmed.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and advised them that the officer’s recommendation had altered since the agenda and associated paperwork had been published with it, now being to grant planning permission. David Rowen explained the reason for the change in recommendation which related to the impact of the development on the windows and rooms of the adjacent building.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall stated that all the statutory consultees for the application have no objections to the proposal with the exception of Whittlesey Town Council. He added that at 10.6 of the officer’s report it states that there are no policies which oppose this type of development and the Conservation Officer has confirmed that they also support the proposal.

Mr Hall advised that the applicant has provided a written confirmation that he has received from a housing association for all of the 9 units and the commercial unit for an as built development and is therefore keen to commence the build. He stated that the site is in Whittlesey with a car park opposite the proposed site and is an area containing both residential and commercial usage.

Mr Hall stated that to the rear of the site there are examples of other building taking place in close proximity to other buildings as it is a town centre location and added that Unit B is 2.3 metres away from Grosvenor House.

He expressed the opinion that there is information that has been omitted from the officer’s report and explained that an initial pre application was submitted in 2018, along with associated plans and drawings with officers raising. concerns, because a three storey building was proposed which was flush with Grosvenor House. Following a meeting at Fenland Hall with the applicant and officers, discussions took place to step the buildings back and there were no concerns raised at this stage with regard to the windows of Grosvenor House.

Mr Hall stated that in 2019, the application was submitted and following another meeting with officers, they took suggestions on board with regard to the reduction in height and stepping back of the building with an email being received in May 2020, from officers advising that the proposal would be recommended for approval and would need to be determined by the Planning Committee. He added that he received an email on 2 July from the Development Manager, which stated that following discussions with the Head of Planning, the recommendation was now for refusal.

Mr Hall stated that the process has taken 22 months since the pre-application process commenced. He added that the officer’s report is positive, as is the Development Managers presentation with the alteration in recommendation now being to recommend approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked Mr Hall to clarify that on the site plan drawing the outline in red takes in the front part of Grosvenor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P11/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Ronan Gleeson, the applicant.

Mr Gleeson thanked the committee for the opportunity to address them today, and explained that he is a Director at JRL Group, and wished to speak in support of the application.

Mr Gleeson explained that the proposal is for the creation of a new plant and logistics depot with storage at Lattersey Field, Benwick Road, Whittlesey, to support his growing business adding that the proposal includes the erection of 4 industrial units, a security office and a 3.0 metre high acoustic screen with associated parking and hardstanding areas.

He stated that the JRL Group encompasses 14 divisions delivering bespoke solutions for the most complex construction projects and that it is an industry leading innovative construction business, operating at a national level, which turns over £500 million annually and employs over 3000 workers with the company able to offer total site solutions for construction projects, from just demolition to full turn-key solutions.

Mr Gleeson added that the company is working to revolutionise the construction industry by investing in innovation in off-site prefabrication systems to accelerate build programs, and deliver clean and energy efficient processes that support sustainable economic growth.

He stated that Lattersey Field was identified by the company as a fantastic opportunity to further expand their operations and reach, with the site located in close proximity to their existing operations in Peterborough, and strategically located between their sites in Nottingham and Bedfordshire.

Mr Gleeson added that within the officer’s report, the site has already secured a hybrid planning approval for industrial and commercial uses, with detailed approval for site remediation and outline approval for commercial development. He stated that the company have seen the potential for the site to assist with its Plant and Logistics operations, while providing a site for the storage and repair of slip form structures used in the construction of tall buildings.

Mr Gleeson stated that the site will employ approximately 100 people including the creation of 60 new jobs in construction and trades, along with providing apprenticeships and training through existing partnerships.

He expressed the view that his company are committed to an investment of approximately £10 million in delivering the proposal and have already undertaken the remediation and decontamination, which was approved under the original application, along with introducing active ecological management of the existing site and the formation of specially design newt habitats.

Mr Gleeson stated that great care has been taken in the preparation of this planning application, with a key focus on ensuring its approach protects the amenities of neighbours. He added that JRL understands their responsibility to be good neighbours, and engages directly with residents to ensure their concerns and issues are addressed.

Mr Gleeson expressed the view that the design and operation of the site will ensure protection from noise, the control of dust and odours to protect air quality,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P12/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon made the point that there is a zebra crossing which is not seen in the photographs, westbound on the A605, and asked why it had been omitted from the information supplied to the committee?  David Rowen stated that there was no intentional omission of that information and the photographs that were provided were a fair reflection of the site. He added that in relation to the proximity of the crossing, the Highways Authority, have been consulted and have raised no concerns.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the County Council response, which is in 5.2 of the officer’s report refers to the proposed development as being located on an urban street when in his opinion the proposal is actually on a principal route and certainly not an urban street. He expressed the opinion as to whether the Highways Authority has carried out a proper assessment on the application, as he feels it is a generalised response. David Rowen stated that the comments of the Highway Authority are set out in the report and the professional recommendation of that body is that there is no reason to refuse the application on highways safety grounds.

