To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 1 December 2021.

The minutes of the meeting of 1 December 2021 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.  He informed members that a late representation had been received from residents of The Water Gardens pointing out that:

·         all properties in the development are subject to covenants designed to prevent any use apart from private residential

·         the Council has repeatedly refused planning permission to other sites in the development insisting that the character of residential properties with large gardens should be maintained

·         the original property has already been doubled in size with the garage converted to dormitories

·         the proposed extension will fill the rear garden with the type of development the Council has quite reasonably repeatedly refused others in the development to do

·         the school owns extensive grounds and could build a dormitory on their own land if they need one

·         there are numerous existing buildings nearby in the town which could readily be converted to dormitories

·         the developer purports to be retaining the property as a residential non-commercial enterprise but 8 The Water Gardens is the registered office of KJL Property Management, a company created 2 years ago whose only asset appears to be 8 The Water Gardens so the property does not belong to the school and is, therefore, a commercial enterprise which at any time could be used for other purposes.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Meekins, a District Councillor, read out by Member Services.  Councillor Meekins stated that he wished to object chiefly on the grounds of overdevelopment of the existing property by a considerable percentage footprint increase and the loss of privacy and overlooking to some of the neighbouring properties.  He expressed the view that other concerns are that the new development will lead to a relatively large number of school age children being housed in a very quiet cul-de-sac with only seven other properties in it, with the potential for increased noise nuisance being a real one.

Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion that the design and appearance of the proposed extension is completely out of kilter with the present development.  He feels that there has been no consultation between Wisbech Grammar School and the local residents.

Councillor Meekins stated that already the developers building staff have caused extra traffic flow and inconsiderate parking and a mature tree on site was felled because “it was in the way” without any discussion with the existing residents.  He made the point that Wisbech Grammar School is a flagship institution in Wisbech, but, in his view, the way this proposal has been handled has been very poor to its potential neighbours.  He would have thought that a boarding house would have been better situated on the Grammar School campus and be purpose built rather than a converted domestic premises, with the school having very extensive grounds in which to have done this.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Bird, an objector to the proposal.  Mr Bird stated that eight years ago the Planning Inspectorate  ...  view the full minutes text for item P69/21

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Malcolm and Jennifer Gray, objectors to the proposal.  Mrs Gray expressed the opinion that the acceptability in principle of this application has been based on it being a minor development, but the site is 0.8 hectares with surface water drainage and the field is not within the curtilage of 107. She referred to NPPF for housing development and the Town and Country Planning Consultation England Direction 2021 document which states that a major development in respect of residential development is development where the number of dwellings that could be provided is 10 or more or the site area is 0.5 hectares or more, therefore, in her view, this is a major development and has not been considered against the correct legislation. 

Mrs Gray referred to the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure England Order Schedule 4 Paragraph ZE, which requires the Local Lead Flood Authority to be consulted about major developments with surface water drainage before the grant of permission and that the Cambridgeshire Flood Water SPD Section 4.3.15 requires a major application to submit a surface water flood risk assessment before permission is granted.  She expressed the view that, as this is an outline application for a major development, it should have been subject to a site specific flood risk assessment. 

Mrs Gray stated that their garden is already suffering from surface water run-off from the field, which is approximately 1 metre higher than their damp course, and this would have been picked up if a topographical survey had been carried out in accordance with NPPF 157B, referring to photos 1 and 2 on the presentation screen which showed their garden flooded.  She expressed the view that the plot of 107 has been raised by 300mm from the original ground level as could be seen by photograph 3 on the presentation screen.

Mrs Gray expressed the opinion that the change of use of garden land to an access road would increase surface water run-off and the positioning and design of this access with a slight bend changes their property into a corner plot.  She feels that if a vehicle was to lose control on the proposed access road it could hit their bedroom wall, which is less than 1 metre away from the fence, and could be potentially fatal if they were in bed, referring to photo 4 showing the distance between their fence and property.

Mr Gray expressed the view that this proposal does not meet the objectives set out in the Fenland Local Plan LP16 as the proposed access runs the full length of their property, which is approximately 53 metres, and will be in close proximity to their conservatory and patio, which will have an adverse impact on their amenity and on their health and well-being from noise and vibrations from vehicles passing in close  ...  view the full minutes text for item P70/21

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Mrs French, a District Councillor.  Councillor Mrs French stated that The Chase is a very important part of March to local residents, with the site already having had refusals which were upheld on appeal and nothing has changed since the refusals apart from the fact that 33 Gaul Road has been developed and is now called Magnolia Close.  She expressed the view that during the discussions of the 33 Gaul Road application there were many concerns and objections to the removal of the brick wall that forms the character of the area and it was agreed at that time that the brick wall would remain and remain in perpetuity intact not to be knocked down.

Councillor Mrs French stated that there were many TPOs on this site, but sadly they have all been removed, which she finds disgraceful.  She notes that there is no report from the Conservation Officer and would like to know why, especially when part of a character of an area is going to be destroyed.  She knows it is not in a Conservation Area, but feels it is a very important part of March and should not be destroyed for the sake of one dwelling.

Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.3 of the officer’s report where the Highway Officer states, “if you or members decide to refuse planning permission then arguments could certainly be made on safety grounds and, therefore, refusal would not be an unreasonable conclusion.”  She made the point that there are hundreds of people using The Chase daily and since the pandemic when walking has become the normal and the construction of this site would be dangerous to pedestrians and it would be detrimental to their health if they could not use it.

Councillor Mrs French stated that The Chase is owned by Fenland District Council and maintained by them and discussions have taken place to acquire the top section, which could possibly affect maintenance as well. She feels to change the access head will not change the issues, as The Chase is not wide enough for cars to pass.

Councillor Mrs French urged members to refuse the application and not destroy the character of this area and remove the enjoyment of many hundreds of residents who use it daily.

Members asked questions of Councillor Mrs French as follows:

·         Councillor Booth asked Councillor Mrs French is she believed the application should be refused on highway safety grounds as per the Highway Officer’s report and also because of the loss of general amenity?  Councillor Mrs French responded that what she read out from 5.3 was comments from the Highway Officer as to justification to refuse the application and appeal several years ago.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Geoffrey Shaw, an objector to the proposal.  Mr Shaw  ...  view the full minutes text for item P71/21

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent.  Mr Edwards stated that the application has the support of the Parish Council and was previously considered by the committee last year when members were minded to approve, subject to changes.  He made the point that the changes discussed at that time have been made, which were to move the dwelling so it was in line with the neighbouring properties and locating the garage doors to the side from the front to maintain windows to the front elevation, which is consistent with the majority of properties in Guyhirn. 

Mr Edwards made the point that the site is in Flood Zone 3, but it is no different to other developments within the village, and a sequential and exceptions test has been carried out as part of the submission, which demonstrated there were no other reasonable sites at lower risk of flooding available and, therefore, the sequential test has been met. He expressed the view that the site is in a continual line of development extending throughout the village on this side of the road as the majority of Guyhirn can only be developed on one side due to the river and its banks, sites like this are extremely valuable to provide dwellings to sustain facilities in the village. 

Mr Edwards feels that Guyhirn has a mixture of dwelling types and this section of the village is no different, with different heights, sizes and styles, and whilst this proposal is larger than neighbouring properties it is consistent, in his view, with other dwellings being built in the village and may be considered aspirational.  He stated that as the applicant already owns the land and uses it as his extended garden to the host property and feels surely a mixture of dwelling types should be encouraged.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that Guyhirn has seen a modest amount of growth in recent years and needs more development to support amenities in the village and a diverse housing mix is critical not only to Guyhirn but the District as a whole.  He feels that the proposal provides the opportunity for a large family dwelling on a very large plot in line with the existing dwellings, with an existing access onto High Road and the host property utilising a new access which has the support of the Highways Department.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the proposal makes the best use of the land, will finish off this part of the village and add a diverse housing mix addressing the points raised at the previous Planning Committee.  He asked members to support the application with the conditions they deem appropriate.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he was at the committee when the previous application was refused as it came forward of the building line with the rest of the road and feels that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P72/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Middleditch, the agent.  Mr Middleditch stated that the proposal came before committee in 2018 when it was originally supported and he hoped that members would support this renewal application.  He made the point that the scheme is unchanged as are the planning policies which underpin the decision making, but the report and surveys have been updated to ensure the development continues to address ecological, arboricultural and drainage concerns, with their being no objections from the various technical consultees.

Mr Middleditch expressed the view that the proposal is still policy compliant, which is confirmed by officers, and is a sensitive conversion of a range a 100 year old rural buildings, which would secure their viability as buildings of interest and will lead to a positive enhancement of the character and setting of the area.  He stated that the marketing of the site coincided with Covid, but in the last six months there has been significant upturn in interest and he is confident that subject to planning being renewed a buyer will be found for the site, which will ensure the scheme can be implemented and the future of the buildings can be secured.

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

·         Councillor Benney made the point that the proposal is a policy compliant application.  He visited the site yesterday and it will only fall into further disrepair if some action is not taken.  Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that it is an excellent scheme, when it is converted it will be a nice property to own and he cannot see anything wrong with the proposal.

·         Councillor Murphy agreed as in is in Flood Zone 1, has room for bins, consultees support the proposal and there are all nice big houses in the area and, in his view, this development will complement the surroundings.

·         Councillor Booth supported the comments of Councillors Benney and Murphy.  He noted the objection from the Town Council, but feels some of their objections have been overcome in the planning application.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Robert Wickham, the agent.  Mr Wickham referred to the bundles of paper that he had with him, which is evidence of the work that has been undertaken over 3 years with officers to evolve a scheme which is now recommended for approval.  He made the point that the initial proposal was for 9, which has been reduced to 4 and officers were keen on the idea of Almhouses, low rise, subservient to the Church, which he has gone along with.

