Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 12 January 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of 12 January 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler stated that the application is for a pair of 4 bedroomed dwellings with an annexe to the rear, making the point that the size, scale, and design of the existing houses are identical to a previous application which was approved with the exception of a loft conversion. He explained that the garage to the rear already has approval and is constructed, with the garage at the ground floor level and residential accommodation upstairs which is currently used as a playroom and the garage has been used as accommodation in the past whilst the applicant was constructing the next-door property and the ground floor of that is being used as accommodation for their large family.

Mr Gowler stated that the applicant intends to retain that accommodation for his family while he constructs the 2 semi-detached properties and then eventually live in the left-hand side property. He explained that the neighbouring property at Curf Terrace is owned by the applicants’ parents, and they also reside on site.

Mr Gowler explained that the report notes that the proposal would be inconclusive to backland development, however, in his opinion, the property and garage are already exist in their own right and other annexes in Chatteris have already been approved with self-contained annexes, highlighting planning application references F/YR16/0942, F/YR18/0667 and F/YR20/1114. He acknowledged that backland development is out of character for that area, but made the point the garage building has already been constructed and parking and turning for both properties have both been achieved without any objection from the Highway Authority.

Members asked Mr Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Gowler mentioning three applications which are very similar to the one being considered and asked that in future could he either lobby the Planning Committee by email or provide a presentation to give the members of the committee sufficient time to consider the proposal and undertake further research. Mr Gowler agreed to the point made by Councillor Sutton.

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

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he notes that Chatteris Town Council have not made any comment on the application and questioned whether any members of Chatteris Town Council have any comment to make.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site, and, in her opinion, it is in a dreadful state. She added that she does not think it would be detrimental to the area and added that it should be approved as it will enhance the area.

·         Councillor Murphy questioned why there were no comments from the Town Council. David Rowen stated that at the time of writing the report there had been no comments received from them.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she has reviewed the application online and it does state that Chatteris Town Council recommend the application is refused due to it  ...  view the full minutes text for item P79/21

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Dwan, the agent. Mr Dwan stated that he is the Planning Director for Allison Homes and made the point that in August the Committee resolved to grant planning permission. He explained that since that time it has become apparent that there are now financial implications due to rising costs of materials and also due to the delivery of the spine road, there is a difference in ground conditions across the site and more onerous foundation design requirements for much of Phase 3 and through Phase 4 to ensure that there is an acceptable stability within the road.

Mr Dwan stated that due to these issues he has had to reluctantly come back with the viability case which has been independently vetted by officers and agreed with. He stated that an agreed position has been reached on the overall position of affordable housing and an overall quantum of financial contributions from which officers can decide how that would be split. He stated that he would welcome the committee’s support to complete the overall development and stated that he is sorry that this situation has arisen, but it is only out of necessity that this route now needs to be followed. 

Members asked questions of Mr Dwan as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the comment that Mr Dwan had made concerning the unforeseen issues with the land and asked him whether the land had been surveyed? Mr Dwan stated that the land was surveyed but it became apparent through the build of Phase 3 that there was an issue. He added that the original aspiration was to absorb the costs but in conjunction with the increase in build costs across the board, including materials and labour, it has become too prohibitive.

·         Councillor Sutton asked Mr Dwan to clarify that, if the committee do not agree with the proposal before them, would the build actually continue? Mr Dwan explained that there is a risk of the build not being able to continue and added that in order to get the sign off for land purchase, he needs to be able to demonstrate that there is an appropriate return and currently this cannot be proven. He stated that the set of figures which have been utilised for the viability purpose are based on current costs however build costs in the main are outstripping house price rises which means there is a degree of uncertainty which would make it very difficult to carry on. 

