Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes from the previous meetings of October 28, 2020 and 11 November, 2020.

The minutes of the meetings of the 28 October and 11 November 2020 were confirmed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Adam Conchie, the Agent.

Mr Conchie explained that the application was deferred by Planning Committee in October for the following three reasons, to explore access to and from the school, the retention of the fence to the eastern boundary and highway safety and he has sought to address these points. He stated that he has engaged with the Headteacher of Westwood Primary School to discuss the possibility of the access to the school and following these discussions the conclusion was that it would not be feasible, however, within the amended plans there are two potential access points to the school should access be required in the future and it would only need the school to move their boundary fence which is in their ownership.

Mr Conchie added that regarding the eastern boundary fence, national and local planning policies promote access and permeability to adjacent areas and in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan it highlights a shortage of accessible open space in the area and states that the proposed development should reduce the need for use of a car and promotes walking and cycling. He added that given the previous comments made by members the amended site plan retains the fence to the eastern boundary, which will unfortunately increase the walking and cycling distance to the town centre from 1km to 1.5km and increase the distance to the nearest entrance to the primary school, and reduce the accessibility to the open space for future residents.

Mr Conchie stated that regarding highway safety, additional personal injury accident data has been obtained from the County Council, which contains data up to July 2020, which is the most up to date information held. He added that the information details 9 collisions over a 6-year period, with only 1 being serious and none were fatal, and the County Council have confirmed that the accident data does not highlight any clusters, there are no March Area Transport Study surveys available that are relevant to the proposed development and have stated that the applicant has provided sufficient data to demonstrate that the development will not have a severe highway impact on the local highway network.

Mr Conchie stated that he has sought to address the three reasons for deferment where he has been able to and he asked the committee to support the application to bring a derelict site into use and provide 50 much needed homes to March.

Members asked Mr Conchie the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is surprised that the County Council have advised that they do not hold any up to date accident data as she has been the Chairman of the March Area Transport Strategy since September 2017 and there is information available. Councillor Mrs French stated that there are three separate speed reduction schemes being worked on Norwood Road and she disputed the accident data that Mr Conchie had  ...  view the full minutes text for item P52/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Hodgson, the Agent.

Mr Hodgson stated that the scheme benefits from outline planning permission, which was granted in 2018 and the reason the application is brought before the committee is due to an objection from March Town Council, however, in his opinion, the Town Council may not be aware that the outline permission already exists due to the comments that they have made. He stated that the Town Council have raised concerns over access, however, the access in detail has already been agreed, it has also cited the proposal as overdevelopment of the site, however, the principal of development for 9 units has already been agreed and it has also stated a concern with regard to trying to avoid social housing, however, this appears to contradict their concerns of overdevelopment, due to the fact that if there had been an element of social housing then there would have been more than 9 units, which would have made the site more dense.

Mr Hodgson stated that the reason that he did not proceed with the reserved matters application was due to the fact that previously there was some land to the rear of 22 Knights End Road, where a land swap was going to take place to make the alignment of the access slightly different, but this did not happen and, therefore, the red line had to be altered at the rear of number 22 and this is the only change to the original outline scheme. He added that there are 3 bungalows on the site, there is no overbearing impact and all plots will be of a decent size and of a good design.

Members asked Mr Hodgson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what the purpose is with the regard to the retention of one of the buildings highlighted on the presentation? Mr Hodgson explained that the building was outside of the red line and referred to the presentation screen where the building being retained is being kept by the owner of the land and does not form part of the application. Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not believe that the Town Council were aware that the application already had outline planning permission and she does not have any objection to the layout. She added that she presumes that the developer is going to realign the public footpath and Mr Hodgson confirmed that it does form part of their proposal. Councillor Mrs French stated that she hopes that the building that is being retained will not form part of a later proposal, which will mean that the 9 units will be exceeded.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he notices some of the buildings to be demolished appear to be constructed of asbestos and he asked whether this will be removed and disposed of appropriately? Mr Hodgson confirmed that any necessary works will be carried out under a special licence  ...  view the full minutes text for item P53/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the reports to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ben Oakley of SAVE Britain’s Heritage.

Mr Oakley explained that SAVE Britain’s Heritage is a national heritage charity that has been campaigning for historic buildings and their reuse since it was established in 1975 and as a non-statutory organisation it receives no government funding. SAVE selects very carefully the cases it chooses to comment on, and those it decides to pursue at Planning Committee and given the principles at stake with today’s applications with regard to upholding national planning policies for the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment, SAVE has chosen to raise its concerns at today’s Planning Committee meeting. He added that as the Conservation Officer for SAVE, he wished to draw the committee’s attention to three urgent breaches of national planning policy guidance he has identified in these applications seeking the demolition of the curtilage Listed Coach House at 22 London Road, Chatteris:

Mr Oakley contested the erroneous claim in the applicant’s Heritage Statement that the Coach House “is not considered as a heritage asset within the listing description of 22 London Road, indeed it is not even noted as having group value”. He stated that the former Coach House is a Grade II curtilage Listed structure, protected by law under the Planning Act (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990 as a designated heritage asset to the same degree as the Grade II Listed house at 22 London Road, with Historic England’s Planning Advice Note 10 ‘Listed Buildings and Curtilage’ helpfully providing an almost exact case study of the listed status of a house and curtilage coach house.

