Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 29 July 2020

The minutes of the meeting of 29 July 2020 were confirmed subject to the amendment of adding Councillor Miscandlon to the list of those Members in attendance, who was acting as a substitute member for Councillor Mrs Mayor.

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 David Broker, the Agent.

Mr Broker explained that the application has been re-submitted in its previous form following a delegated decision to refuse adding that at that time the Town Council supported the scheme and were surprised by the decision. He explained that the application is before the Committee today with support from the Town Council and 9 Lettersof support, one letter of objection and no Comments from County Highways or ConservationOfficer. He stated that CAMBS Historic Environment have no Objection ormodifications..

Mr Broker stated that the applicant has lived at 30 Park Lane for over 40 years and has recently found it necessary through failing health to form anannexe to the house forherself enabling her son and his family to occupy the main house and be on hand for her future care. He added that the applicant’s son has young children and has the front garden which is enclosed for their recreation making it visually secure from the very many people who use the road en route to Park Lane School. He stated that the rear garden to the property was the subject of intense scrutiny for bio diversity when the extension was approved and as such is only suitable for the applicant herself who is a keen ecologist; young children playing are not conducive to frogs, newts and other species that exist in the garden.

Mr Broker stated that the fence is on a particularly tight bend in the road and theprevious over grown hedging and dilapidated fencing overhung the road obstructing forward visibility around thebend. He expressed the opinion that the new fence is an overall improvement and is certainly no more prominent than the 1.8m high common brick wall which dominates the back of the footpath to the North East of the application site.

Mr Broker added that it has been suggested that the height of the fence be reduced but this is not an option which can be practically achieved and still retain the visual security required.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she has known the applicant for some considerable years. She added that she disagrees with the statement at 2.2 in the officer’s report, which states that the site forms the edge of the Whittlesey Conservation Area, and it is also adjacent to the Grade II Listed Building of 7 Horsegate which is around the double bend from this property and it is only the north east corner of the applicants garden which is actually anywhere near 7 Horsegate. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she has noted that only one property in Horsegate has responded as part of the consultation process and number 7 has not raised any objection at all. She added that the property who has objected to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P21/20

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Henry Adams, the Applicant.

Mr Adams explained the background of the development and advised that he purchased the property 18 months ago with the aim of his proposal to improve the look of the building and to enhance and improve the streetscene. He explained that he has worked with the agents to make the building look visually attractive and that there have been security issues to date which have been addressed with new locks and CCTV, however there are still issues with regard to flytipping.

Mr Adams stated that with regard to parking, the double garages which can be seen on the plans, these were already bricked up and out of use prior to his purchase. He added that the two parking spaces are leased out to the dog grooming business.

Mr Adams concluded by stating that there will be an outside functional courtyard space created for the residents, which in a town centre location is an added benefit and it will utilise the area which is currently suffering from issues of fly tipping.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·     Councillor Murphy expressed the view that he is pleased to see where the refuse and recycling has been accommodated and asked for clarification with regard to one of the conditions where it states that the boundary treatments and access control measures shown, shall be fully implemented and maintained in perpetuity thereafter and he asked who will be maintaining this and where is this documented?. Gavin Taylor stated that whoever is controlling this building will be responsible for ensuring that they are maintained in perpetuity and if the property is sold then the planning condition will remain with the land

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

·         Councillor Meekins stated this property is in his ward and he is well aware of the issue of fly tipping at that location with it being unsightly for many years.

·         He stated that he has noted that Wisbech Town Council have objected to the application as they feel it is over development, however in his opinion he does not feel this is the case pointing out  in the vicinity of the application site there are other blocks of flats and apartments and he does not think that the proposal for an additional 6 flats should be classed as over development in this case. Councillor Meekins made the point that on the Old Market in Wisbech there are currently 3 empty commercial units which are available to let.

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the view that when he had cause to visit this site over the last year, he found it to be quite unnerving. He added he was able to access the entrance without any issue and, therefore, he is pleased to hear that the door is now secured by keyfobs and CCTV.

·         Councillor Meekins added that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P22/20

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 David Broker, the Agent.

Mr Broker explained that this scheme came before committee in May this year with support from the Parish Council and 6 letters of support from neighbouring residents with this support being reiterated in the officer’s report and update. He added that the Planning Committee had previously voted against the Officer’s recommendation and approved 3 houses on the opposite side of the road in the same location.

He made the point that in the in the previous application the committee had determined to go against Officer’s recommendation issuing a refusal for reasons only related to details for the access visibility splays with the committee had recognising the merit of the development and did not consider it as an elsewhere location.

Mr Broker stated that immediately after the meeting he contacted the Head of Planning, who agreed in writing that if a new application, including suitable splay details were submitted it ought to be decided under delegated powers, however 6 days ago, including a 3 day Bank Holiday and 3 days of the Fenland web site being off line, he was informed that the application is to be heard by committee today as it had been referred by the Head of Planning. He added that it is because of an appeal decision of refusal for another so called elsewhere site in Fenland.