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that Allison Homes have owned the land for some time and purchased it at a reasonable price compared to land prices at the current time and he asked Mr Dwan what a like for like house would be valued at now compared to when the build was at phase 1? Mr Dwan explained that it is his understanding that the site was purchased under a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P80/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Councillor Mrs French, read out a written representation from Councillor Benney in support of the application.  Councillor Benney stated that as a Chatteris Town Councillor I have been the chair of the Chatteris Growing Fenland Project since its inception, its aims are simple, to purchase the old Barclays Bank building with a view to move Chatteris Museum from its current site in Church Lane to the ground floor of the Barclays Bank building, which will give the museum more space for displaying the many local artefacts that due to lack of current space are not displayed to their fullest. He explained that the Town Council will retain the upper floor of the Barclays building and let this as office space to generate an income to the council.

Councillor Benney stated that the current site of Chatteris Museum at 14 Church Lane will be developed into additional, much needed space for the Town Council and additional community space for local groups, and the proposed application will allow for the upper floor to be converted into two flats that will, with the office space in the Barclays building, deliver an income to the Council that can be re-invested in additional community projects, which would not be delivered without this income.  He expressed the view that the other community space at the King Edward Centre is presently oversubscribed and this will allow groups like CAB to have free use of these community rooms.

Councillor Benney referred to the reasons for refusal:

·         LP6 (loss of cultural asset) - the Town Council would be willing to enter into a Legal Agreement that if it does not purchase the Barclays building and move the museum, it would not implement this application, ensuring no loss of cultural asset;

·         LP16d - every town in Fenland has flats of this nature within town centre locations and being town centre does not require off-street parking, with a bus stop being located well within walking distance of the application site;

·         LP2 LP16 – in his opinion, this kind of development is found throughout Fenland and the setting will enhance the desirability of the flats, providing much needed local homes;

·         LP2 LP15 - the harm (if any) caused by this proposal will be more than offset by the benefit in the form of community space for local groups and the long-term investment the council can make from the rental income of Chatteris Growing Fenland Project.

Councillor Benney hoped members can support this application today and help deliver this much needed boost to the town of Chatteris.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the Agent. Mr Hall stated that one of the key points to the application is the existing museum, explaining that a Listed Building consent application has already been granted for relocation of the museum to Park Street, Chatteris and building regulation documents have been submitted along with tender documentation which are being prepared. He added  ...  view the full minutes text for item P81/21

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Matthew Hall, the Agent.  Mr Hall stated that that he found the officers report initially to be positive, making the point that there are no issues with regard to flood risk, ecology, amenity, over shadowing and overlooking. He expressed the opinion that the application provides a higher quality and safer living environment against potential flooding.

Mr Hall stated that that the Highways Officer is not objecting to the proposal and he has submitted additional information with regard to the visibility splays to confirm that the visibility in both directions is no worse than the current situation. He highlighted to the committee that there is a brick outbuilding which is due to be demolished, which is directly next to the parking area and there is no visibility splay which would be to the east.

Mr Hall explained that the applicant has lived in the caravan for 17 years and it has a certificate of lawful use, with the proposal being to remove the caravan which is a vast improvement in terms of flood risk and quality of living for the applicant and family. He expressed the view that with the new dwelling the health and wellbeing will be vastly improved as it will be insulated, will conform with building regulations and there will be mitigation measures in place that have been approved by the Environment Agency to deal with any potential flooding.

Mr Hall referred members to a Planning Committee in June 2020 where a similar application was approved in Guyhirn, where a mobile home which was on the site which was removed and a substantial dwelling and garage of over 350% larger than the mobile home was built, with this application being closer to the River Nene and also in Flood Zone 3. He stated that there have been no objections to the proposal before the committee today and all consultees support it and, in his opinion, the officer’s concerns with regard to the scale and design are outweighed by the positives of the application in terms of the street scene improvement, health and wellbeing and improvements against potential flood risk.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he can understand why officers have made their recommendation as they have to adhere to policy. He added that there are a number of benefits to replacing the mobile home to a better insulated dwelling and expressed the view that the officers have stated that the proposal is out of character with the area, but he does not agree with that. He added that there are many varied dwellings in Euximoor Drove and some are over 100 years old, and some are far newer and are adjacent to the older ones. Councillor Sutton expressed the view, with regard to the point made concerning visibility  ...  view the full minutes text for item P82/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.  He added that the report also omitted to state that the application site falls within the West Wisbech Broad location for growth within the Local Plan and stated that as members are aware this is an indicative allocation and will need the preparation of a Broad Concept Plan across the identified area. David Rowen stated that the application needs to be determined on its own merits in relation to the characteristics and impact of the site and the locality and, therefore, the West Wisbech Broad Location for growth does not have an impact on the consideration of the application or on the recommendation before members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that the planning arguments in respect to land in and around this location are well rehearsed with a number of new developments and dwellings approved along Barton Road and Cox’s Lane in the last 5 years and within the scope of the current Local Plan .He expressed the view that members will be aware that clearly the site lies within the West Wisbech -Urban Extension ‘broad area of search’ designated in Local Plan policies LP7 and LP8.

