Agenda and minutes

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated to members.

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

·      Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that London Road and Ferry Hill have always been part of Chatteris. He stated that he does not class the proposal as being in an elsewhere location and feels that the proposed location is also in a sustainable position. He added that there is the need for housing in Chatteris to ensure no further services and facilities are lost and expressed the view that it is a good development which he will be supporting.

·      Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that the proposal is in an elsewhere location and is a distance from the built up area of Chatteris. He expressed the view that it cannot be classed as infill development and there is no footpath or lighting on that particular stretch of the road. Councillor Murphy added that the proposal is against the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and also against Policies LP3 and LP16 of the current Local Plan.

·      Councillor Hay expressed the view that she agrees with Councillor Murphy and stated that although there will be a new Local Plan in time, it is the current Local Plan which members should be considering when determining applications. Councillor Hay stated that the proposal does go against LP3 and LP16 and added that on the site opposite where permission had been granted for 3 dwellings this was infill development. She stated that Chatteris Town Council are also recommending refusal because they consider the proposal to be outside of the development area and the fact that it has no footpath or street lighting. 

·      Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that it is infill development adding that the other property is on Ferry Hill albeit set back in the woods. He stated that when consideration has been given to the proposed new Local Plan, Councillor Hay had put forward that the building line should be taken further down Ferry Hill. He expressed the view that although the proposal may not be fully compliant with the current Local Plan, it will be when the new Local Plan is introduced.

·      Councillor Hay stated that Councillor Benney is correct and she did think it would be sensible to move the boundary going forward; however, members still need to abide with the current Local Plan.

·      Councillor Sutton stated that he has listened to the other members and he expressed the opinion that this proposal is in an elsewhere location and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she will be supporting the officer’s recommendation, as the Local Plan policies need to be followed.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation. This was not supported on a vote by members, which included the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P84/19

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

David Rowen read out a written representation received from David Broker, the Agent for the application.

Mr Broker referred members to the executive summary within the officer’s report which states that this is an elsewhere location thus being void of all chance of development although there are 25 dwellings in the hamlet of Bunkers Hill.  He stated that with regard to the flood risk, only a very small part of the site is within Flood Zone3, adding that the recommended floor level is 300 mm above ground level and this is typical for all new build properties in Fenland.

Mr Broker stated that with regard to the absence of a sequential test, why would the owner of thisspecific site be looking for a site which he didn’t own elsewhere.  He highlighted aspects of previous applications which had been submitted including a previous application which was refused but under a former developmentplan.

Mr Broker stated that in previous applications the Planning Officer refers to Bunkers Hill comprising linear development, which is precisely what this is. “Linear Development. He explained that the geometry of the access in question can easily be conditioned for technical detailing as part of a Reserved Matters application stating that a revised plan was sent to County Highways in response to a former comment to which they have not responded, but they do not object in principal to theapplication.

Mr Broker explained to members that he has made reference to a recent application on the opposite side of the road which came before the Planning Committee in 2019 and was approved although the Planning Officer had put forward an almost identical case why it should be refused. He added that on that occasion it was recognised that there was the need for future sustainability of rural communities and the need for housing in rural areas.

Mr Broker concluded by stating that the applicant owns the land, he is a builder by trade and this is an opportunity to provide business and work for himself and local tradesmen and he asked members to please let common sense prevail.

Member asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarification with regard to the terminology of visibility splay as contained within the officer’s report. David Rowen stated that this means the distance initially set back from the road and by a certain distance down the road, to ensure cars have adequate visibility down the road in either direction.

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

·      Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he has concerns over the visibility splay. He stated that he is reluctant to support an application which could put motorists in danger exiting the property and, therefore, he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·      Councillor Hay stated that the visibility splay is drawn through the fence line to the host property and is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P85/19

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 John Cutteridge, the applicant.

