Agenda and minutes

To determine the application.

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked whether Meadowgate Lane is still a no through road and Nick Thrower confirmed that it is. Councillor Meekins asked whether the proposed development on the disused College of West Anglia agricultural campus is still going ahead? Nick Thrower stated that he was unaware of any formal proposals on that site, however, this proposal is in the southwestern corner of the Broad Concept Plan, which is the strategic allocation for East Wisbech.

·         Councillor Murphy asked whether discussions have taken place yet regarding condition 12, which is the Refuse Collection Strategy or does it get agreed afterwards? He also questioned whether the planning permission would cease if the refuse strategy is not agreed? Nick Thrower stated that the strategy is yet to be discussed, but the internal road layout could be constructed in a manner that would accept the refuse collection vehicles and, therefore, specific refuse collection consideration could be accommodated within the road layout that is proposed. Councillor Murphy asked whether the planning permission will be granted without the condition? Nick Thrower stated that the condition proposed would require the refuse strategy to be agreed and implemented and he cannot see the development proceeding without a formal strategy in place.

·         Councillor Lynn asked whether the Highway Authority have agreed the layout leading to the site? Nick Thrower stated that their current view is to recommend refusal of the application.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the two-page report from the Highway Authority, which conflicts with the officer’s recommendation, and asked whether an officer from Highways was invited to attend the meeting? David Rowen stated that officers from the Highways Authority were not invited to attend the meeting as their comments are outlined within Appendix A of the report, which is a full summary of their position and an officer attending would not provide any further detail than that which has been provided to members in the committee report.

·         Councillor Cornwell questioned that if the application is approved and the work is carried out, but not to the requirements of the Highway Authority, could they then refuse to adopt the road? David Rowen stated that it is his understanding that if a scheme has obtained planning permission then the Highways Authority cannot automatically decline to adopt the road, because they did not agree with it at the planning stage. Nick Harding stated that officers have specifically checked with the Highway Authority, that if this application was approved, would they refuse to enter into a Section 278 agreement for the proposed road improvements to be made, even though they were not in agreement with them, and they stated that they would honour the fact that planning permission had been granted. Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, confirmed that when planning permission is granted the Highway Authority cannot refuse to cooperate with the Section 278 agreement.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that going forward when there is such a difference in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P31/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Kelly Kennedy, in objection to the application.

Mrs Kennedy stated that she lives in Paddocks Farmhouse at number 2 and is addressing the committee as a representative of herself and some of the residents in Minuet Paddocks, making the point that when she purchased her property, she was led to believe that there would be dividing land between her land and the proposed development. She stated that, from the revised plans, the dividing land has been added to the other side of the development and expressed the view that some of the detail in the plans are misleading as there were hawthorn hedges and trees shown at the back of her property dividing her from the proposed development and this is clearly not the case as there are only twigs in place, with the plans that were received also showing that her garden, which is finished at the rear by a 3ft country open style fencing, will now have peoples gardens attached to her own garden.

Mrs Kennedy stated that on her deeds of the property it details that the 3ft open style fencing cannot be changed for 5 years, which means that the rear of her property which is already very open will have proposed new gardens backing onto her property, which she feels is an infringement on her family’s privacy as well as her neighbours. She added that when purchasing her property they were advised that there would be dividing land, including environmental features, and had they been informed that her garden would be attached to somebody else’s garden then she would not have purchased the property. She added that she has had to erect a bamboo style shield to negate the issues of lorry drivers disturbing her children in the garden and, in her opinion, the way to provide privacy for all concerned would be to erect a 6ft fence before any development commences and this would provide privacy to all residents.

Mrs Kennedy stated that her children are aged 6 and 11 and there is no school bus service for her daughter from Sir Harry Smith School to Coates and Eastrea. She expressed her concerns for her daughter having to use the road to get to and from school, making the point that there have been speed cameras installed at Whittlesey Green, but there are none through Eastrea and Coates, with there being very often vehicles which speed through Coates and Eastrea at high speed, which is a safety concern for the current and any future residents living in the area.

Members asked Mrs Kennedy the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton referred to Mrs Kennedy’s presentation where she mentioned a 6ft fence and he asked her that if that was erected would several of her concerns would be addressed? Mrs Kennedy stated that she has discussed her concerns with Mr Warner, the developer, however, she had discussed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P32/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members:

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Lee Shepherd, the Applicant.