Mr Slater added that the status of the site is somewhat unclear as the towns in the settlements in the Fenland Local Plan do not have a defined boundaries and as such the delineation of urban and rural policies is a matter of judgement. He referred to the Local Plan insert map, which is on page 40, showing the site and its surrounds shaded grey to indicate that they are part of the urban area of Wisbech.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the broad area of search enables, and indeed encourages, development to come forward in this area and the Stow Lane appeal decision indicates that smaller pockets of development can come forward in these areas, provided that they do not prejudice the wider development envisaged in LP8 and clearly this small row of homes will not undermine this wider aim. He made the point that within 50m of the site there have been 6 new homes approved since 2018 under the current Local Plan and the various alterations to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have not really changed the position in relation to this site and it is, therefore, considered that there is a strong precedent for new dwellings in this locality having regard to the Council’s interpretation of the Local Plan policies.

Mr Slater expressed the view that regarding impact on character it is contended that the development is not materially harmful to the character of the area having regard to the allocation of the wider area as an area for significant planned growth in the adopted Local Plan, with the site being an infill frontage plot and has relatively recent development to both the north  ...  view the full minutes text for item P83/21

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Skoulding asked whether the aerials are secured and concreted in so they cannot fall over? David Rowen stated that he was not aware whether the aerials are solidly attached into the ground and from the photographs he has seen they appear to be attached to the fence.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that it is his understanding that the aerials should be fixed to the ground in some way or another as they are over a certain height and would need to be fixed in some way or another to the ground to negate any issues caused in the event of a lightning strike.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that they are not concreted in, and the applicant has stated that on the application form that should permission be granted they will then be secured by concrete, however, at this time they are secured to the fence.

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

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that officers have made the correct recommendation with the application. He added that the aerials are only secured to the fence and there are two aerials at an angle and hanging over the path. Councillor Murphy stated that one is fixed to the chimney breast and is very high and, in his opinion, they are very unsightly. He expressed the opinion that the aerials are very out of keeping with the area and as they are on a corner plot, two roads see them which, in his view, is unacceptable.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is aware of a historical application where the householder used the masts as a form of communication due to a disability and that application was agreed. He stated that, in his view, he does not think that the aerials are causing harm, and they are no different to an aerial on a chimney. Councillor Sutton stated that the personal circumstances of the applicant are not known, and they have stated that it is not a permanent structure. He questioned whether they could be approved subject to the stipulation of a two-year permission and then reviewed.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he did not see them at first when he undertook a site visit. He expressed the view that the aerials are not terribly significant, and he does not a problem with them. Councillor Cornwell stated that with regard to the safety aspect that should be the responsibility of the owner of the aerials to ensure that they are secure and safe.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he has no problems with regard to the aerials as long as they are concreted into the ground and are safe.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the application appears to be before the committee due to the fact that the neighbouring property objects to them being there. She added that there are no other objections and she added that the mast does not appear to be any different to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P84/21

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

To advise Members of the current situation regarding the above site and to authorise legal proceedings to secure compliance with the Notice

David Rowen presented the confidential report to members.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses.

It was proposed by Councillor Purser, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and AGREED that prosecution of the owners and occupiers of the land be authorised, under Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

(Members resolved to exclude the public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972).