Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes from the meeting of 24 February 2021.

The minutes of the meeting of the 24 February were agreed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members:

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Councillor David Davies of Whittlesey Town Council.

Councillor Davies stated that as the Ward Councillor for Lattersey on Whittlesey Town Council he objects strongly to the proposed development as it currently stands. He questioned whether the issue concerning the water drainage from the site into the lake to the east of the development has been properly investigated as it is understanding that the owners of that land will refuse permission for that to happen and, therefore, the drainage strategy needs to be revisited.

Councillor Davies stated that the proposed foot path link into Diana Close/ Charles Road has raised many objections to date, there has been over one hundred from residents and it is still a major concern for them in this part of the ward. He added that most are elderly and are concerned about this foot path if it goes ahead, what controls will be put in place to stop it being used as a rat run for motorcycles and bikes and the possibility of anti-social behavior.

Councillor Davies stated that the original Taylor Wimpey plans did remove the footpath following a consultation with the residents, and he added that this is the only consultation that Taylor Wimpey have ever carried out. He added that this proposed footpath only goes to the perimeter of their site and to connect this footpath to Diana Close or Charles Road a new planning submission will need to be submitted and he questioned as to what will happen when someone falls and is injured due to the fact that the ground is uneven?

Councillor Davies reiterated the concerns from the residents regarding the footpath which needs to be revisited due to the number of resident objections and concerns.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Stimson, an objector to the application.

Mr Stimson stated that he is speaking on behalf of all residents who have objected to the footpath link, including himself.  He made the point that there are many elderly and vulnerable residents in the area around Diana Close, who have lived here for many years, and are very worried and anxious about a footpath link and all the additional anti-social issues it will bring.  He expressed the view that the area is already known for drug dealing and this has been witnessed and reported to the Police on numerous occasions over the past couple of years.

Mr Stimson stated that in June 2015 a public meeting was advertised and promoted at the Manor Leisure Centre in Whittlesey, to invite the views of the residents to the initial plans and design of the nursery development, with there even being a book for residents to record their comments and almost all residents who attended objected to the proposed footpath link which was shown on the initial drawings. He stated that to their credit, Taylor Wimpey removed this  ...  view the full minutes text for item P80/20

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members:

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Moules, the applicant.

Mr Moules stated that the design and specification of the full Condition 11 footpath, as produced in conjunction with Cambridgeshire Highways (LHA), has continually grown and the cost now stands at £124,000. He added that the requirement is no longer for just a footpath, but for a considerable road improvement to remedy the longstanding drainage issues along the frontage of other houses of 39-45 Cattle Dyke.

Mr Moules stated that throughout the current application process, he has focused on the viability issues created by this demanding specification for the existing Condition 11 footpath and he is confident that he has succeeded in demonstrating that the £124K cost of the works is too much for the site to bear. He stated that, his own planning and that of other developers, has shown that the site cannot produce an adequate developer return if the full footpath is constructed and added that this explains why it has proved impossible to deliver the site during the past six years.

Mr Moules expressed the view that the Developer Appraisal Tool (DAT) has also shown that the developer return is too low and the deficit shown by the DAT translates to a £10K net profit on a Gross Development Value (GDV) of £1.45m and this is clearly a non-starter. He added that the S106 Officer has suggested that a higher marketing price is used to increase the GDV to improve the situation, however, he disagrees with this approach and stated that he uses land registry out-turn prices valued for the last three months in accordance with the standard property valuation procedures used by surveyors and, in his opinion, the figures are much more accurate than Rightmove aspirational figures, which are invariably discounted.

Mr Moules added that in any event, even if the S106 Officer's GDV figures are used, the developer return would remain too low and the Council’s own Local Plan Viability Assessment (LPVA) methodology used to inform the emerging Local Plan shows an inadequate developer return if applied to this site with the full Condition 11 footpath and, in his opinion, the raw figures are quite startling. He expressed the opinion that in all the crucial areas the costings fail to meet the viability criteria required for site delivery and his off-site costs are 18.8% of direct build costs, whereas the LPVA anticipates 5% for a small greenfield site growing to 15% for a large greenfield site requiring a significant road system and the footpath accounts for most of this excess.

Mr Moules expressed the view that the LPVA uses a 17.5% developer return for its study modelling and accepts 15-20% as reasonable, and if the LPVA pricing maximum for North West Fenland is applied to the site, with adherence to the rest of the methodology, the developer return is between 6-7%, which is way below LPVA and DAT assumed levels and,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P81/20

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members:

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarity with regard to the refuse collection arrangements due to the revised scheme not highlighting the bin collection points on the site layout. Alison Hoffman stated that she has proposed an additional condition detailing the location of the bin collection points to be agreed in writing prior to any occupation of the site.

·         Councillor Miscandlon referred to point 5.1 of the report, which refers to a brick-built bus shelter, and asked whether it would impact the visibility splay? Alison Hoffman stated that the bus shelter was in situ at the time the application was considered in 2017 and she added that the developer has a consent that requires the provision of the visibility splays and the onus will be on them to ensure that they gain the necessary approval to undertake the works required to deliver those splays. She stated that she raised the issue with the agent for the scheme and it was indicated that discussions were ongoing, however, that fact was refuted by the Parish Council. Alison Hoffman stated that if the scheme cannot be undertaken by delivering that matter then they will have to come back with an alternative proposal.