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

·         Councillor Miscandlon concurred with Councillor Cornwell and stated that the Highways Authority has submitted a standard report adding that the report states that there will be no problems, however, in the close proximity there is a busy car wash and a car sales garage. He expressed the view that although the dwellings are welcomed, there will be additional vehicles and the proposed new junction could be facilitated by moving the zebra crossing with a traffic light control to incorporate this entrance, which will enhance the safety of people exiting the site and from the garage.

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarification with regard to refuse collection and stated that at 5.3 in the officer’s report, it makes reference to a private road having to be constructed to a suitable standard to accommodate a 26 tonne vehicle, and questioned what is deemed as suitable. David Rowen stated that a suitable road would need to be constructed to accommodate physically a vehicle of that size. A condition is included with regard to the agreement of a refuse collection strategy to be in place prior to the first occupation and as part of that if it is the intention of the applicant to build a road, which would be to an adoptable standard, which would allow the Council’s refuse vehicles to collect. If it is not the intention of the applicant to construct a road, then alternative collection arrangements would need to be put in place as part of that condition.

·         Councillor Marks asked the local members whether they have any knowledge of any road traffic accidents having taken place at the location? Councillor Miscandlon stated there have been collisions there, both from the nursery and also the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P13/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater thanked the committee for giving him the opportunity to address the meeting on behalf of the applicant and thanked officers for their support in relation to this proposal. He would endorse the officer’s report as a fair and accurate assessment of the proposal with the material considerations and the planning balance necessary to make a positive recommendation.

Mr Slater stated that the site has been vacant for several years and has a short but significant planning history, key to which is the extant planning permission for 4 large 3 /4 bed dwellings, which is a comparison and fallback position against which this application should be considered.

He added that in terms of the suggestion that the proposal is overdevelopment, it is noted that the footprint of the 4 detached dwellings on the previous approval was 528sqm and the footprint of  the 8 semis on the latest scheme is 389.2sqm and, therefore, the footprint of the current proposal is significantly smaller, 26% smaller than the 4 plots previously approved and the current proposal is more in keeping with scale of local development and the prevailing need for smaller 3 bed properties.

Mr Slater stated that following the grant of the previous scheme the local market has changed and there is now limited demand for larger properties and, therefore, in order to maintain an economic viable scheme it has been amended to more closely align to current housing demand in the area.

He expressed the opinion that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 120 confirms that planning decisions made should reflect the changes in demand for development and that much of the current residential development within the village and its surrounds is for larger 4+ bed properties and, therefore, supply of smaller homes is limited.

Mr Slater made the point that the housing need assessment to accompany the new local plan has not yet been carried out and as such the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan, Housing Needs Assessment (including Coates and Eastrea) is the most up to date document, which confirms that there is a need for new homes within the plan area and in particular there is a significant need for smaller family homes.

He added that number of the objectors do, in fact acknowledge the need for smaller homes in the village and he referred members to NPPF at paragraph 122, which confirms planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it and the local market conditions and viability.

Mr Slater stated that with regard to amenity space, it is considered that the current proposal has significantly less impact on residential amenity of adjacent properties than the previously approved scheme with the proposed dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item P14/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent for the application.

Mr Hall explained that the site is located in an area where a number of approvals have been granted over the last two years. He added that the comments are noted from County Council with regard to over development, but they had actually recommended approval when the proposal was for 3 dwellings.

Mr Hall stated that the site is three quarters of an acre in size and this proposal is for 2 bungalows. He added that following previous concerns a turning head is included for emergency and refuse vehicles and the drainage ditch that has been referred to has an ecological report carried out and no concerns were raised.

Mr Hall explained that in conjunction with the Highways Officer various amendments have been made to the private drive and the Byways Officer has also been consulted and both have commented on the application and have raised no objections. He stated that the existing property to the south has retained far greater than a third garden area left and it should be noted that there are other properties in March, which are accessed by a private drive and this proposal is no different to those. Mr Hall stated that he has noted from the officer’s report that there is a plan which shows other developments, which have been approved since 2018, all off of private drives and they do not have passing places. He added that some of these have been approved by the Planning Committee, others by officers, some of which have had permeable block paving and one is a gravel drive with no passing places.

Mr Hall concluded by stating that the proposal is in Flood Zone 1, the broad concept of the site is not at odds with relevant policies, Highways have raised no objections they are single storey units which is a low density development of two bungalows in three quarters of an acre with adequate turning facilities on the site, which will use an existing access point off Mill Hill Lane.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell questioned whether the area that is covered by this application and the area that this application almost land locks, should form part of the work taking place with regard to the Broad Concept Plan? David Rowen stated that it is his understanding that the broad location for growth is the land to the south of the site and the application site is not within the broad location for growth. Councillor Cornwell referred to the land that the application site seems to almost land lock, as there is an area to the north of the site which is not accessible. David Rowen advised that whether a site is land locked should not be a consideration when determining this application and it would be a matter for the land owners to assess  ...  view the full minutes text for item P15/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Bill Haggatta of ChatterisTown Council.