Mr Shepherd stated that he owns the property at 39 March Road and explained that the proposed plot has been used as garden land for years, but due to being exposed to the road it has never been a benefit to the existing house.  He added that the garden to 39 March Road has been reduced so as to decrease the possibility of being overlooked by road users.

Mr Shepherd stated that if the dwelling is not permitted the land will cleared and leftvacant and he added that once the work is completed on 39 March Road the fencing and section garage will be cleared meaning full visibility to the unmaintained arches, the static caravan and makeshift accommodation built under thearches. He stated that the plot is identified as a “infill plot” by the Planning Inspectorate when the proposal went to appeal and the scheme that was presented for appeal was considered tootall, with the Inspectorate indicating that a 1.5 storey house would be suitable, therefore, he has proposed a 1.5 storey home for thisapplication.

Mr Shepherd expressed the opinion that the house design is very similar to the existing terrace of ex-railway cottages and there is connotation back to the aches without the need to exposethem. He added that the initial discussion with current planning officers identified the proposal was oversized therefore, he reduced the footprint to appease these concerns and he also altered the parking layout.

Mr Shepherd added that the dwelling to be created will be in the lower price bracket yet still have 3 bedrooms and space for afamily and the location is very convenient for bus links to Peterborough, Kings Lynn, Wisbech and March. He added that there have been concerns that the current temporary fence has blocked vision for joining the A141, clearly the fence line could be agreed as a planningcondition.

Mr Shepherd explained that there are no legal issues that restrict the development, and it has been suggested there may be access issues,, however legal advice has confirmed there are no matters ofconcern. He referred to the presentation where photos were being shown, which are indicative of the state of disrepair, of the arches and the amount rubbish and junk that is stored underthem. He added that the it has been made known that the neighbour is merely objecting to this application as they aren’t able to build on their land although they do not have any road frontage and there is no planning consent for the static caravan or the permanent structure connected to both caravan andarches.

Mr Shepherd stated that the planning history on the site has seen 3 previous planning approvals; twice for a single dwelling and another for 2 x flats. He added that he hopes that his brief verbal appeal has enlightened  ...  view the full minutes text for item P33/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members:

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mrs Shanna Jackson, the Agent.

Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for a dwelling at the kitchen garden cottage and an application for a similar scheme was previously refused as it was considered that the site was in an elsewhere location and was unsustainable as there was no footpath, however, she is of the opinion that the locality and the policy framework does allow for a new dwelling in this location. She made the point that the site is located within the West Wisbech Broad Location for Growth under the current Local Plan and, therefore, the Council has already accepted that development will take place in this location and questioned how this site has been deemed as being outside of the settlement or in an elsewhere location as the reasons for refusal suggest.

Mrs Jackson referred to the dwellings currently under construction in Barton Road and the proposal for a care home, which recently had planning permission granted by the committee located further down the lane. She added that it is a brownfield site, the development of which is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework, and this also supports the principle of the proposal. She stated that with regard to the footpath link, it would be unviable to provide a footpath to link a single dwelling with the footpath along Barton Road, however, since the Council wish to develop the area a footpath network in this area in inevitable given the amount of houses the land in question can hold.

Mrs Jackson added that a business currently operates from this site and there is a benefit in removing the vehicular movements associated with the catering business which involves delivery vehicles and replacing it with domestic movements, which would benefit the existing residents. She stated that the site is within a residential location, forming part of the Barton Green residential footprint, it is within an area where the Council has aspirations for development and to state that it is in an elsewhere location is contradictory to the plans for the area.

Mrs Jackson added that there are no technical objections to the proposal, and it is supported by residents and by the Town Council and she expressed the opinion that nature and location of the proposal is sustainable.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he was surprised with the aerial photograph that the officer used as it does not show what has been built in the Barton Green area, which was completed in 2011. He asked officers whether there was a more recent photo that could have been provided? David Rowen stated that the photo provided is the most up to date aerial photo that officers had, and the location plan and the outlines of those developments were shown on the aerial photo which he had alluded to in his presentation.

Members asked questions, made comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item P34/20