·         David Rowen added that Condition 17 is proposed, which sets out the visibility splays that are required to make the access acceptable and the onus is on the developer to achieve that. He added that if the bus shelter has to be removed in order for that to be achieved, planning permission does not automatically give a right for third party land to do that and an arrangement would have to be made with the Parish Council and also the bus providers, so that an adequate relocation of the shelter can be considered.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he would like to see conditions added to the application to include a vehicle wheel wash to alleviate mud on the highway and a condition to be added to stipulate the working hours permitted when construction is taking place. Alison Hoffman stated that a construction management plan was included as part of the scheme and that was secured as part of the 2017 consent. David Rowen stated that given that the proposal is a variation of condition application it would be unreasonable to impose conditions that go above and beyond those that have already been imposed. He added that the Highway Authority and Police do have powers with regard to mud on the highway and he added that with regard to operating hours, the Environmental Health Team do have powers which could be used if it needs to address any issues which may arise.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the agent and developer must be made aware of their responsibility to ensure that the roads are kept clean during construction

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he carried out a site visit to review the bus  ...  view the full minutes text for item P82/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor John Clark, in support of the application.

Councillor Clark informed members that he has known the applicant’s family for many years and they are a local March born and bred family, adding that he has no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest with the application or with the applicant. He stated that Mr Purse is a ground worker and is looking for somewhere secure to store his plant equipment and machinery, with the first thing that will be implemented prior to construction of a property is the groundworks to add the services.

Councillor Clark stated that he knows the site very well, as it is in his Ward, and he has received no complaints about the site and does not anticipate any if the application is approved.  He expressed the view that when you start a new business, it is very difficult to find suitable and appropriate accommodation to store equipment.

Councillor Clark stated that opposite Silt Road at 107 Upwell Road, members may recall a historic groundworks business which was operated with no problems that he is aware of and that business has not operated for several years since the owner passed away. He stated that the application before members could be seen as a replacement and added that recently planning permission was given to a business to operate at Whitegates Corner, who operate machinery with no issues or concerns either. He asked the committee to support the application with local knowledge he has afforded them.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent.

Mr Bevens stated that members will note from the officer’s report the area where the proposed storage building issituated goes back to 2016 and what has not been helpful is that previous applications have looked to changethe landuse. He added that the proposed storage shed is to be used as ancillary use for the applicant’s recentlyextended and approved bungalow, known as Meadowcroft and the associated detached   garage.

Mr Bevens stated that it is not intended that the storage shed will be used for any Class B use and it is certainly not hisclient’s intention to use it for anything other than to create secure storage for his machinery  associated with his ground working business and separate machinery accumulated fromhobbies, including a vintage tractor, horse box, carts and straw and hay relating totheir horsepassion. He stated that his client looked long and hard for suitable sites in March and the surrounding areas where  he relocate to and store his machinery without general nuisance anddisturbance andthis sitefits thatdescription and there wereno othersuitable propertiesor  sites.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the client has invested a large sum of money in the extensions and alterations to the former  bungalow, known as Meadowcroft, following a successful decision in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P83/20

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

David Rowen presented a written representation on behalf of Councillor Fred Yeulett, as follows:

As a local member for March East, I agree with the Town Councill and support this application. In my opinion the reason for opposing the recommendation in Section 12.1 of the agenda item 8, are not valid. There have been many recent developments on both sides of Upwell Road. In addition, twice as many residents are in support of the application than those opposing the application and the Town Council support the application. On Saturday morning I walked from Elwyn Road to Upwell Park along Upwell Road. I counted 14 backland developments which were of recent construction. Some, such as Mills Gardens and Strawberry Way, of much the same size and scope as the proposed development. The existing settlement pattern is mentioned in 12.1. Precedents have already been set in allowing recent development in the existing settlements and this proposal should be granted permission. Additionally, FDC has consistently failed to meet its house building targets in recent years. Granting permission for this application will help towards meeting these targets and meeting much needed housing demand.

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

Mr Brand stated that there is only one reason given for the refusal of the application, which is that there is significantharm to the character of the area due to its incongruous location, but he feels that these are very subjective matters withno clearlydefined rules, and often amatter ofopinion. He added that before addressing this matter there is a second very important issue,that of consistency of committee decisions, with nine dwellings on a very similar backland site,further out of town, being approved by the Planning Committee, against officers’recommendations, in 2020 andofficers appear to consider this application similar  to that proposal and have been consistent in their recommendations and he expressed the opinion thatthe committeeshould considerconsistency.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the proposalis avery similarbackland location tothe approvednearby scheme and the application site has far less impact on the character of the area, as the 9  dwellingsite is very visibleas youenter Marchalong Upwell Road. He added that the application site has very little impact on the appearance of Upwell Road as it is screenedfrom view byexisting dwellings.

Mr Brand made the point that Policy LP16 of the Local Plan states that schemes should “not adversely impact on the streetscene, settlementpattern orthe landscapecharacter ofthe surrounding area” and, in his view,this application has no adverse impact on the street scene or  settlement pattern. He stated that regarding other issues raised by officers about the character of the area, in their  recommendedreason for refusal theystate protectionof highquality environment and he added that Upwell R  ...  view the full minutes text for item P84/20