Mr Cutteridge stated that he is proposing to build 2 average size family properties, however, the Council have said that these are not appropriate without a footpath being installed.  He stated that the land opposite has had 10 homes recently built and added that the Parish Council have given full support to the proposal with there also being 100 letters of support from the village.

Mr Cutteridge stated that Hospital Road gets at least 40 dog walkers, runners and pedestrians per day and he expressed the opinion that this may be due to his business planting over 10,000 trees in their Woodland and many metres of hedging, making it a more desirable area.  He added that there has not been any accident involving pedestrians along this stretch of public highway without a footpath and, therefore, cannot see why one is needed now questioning whether the Council are suggesting that the road is unsafe for all these regular  users?

Mr Cutteridge stated that the Council have also suggested the properties will spoil the landscape, but he expressed the view that he cannot see how this can be as they will be situated behind a large native hedge and between an existing bungalow and the large new hospital building. He stated that he is not looking to develop this area to fund hispersonal lifestyle, but to financially help develop his family run business and in turn create new jobs in Fenland along with helping the local economy.

Members asked the applicant the following questions:

·      Councillor Marks asked for clarification on where the 10 dwellings that Mr Cutteridge had referred to were and asked whether it was those dwellings on the Benwick Road? Mr Cutteridge confirmed that they have been built on the land opposite the access to the proposed site.

·      Councillor Meekins asked for clarity with regard to the nursery business. Mr Cutteridge confirmed that he already has an existing nursery business and he would like to sell the land for the building plots to give a financial increase to the business in order for it to be developed further.

·      Councillor Marks asked for confirmation as to whether Mr Cutteridge intends to live in either of the proposed two dwellings? Mr Cutteridge confirmed that is not the intention.

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

·      Councillor Hay stated that Hospital Road it is a very narrow road and has very few passing places and added that she is concerned about the increase of another two dwellings. She also noted that on the edge of the site there are also electricity cables which she also has concerns over.

·      Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he has mixed feelings over the proposal. He stated that with regard to the 74 letters of support submitted by the Agent, 10 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P86/19

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 Gareth Edwards, the agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the applicants are long established residents of Eastwood End and that the site is a vacant piece of land positioned on the corner of Eastwood End.  He added that the site has had many uses over the years, including accommodation of mobile homes and a workshop, some of which still exist adding that unless developed the site will remain unused. He made the point that there is built up residential development on either side of the highway.

Mr Edwards stated that planning permission was refused on the site in 2017 and as a result was subsequently appealed. He added that the Inspector’s key findings were that the principle of the dwelling was acceptable given that the site is not remote from the services or facilities in Wimblington and future residents would support these services.

Mr Edwards stated that the appeal for a dwelling was refused for reasons of the scale, bulk, height and siting on the front part of the site would compromise the sense of space and openness. This was exacerbated by the prominent position within the site where it would be visible from vantage points along Eastwood End.

Mr Edwards stated that the dwelling has been positioned further back within the site to allow for views to the open countryside from the critical vantage point to the west on Eastwood End and it should be noted that that the site is not visible from the east (Hook Road). A single-storey garage element is positioned to the north of the site, which will allow for views to the countryside beyond and the site is lower than the highway which means that the dwelling will appear less visually intrusive.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is located within flood zones 1, 2 and 3 with the dwelling positioned in flood zone 1, which emphasises the acceptability of the site. He expressed the view that officers have objected to the proposal on the grounds of the site being located outside of an established settlement which goes against what the Planning Inspector had said when he said that the site had access to services and facilities and did not object to the principle of development.

Mr Edwards added that appeals in other parts of the District have been used to object to the proposal in principle, however, in his opinion, this doesn’t make sense when there is an appeal relating to this specific site which says that it is within a settlement. He concluded by stating that there have been letters from local residents in support of the application.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·      Councillor Marks asked for clarification with regard to the height of the property once the ground is levelled? David Rowen confirmed that the property would sit slightly higher than that of the existing property  ...  view the full minutes text for item P87/19