To confirm the minutes from the previous meetings of  23 September and 7 October 2020.

The minutes of the meetings of the 23 September and the 7 October 2020 were approved.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alan Melton of Manea Parish Council.

Mr Melton highlighted to members 5.4 of the officer’s report which refers to the submission from the Cambridgeshire County Council Rights of Way Officer, and he expressed the opinion that it is a very ambiguous statement  that has been made, as it states that the Definitive Map Team have no objection, but in the recommendation, it forms a reason for refusal.  In his view, the Highways Officer and Definitive Rights of Way Officer have not visited the site and have only come to their conclusions by reviewing Google Maps.

Mr Melton referred members to LP15 of the Fenland Local Plan which states that development should be well designed, safe and have convenient access for all and made the point that the Planning Officer has already mentioned that the original suggestion was for two dwellings, but the applicant sought advice from officer’s and reduced the proposal to one property. He stated that the main concern of the Parish Council is concerning the segregated pedestrian pathway, but he has visited the site and has driven down the roadway and, in his opinion, there is adequate room for a vehicle and pedestrians and that while it is a public right of way, which is not owned by the County Council, it is very unlikely that there will ever be a constant flow of traffic or pedestrians.

Mr Melton stated that a couple of years ago the Council approved an application, which was 100 yards away from the proposal before them today and this dwelling was between the two bends without adequate width or access and it was granted against the Parish Council’s recommendation. He referred to the officer’s report which refers to a single dwelling in a growth village with every planning permission granted helping towards the Council’s housing targets and, in the opinion of the Parish Council, the refusal is not justified and the Highway Authority do not direct planning refusals, they only advise.

Members asked Mr Melton the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Melton for clarification regarding ownership of the public right of way? Mr Melton stated that nobody appears to know who owns it, but the County Council have advised that they do not own it and Manea Parish Council do not own it, but with the help of the applicant and the Parish Council’s own team and by paying the County Council a sum of money each year, they do maintain it for the public to use. Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a new Public Rights of Way Officer at the County Council, and the intention is for all Public Rights of Way to be upgraded across Fenland. She added that if the application was approved what effect would it have on the Public Right of Way? Mr Melton stated there is an access off the road which leads to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P48/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor James Carney of Chatteris Town Council.

Councillor Carney stated that Chatteris Town Council believe that both applications should be seen in a favourable light and with regard to the Park Street application, which is in a prominent position along Park Street, the Town Council are pleased to see that the original frontage would be restored and in keeping with the rest of the street. He expressed the view it is a fine old house and it is encouraging to see the main part of the house being retained adding that at the rear of the house through the archway are the workshops which were an addition at a later stage and do not form part of the main fabric of the house.

Councillor Carney stated that on a previous occasion he has been inside the property and it is clear that the buildings to the rear do not add to the attractiveness of the dwelling and therefore, the Town Council do not feel that the comments raised by the Conservation Officer are valid, stating that the buildings detract from the street scene and the Conservation Area as you do not actually see the old workshops from the street itself. The Town Council are very pleased to see the proposal for the main building is to be kept and restored and have noted the comments made with regard to the lean to at the back of the building, which has different types of glass in it and a representative from the design company visited the Town Council to present on the proposals and it was asked whether the old glass could be used in some form or restored, but if that was not possible could it be gifted to the museum.

Councillor Carney added that regarding parking there were no concerns raised by the Town Council, as there would be parking through the archway and to the rear of the house and there is on street parking in the Town Centre.

Councillor Carney stated that regarding the Victoria Street aspect of the application, the developer has stated that regarding parking there are four spaces in place plus two additional spaces for visitors and made the point that there are other developments in Chatteris which have been approved which have no on-site parking at all. He expressed the view that the proposal has been designed to replicate other properties along Victoria Street and this has been welcomed by the Town Council as it will not be out of keeping with the rest of the street and area.

Councillor Carney added that the point regarding the site requiring an archaeological investigation may be raised later, but overall, the Town Council are of the opinion that the proposals will be an improvement on what is currently in place.

Members asked Councillor Carney the following questions:

·         Councillor Lynn asked Councillor Carney to clarify whether he  ...  view the full minutes text for item P49/20

To consider the appeals report.

David Rowen presented the appeals report to members.

Members asked question, made comments and received responses regarding the appeal on planning applicationF/YR20/0107/F as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what the associated costs were regarding the appeal decision? Nick Harding stated that the costs were £1650 and added that he was disappointed with the costs award as the Inspector agreed the access was substandard, however, he appeared to penalise the Council with those costs even though he agreed that the access was substandard and was a reason for refusal.

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether the cost award was negotiated? Nick Harding stated that he reviewed the invoice and there was nothing that he could contest.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that she did not think that the Council had acted unreasonably in this case and she asked whether there was any right of appeal when costs are awarded? Nick Harding stated that the only right of appeal that the Council would have would be to make a legal challenge to the decision made and given the costs involved in this appeal it would not be financially worth doing. A complaint could be made to the Planning Inspectorate regarding a poor decision, but that would not make any difference to the award of costs.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for an explanation regarding what the material differences are in this case compared to the earlier discussion with regard to the planning application in the Old Dairy Yard in Manea? Nick Harding stated that the application that members considered earlier was the pedestrian vehicular conflict that would possibly take place along the length of the track to the application site, whereas in the appeal decision it was the adequacy of the visibility splay where the track met with the adopted highway. David Rowen added that there is also a significant difference in that the Old Dairy Yard was a Public Right of Way which Causeway Close was not.

·         Councillor Marks asked how the costs awarded are calculated? Nick Harding stated that in order to contest the appeal, the applicant, employs somebody to make the appeal, provide the evidence and it is that consultants invoice that the Council pays. Councillor Marks asked whether there is a ceiling figure? Nick Harding stated that there isn’t and added that he assesses the invoices and reviews the time that they have indicated that they have spent on dealing with the appeal is fair and reasonable and if he is of the opinion that it is unreasonable then he will challenge the amount of the invoice, but in this case he could not identify any points of argument.