Councillor Haggatta stated that he is speaking on behalf of Chatteris Town Council regarding planning application F/YR20/0356/F concerning the building of 9 houses and wall to serve 133 High Street, Chatteris adding that a previous planning application regarding the same site, but containing 3 houses was approved by Chatteris Town Council and Fenland District Planning Committee, with concerns regarding access being raised. He expressed the view that the same concerns are now also being raised as in the previously approved application, this time due to the addition of 6 more houses, which Chatteris Town Council finds difficult to understand that the additional 6 more houses can make the accessibility more of a problem than the original plan to erect 3 houses, especially as in the past Blackhorse Lane, which exits onto the High Street was used by Harry Phillips Coaches and Enterprise Coaches, who operated several passenger coaches and double decker buses, along with another large transport company SS Motors, which supplied fuel. All were based in Blackhorse Lane, with vehicles constantly entering and exiting onto the High Street and have now ceased to operate from this site.

Councillor Haggatta added that  since the construction of the A142 bypass a great deal of traffic which used to run through Chatteris Town Centre, now avoids the High Street, making it still well used, but considerably less so than when the previously two companies mentioned, used Blackhorse Lane. He expressed the view that Chatteris High Street contains many exits and entrances, very similar to Blackhorse Lane and by the very nature of its past formation, these exits and entrances negotiated with due care, caution and responsibility, are without any more problems than you would expect in any many other similar locations.

Councillor Haggatta expressed the opinion that Chatteris also needs to build more houses for the local economy in these volatile times. He respectfully asked that the committee consider their decision in the light of these comments and vote to support the renewed application and decision of the Chatteris Town Councillors, as in the previous supported application, this time with the additional 6 houses.

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

Mr Bevens explained that when the original applications were prepared back in 2013, the scheme was for 8 dwellings and the Listed Building. He added that despite providing mitigation for that scheme, the Planning Officer and Highways raised objections on the number of dwellings and the junction and so the application was withdrawn with the scheme being amended and one year later after lengthy discussions the scheme was granted for the current extant consent of the Listed Building renovation and repair and 3 x 4 bed executive houses.

Mr Bevens stated that the Planning Officers and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P16/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Burton, the Agent.

Mr Burton explained that this application has been prepared following an appeal decision and is a joint application. He added that this approach has been adopted to overcome the primary reasons for refusal and ensure the proposal abuts the existing built form is no longer separated by the larger area of garden land and is a true village extension as required by LP3.

Mr Burton stated that the applicants are third generation farmers and have lived in Wisbech St Mary for 64 years having recently retired from the farming operations and are hoping to remain in the village in their retirement but to downsize from their current dwelling.

He stated that the proposed site is 2/3^rd of a mile closer to the village centre and a far safer location for walking to the village, which will allow the applicants to remain in the village that they have lived in all their lives, to continue to contribute to the community whether through church or street pride work and to continue as a hobby farmer on the 5 acre grass land to the rear.

Mr Burton stated that the scheme has no objections from technical consultees or local people and in fact has numerous letters of support including the Parish Council and local councillors.

He explained that the proposal is an Outline Application with access committed, the indicative site layout plan demonstrates that the proposal can deliver a high quality development that follows the existing built form and as noted in the appeal inspectors decision the proposal will accord with the development pattern on this side of Bevis Lane.

Mr Burton added that he has attempted to work proactively with officers throughout however; he has only became aware of a number of issues when the reports pack was published and therefore he has reviewed and responded to overcome the reasons listed for refusal.

He referred members to the slides being shown which show that the plans have been amended to include the following:

·         compliant vision splays added within highway boundary

·         tree stumps to be removed to the site frontage and a proposed replacement native hedgerow. It should be noted the stumps were removed to allow for hay harvest and comprised of self-set saplings and the proposed native hedgerow will have greater ecology benefits.

·         existing hedge and trees within the site being retained, respecting the natural boundaries

·         bat and bird boxes being proposed to enhance biodiversity

·         confirmation of the trees to be removed at the access of the Poplars as self-set sycamores and a lightning damaged tree

Mr Burton  expressed the opinion that the updates overcome the majority of the reasons listed for refusal  and added that with regards to sustainable access  it has been noted that the proposed site is within 0.4 miles of the village centre and its services, as such it is considered a sustainable location.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P17/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he is familiar with the area and stated that the house is a large property he notes from the report that the developer has proposed that he intends to make the property into two dwellings, and that he will reside in one of them. Councillor Meekins added that some of the objections are not relevant and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that it is a large property, albeit slightly out of character for the area, however, there are some very large houses in the Trafford Road area. Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the developer has obviously given thought to some of the work they wish to carry out with the area lending itself to two three bedroomed properties and if the proposal means that this old property will be protected, then he will support it.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is pleased to note the planning history and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that the only issues with regard to parking would be at the relevant start and finish times for the two local schools.

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

To consider the appeals report.

David Rowen presented the appeal report to members

Members agreed to note the content of the appeal report.