Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes from the meetings held on 6 May and 7 May 20.

The minutes of the meetings held on the 6 and 7 May 2020, were confirmed.

To inform Planning Committee members of the results of the Local Plan Viability Report

Nick Harding presented the Local Plan Viability Report to members.

Members asked officer’s the following questions;

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that he is disappointed to see the constraints that the Council are going to have to work with. He referred to 12.63 in the officer’s report, where it states that in the northern part of the District, the scope to receive financial contributions from the developer is limited and to that end he questioned whether those provisions will form part of the Garden Town Project in Wisbech? Nick Harding stated that the Garden Town is not a proposal which is going to feature in the allocation within the new Local Plan, due to the lead in time for that development proposal being in excess of the planned period that the new Local Plan is going to be accommodating. He added that some of the work that has been carried out on the new Garden Town has looked at viability and  has recognised that a different delivery model would have to be used and it was decided that a development corporation would have to be formed to make that development happen.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to 12.51 of the officer’s report where it mentions base appraisals and asked whether there is the assumption that this information now overrides the 2014/15 ministerial statement. Nick Harding stated that the document does not override the ministerial statement and the only way we could ask for affordable housing to be provided on sites that are less than 10 dwellings is if we had in our new Local Plan clear evidence that this was needed in order to satisfy affordable housing need and it did not render small sites unviable.

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarity with regard to what kudos should be given to the document if an application is presented which states that the developer pays nothing at all and also what weight would an inspector give to the document, if there was a difference in opinion between the Council and the Inspector. Nick Harding stated that the viability report is generic in terms of its outlook and whilst it has tried to analyse a variety of development types, it can never be as good as a site specific viability assessment. 

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification and stated that when considering the Womb Farm agenda item, according to the officer’s report the applicant is going to provide the amount of affordable housing, in line with the viability report being discussed. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that there is nothing to stop the developer coming back at the reserved matters stage with a site specific assessment where there is no affordable housing provided and asked whether he has understood that correctly. Nick Harding stated that there is always that risk and always will be, when dealing with development. He suggested that with any application that is considered, the purpose of the Section 106 Agreement is to mitigate the impact that could be generated by that development.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/19

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Alan Gowler from Chatteris Town Council.

Councillor Gowler stated that overall, the general feeling from Chatteris Town Council is that this is a good development and it is highly welcomed.

He expressed the opinion that it includes affordable housing within it, which is in high demand and stated that the Town Council welcome the proposed improvements to bus stops and the fact that there will be a much needed footpath built to link the Doddington Road area to the Larham Way/Jacks underpass to prevent the need for people, particularly schoolchildren to cross the very busy A141 at Slade End roundabout.  He added that the Town Council are slightly disappointed at the width of the path/cycleway.

Councillor Gowler expressed the view that with regard to the busy road, the one major objection that the Town Council have is the proposed access from the southern development directly onto the A141.  He added that the submission from Highways in the officer’s report at 10.27 and 10.28 is simply astounding and it mentions ”No evidence of congestion", "Not give rise to severe transport impact".  He stated that Town Councils have compulsory input in planning matters due to the local knowledge that they hold on the areas likely to be impacted for various reasons and in this case, it is difficult to imagine a worse place to put a junction in the whole of Chatteris.

Councillor Gowler added that the small piece of road between the Jacks roundabout and Slade End roundabout gets extremely congested at both morning and evening rush hour with traffic tailing back sometimes nearly to the previous (Stainless Metalcraft) roundabout.  He expressed the opinion that he personally knows of several people who have told him that when they leave both Jacks and places of work on the Honeysome Industrial Estate they turn right at busy times and go all the way through Chatteris Town Centre in order to head towards Doddington, March and Ely. 

Councillor Gowler added that basically, Chatteris Town Centre is already being used as a "rat-run" and this entrance will fully exasperate this totally unacceptable situation. He dadded that he would implore the relevant authorities to investigate this and to consider a course of action to alleviate it including the possibility of a 30mph speed limit.  He stated that regarding the Womb Farm development the Town Council would ask for  the following solution to be taken into account which would be to have just one entrance to the development from Doddington Road and to use the A141 entrance as the emergency entrance as is currently proposed between the two distinct developments.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr David Miller, the joint applicant for the proposal.

Mr Miller explained that he has prepared and submitted the outlineplanning applicationthat isbefore members today in partnershipwith  ...  view the full minutes text for item P90/19

To advise Members on the requirements of the National Planning Policy Guidance in respect of the requirement and procedure to update the Council's Local Validation List.

Nick Harding presented the Adoption of Planning Validation report to members.

Members asked questions, made comments and receive responses as follows;

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he would like further time to consider the information sent to members and requested a deferment of the item.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that he will not be voting on this item as he requires further information before he can make a decision.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Hay and agreed that the item be DEFERRED to the next meeting.

Members to consider the adoption of a Local Planning Enforcement Plan

Nick Harding presented the Local Planning Enforcement Plan report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions;

·         Councillor Sutton stated that there are certain scenarios and situations which arise, which mean that the five day notice in the proposed timeline will not be acceptable and therefore he would like to see something in the policy which reflects, that if members have serious issues or concerns then the 5 day timeline is reduced to an immediate response. Nick Harding stated that a revision could be added where it states that the Council will go out sooner where the harm arising is immediate and so significant that it warrants a speedier response

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is happy to approve the policy subject to the slight amendment as Nick Harding has suggested. He added that going forward he would like to see a regular enforcement report brought forward to Planning Committee.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor AGREED that the Local Enforcement Plan Policy be adopted with the revision to the five day timeline.

To consider the appeals report.

David Rowen presented the report to members with regard to appeal decisions over the last few months.

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

·         Councillor Benney asked officer’s to clarify what the differences were between the appeal decision in Chase Road and the planning application that was recommended for approval on the site at Bevis lane in Wisbech St Mary, which had been discussed at a recent Planning Committee meeting?  David Rowen stated that the appeal in Bevis Lane, was a case where there was only one plot being considered which was more comparable than the two plots in another application that had been discussed at Committee for the site in Sealeys Lane in Parson Drove.  David Rowen added that the distinct difference is the location site relative distance to the nearest settlement. The site in Chase Road is 2.5 km outside of Benwick and the only access is via a B road which is heavily trafficked. The sites in Sealeys Lane and Bevis Lane are only a kilometre from the nearest village and access is along country roads with less traffic. He added that all three sites are also located in flood zone 3 and flood hazard mapping was available for Bevis Lane and Sealeys Lane which demonstrates what the real risk of flooding would be should there be a breach in defences. In the Chase Road site there is no hazard mapping available and the Inspector decided that he could not apply that information in his decision making

·         Councillor Benney asked what the distance is from the appeal site at Bar Drove to the centre of Friday Bridge. David Rowen stated it is approximately a mile from the centre of Friday Bridge.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that there does appear to be discrepancies in decisions made by Inspectors.

Members noted the recent appeal decisions reported.