Mr Oakley expressed the view that SAVE consider the applicant has, therefore, failed to fully describe the heritage significance of the heritage assets impacted by their proposals, as required by law under Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019. He added that, having failed to sufficiently understand the significance of the assets affected, this application has not represented the level of harm arising from total demolition and consequently not offered sufficient justification or articulation of public benefit to outweigh this harm, as required by Paragraphs 194 and 195 of the NPPF 2019 and for the sake of clarity, SAVE do not consider the provision of one private dwelling with no public access to be a public benefit.

Mr Oakley expressed the opinion that the application is not compliant with the requirements of national policy guidance and added that the planning system is in place, to define and manage the positive contribution of historic buildings, not describe their lack of significance to justify demolition. He stated that the fact that this single application has drawn objections from four national heritage bodies (the Council for British Archaeology, the Victorian Society, Ancient Monuments Society and SAVE) is unusual and significant.

Mr Oakley concluded by expressing the view that it is a matter of legal duty and principle  ...  view the full minutes text for item P54/20

To agree appropriate planning conditions.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Lawrence Weetman from the Civic Society - Chatteris Past, Present & Future.

Mr Weetman stated that he strongly agrees with the Planning Officer, and the Chief Archaeologist’s comments, and he urged councillors to apply the archaeological conditions to this application as presented. He stated that the proposed development at 25 Victoria Street lies within the boundary of the medieval Chatteris Abbey and it is merely a matter of yards from a previous archaeological survey, at 19 Victoria Street, where at the November planning meeting, the committee was advised that “a body was found”, but the report from that archaeological survey actually references six skeletons by number and these human remains were found very close to the surface - between two feet and three-and-a-half feet underground.

Mr Weetman referred to the report which said  “The number and extent of inhumations and disarticulated human skeletal remains revealed across the length of the trench, combined with the mixture of age ranges of the individuals, strongly suggests that the proposed development is located within a secular or lay cemetery within the abbey precinct.” He stated that the report goes on to say: “The depth and extent of the burial ground is not known but could be considerable.”, with the report even speculatings that: “It is possible that the burials uncovered in the trench are part of a parochial cemetery that was in use over a long period of time (perhaps hundreds of years).”

Mr Weetman stated that given the close proximity of the proposed site to the previous survey at 19 Victoria Street, the probability of a potentially extensive burial ground, and given that the remains were discovered so close to the surface, there is a very real possibility that the proposed development could disturb human remains. He made the point that the Senior Archaeological Officer has reminded the Council that disturbing burials without a licence is against Section 25 of The Burial Act of 1857 and the cost of exhuming human remains can be extremely prohibitive, so it seems as though it would be in the best interests of the developer, the Council, and local residents if a proper survey is carried out ahead of any building work .and, in his view, would help avoid a part-complete development being left abandoned within the town.

Mr Weetman expressed the view that there are substantial opportunities here and stated that it is the earliest settlement in Chatteris, but it remains largely unexplored since most of the buildings in this area pre-date the times of routine archaeological surveys. He stated that the lack of an archaeological survey would not only miss an important opportunity to learn more about Chatteris’ past but could completely destroy any opportunity to ever learn more.

Mr Weetman expressed the opinion that Councillors should ask themselves whether there is any need to reject the archaeological conditions that have been proposed, since there seems  ...  view the full minutes text for item P55/20

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 on behalf of Manea Parish Council.

Mr Melton stated that there have been no objections raised by the Parish Council, County Council or Network Rail and the Environment Agency have made no further comment on the application and residents have also raised no concerns regarding the application. Mr Melton referred members to the list of conditions and highlighted LP2, facilitating health and wellbeing of Fenland residents and pointed out the key issues where it states residential amenity, health and wellbeing.

Mr Melton referred to 9.3 of the officer’s report where it states that the application seeks to provide an annexe for the applicant’s mother and he stated that the existing type of annexe building already in place in the vicinity for industrial use have proved to be unsuccessful. He added that he takes issue with the point at 9.4 of the report where it states that the proposal is prominently visible from the street scene, expressing the opinion that from the photograph it is tucked right at the back and a single storey building can be seen with solar panels on the top and the proposal will be raised up and the design will be a lot better than what is already in existence.

Mr Melton expressed the opinion that Government and moral policy is that members of the community should take the time to look after the elderly population rather than placing people into care homes, which is costly to the families and the state, and he is pleased to see that officers have acknowledged this and it is something that should be encouraged. He added that the report states that the north and eastern side is bounded by agricultural land and he feels that this is irrelevant as the south of the site is the workplace home of 82-84 Charlemont Drive, who would be impacted the most by the proposal and they have not raised any objection.

Mr Melton referred to the point regarding the introduction of a sensitive use in closer proximity to a workplace, which could result in constraints on the existing business and stated that he does not agree with that statement and also questioned the comment made with regard to the proposal altering the character of the estate. He pointed out 9.14 where it states that the development is in closer proximity to the railway line than the main dwelling and concerns have been raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Team regarding the noise impact of this and expressed the opinion that this is not a planning reason and should not be taken into consideration. He concluded by stating that the opinion of Manea Parish Council is that this application should be approved.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, from Ann Marks.

Mrs Marks stated that she is speaking in support of the application and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P56/20