Mr Wickham expressed the view that the development will not interfere with anybody or provide any harm to the Church.  He stated that the Minister of the Parish at the time was keen for small homes and they have to balance the duties under the Charities Act with a need to provide a mix of housing.

Members asked questions of the officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification on where the surface water is going and whether it was towards the A141 into the dyke at the front of the Church?  Officers responded that this is one of the options available, but from the Internal Drainage Board comments there is also an option to the East and this is why there is a condition requiring the details of this.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he too is attracted by the 2-bed property idea rather than the luxurious dwellings that surround the area.  He feels it is a gorgeous site, surrounded by trees and is a very genteel area, which is crying out for development and thinks what is being proposed is appropriate.  Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the proposal protects the Church Hall, which is very much a community facility, and protects the car parking around the Hall, which is important.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to the trees, which are splendid, and there is an in-depth arboricultural report and believes that some trees will be removed, but she would hate to see the whole site decimated.  She asked that care is taken and the root structures protected during the development as those trees do hide a multitude of sins from the buildings at the back.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that St Marys Church was badly affected by flooding on 23 December 2020, with the County Council having to pump the Church Hall out 3 times, and there is a riparian dyke, with half of it belonging to the County Council and half belonging to the Church, and on certain occasions when there is heavy rain some of the graves actually move, which has been a problem for several years because it is clay and part of the original pilings.  She explained that the dyke has now been cleared out after about 30 years, and the layby to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P74/21

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Booth, a District Councillor. Councillor Booth stated that he asked for this application to go before committee because this is an existing site that has been in use for over 30 years now and he feels that the replacement dwelling would be an improvement in planning terms to what is there.  He made the point that the applicant has had some integrity issues with the existing property on site and wants to improve the situation.

Councillor Booth explained that he was involved with the previous application on the neighbouring site, which is part of the extended family, and the issues they have in trying to get mobile homes with the safe refuge has been substantial.  He does not feel that this site would ever go back to open countryside, it has a long history of planning and although it is classed as an ‘elsewhere’ location in the Local Plan, in his view, this is one of the older settlement areas in Wisbech St Mary as 100 yards down the road you have Ingham Hall, which is one of the oldest buildings in the Wisbech St Mary parish so to say it is ‘elsewhere’ is disingenuous to the history of Wisbech St Mary.

Councillor Booth pointed out that there is support from Wisbech Town Council and statutory consultees and, in his opinion, it is just one of the technicalities from planning guidance that is saying it should not be supported but he feels it should be a planning gain that should be supported.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent read out by Member Services.  Ms Patrick stated that the site is located immediately adjacent to a traditional construction bungalow and 2 mobile home properties, which were both previously approved as 2-storey mobile homes that have an appearance very similar to this proposal and were 2-storey as they have a flood evacuation escape on the first floor.  She made the point that the mobile homes adjacent to the proposal have conditions on them that a person of a gypsy/traveller or living a nomadic lifestyle can only stay on site, whilst Golden View’s mobile home approval states “Use of land for the stationing of a mobile home and erection of a toilet block (part retrospective)”, with the wording of the approval not relating to a direct requirement for a gypsy/traveller to live on site.

Ms Patrick expressed the view that replacement dwelling applications such as this proposal are seen to be appropriate by the Council when considering F/YR14/0609/F (Erection of a 2-storey 4-bed dwelling with detached garage involving removal of residential caravans and existing dwelling), with the former Hazeldene cottage straddling two plots which were separately approved, which was not a clear-cut replacement permanent dwelling for a larger one.  She feels the site was utilised to have two modest permanent dwellings replacing  ...  view the full minutes text for item P75/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the comment about the development will not be detrimental to the street scene is, in his view, an understatement and asked if this is the only piece of land that Fenland has available for this development?  David Rowen responded that whether there is alternative land or not is not a consideration as this is the location proposed for this application and it is about whether it is appropriate.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the land previously being a car park and asked where the cars are now parking?  David Rowen responded that the cars are probably parking on the highway in Mill Close, but the land is not presently being used as a car park.

·         Councillor Connor asked for clarification that the residents would only reside at the proposal for a couple of years maximum?  David Rowen responded that it is understanding that it is only for short term transit accommodation to remove people from homelessness and to a more permanent form of accommodation.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he welcomes the application to assist the homeless situation, but, in his view, the location seems for these units to be shoved up a corner, which is not ideal to give people a bit more confidence.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she fully supports this application and knows Fenland has been working closely over the last 22 months with homeless people doing an exceptional job and this proposal helps to give them a roof over their head.

·         Councillor Booth made the point that the first step is to have a fixed abode to get on the housing ladder and this proposal is needed to help with this situation.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Booth and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Topgood had left the meeting prior to this application being considered)

To consider the appeal decisions report.

Members noted the appeal decisions report presented by David Rowen.

(Councillor Topgood had left the meeting prior to this item being discussed)