Mr Broker stated that in this application he has submitted the appropriate information as required for visibility splays which has been approved and identifies that splays in excess of those required by the traffic survey can be achieved and that the access is acceptable all to County Council Highways requirements. He explained that the Parish Council  have requested speed reduction features and the applicant is fully prepared to provide these along with the footpath to the bus Shelter and path and crossing improvements in that area. Mr Broker added that a letter of objection highlight traffic concerns but all Highways responses discount those concerns.

Mr Broker asked members to compare the location of the application site with the appeal site in question at Crooked Bank Wisbech which bears no resemblance to the application site other than titled an elsewherelocation. He stated that it is accessed off an unmade track barely wide enough for a single vehicleto enter and exiting onto a blind bend in the road. no foot paths, no bus route, no services and this can be seen clearly on Google..

He made the point that through his 45 years of making planning applications officers always insist that each application is considered on its own merit, however, in this case, he does not understand the comparison between the 2 sites.

Mr Broker expressed the opinion that members have recognised the need to support its rural communities in this respect and in strict contradiction to 10 of the 14  ...  view the full minutes text for item P23/20

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

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 consultees including March Town Council and Cambridgeshire County Council Highways team support the application. He added that the proposal is for a modest three bedroomed dwelling to match other dwellings in Norwalde Street and Robingoodfellows Lane with the site area being 180 square metres and the dwelling  57 square metres in size which takes up a third of the site with the remainder for a garden and parking.

Mr Hall added that within the officer’s report between 10.6 and 10.10, there are no concerns raised with regard to overlooking or over shadowing and there are no concerns with regard to any of the adjacent properties. He added that there are numerous types of this proposal in March which have been built out and these include properties in Ash Grove, Hawthorne Grove, Orchard Road, Henson Road and St Marys Drive.

Mr Hall referred members to the photographs being displayed as part of his presentation and identified the properties in Russell Avenue and West Close which he feels are similar to the proposal before members today. He highlighted to members that the properties previously approved do not fall in line with each other and are stepped back, very similar to the proposal before the members today.

Mr Hall concluded by stating that there are no objections, from the Highways Authority or the statutory consultees. The proposal falls within flood zone 1 and matches in with adjacent properties and the applicant is happy to agree materials with officers.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the agent has shown photographs of properties in West Close and added that if you transpose that onto the map of Norwalde Street on page 76 of the officer’s report, the new build properties are almost in line with what would be the equivalent of number 44. He expressed the view that the comparison cannot be taken as like for like and asked officers to clarify.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that essentially the properties in West Close show a step effect arrangement between the existing buildings fronting Russell Avenue, leading back into West Close and the infill actually steps whereas the proposal before members today protrudes beyond the build line, so he does not consider the two are comparable in his opinion.

·         Councillor Murphy made comments regarding the impact on the street scene.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that proposal falls within his ward and added that on page 76 of the officers report, it shows that every property has a frontage and added that if you draw a line from 28 to number 44 Robingoodfellows Lane, the proposal sits way ahead of the building line and is out of keeping with the rest of properties in the area. He added that he has  ...  view the full minutes text for item P24/20

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

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

Mr Edwards stated that the application before members is for a bungalow, and there has been a number of new dwellings developed in the area He added that the proposal has been revised since it was before committee the last time to address the various points that were raised with the main revision being to address the points raised by Councillor Lynn of a 2 storey dwelling being imposing on neighbouring properties and the proposal is now for a single storey dwelling.

Mr Edwards added that the proposed dwelling is In line with the existing nissen hut, which proves a built form is in existence and removes the open nature and it is not open countryside. He stated that the proposed dwelling is level with the rear of the nissen hut and does not increase built form from what already exists. Mr Edwards explained that the proposal has a public footpath following a previous approval, which will link the dwelling to the settlement of Wimblington, so therefore, it is now a sustainable location. He added that this area of Wimblington has a mixture of 2 storey developments and also a mixture of styles and types of accommodation and the proposal mirrors this and will utilise an area neglected, which already has a built form on it.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal comes with letters of support from villagers both within the village as a whole and from Eastwood End and the points they raise are all relevant to this application. He stated that there have been no letters of objection received. Mr Edwards added that Wimblington is a growth village under LP3, and is therefore, capable of developments of this nature. He added that additional reports and information have been provided to address the issues surrounding flood risk and the sight line is through to the open countryside which has been maintained, and there will be minimal to no impact to neighbouring properties and the area in general.

Mr Edwards added that on the previous appeal on the site, the Inspector’s key finding was that the principle of the dwelling was acceptable, given that the site was not remote from the services or facilities of Wimblington and future residents would support those services. He added that with the footpath link previously mentioned it will provide access to the village. Mr Edwards concluded that this will provide an additional much needed home, which is far better than a person living in temporary accommodation.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Edwards to confirm why he had failed to mention the objection from the Parish Council? Mr Edwards stated that the Parish Council has been consistent in their view throughout the application process as they deem it to be in open countryside, which is contrary to his view.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P25/20