Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 9 March 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the 9 March 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there are no objections to the application and the applicant for the proposal runs the Willows Day Nursery in Station Road, Chatteris. He explained that currently residing on site along with the applicant are other members of the extended family and the current living conditions are split between the existing dwelling and the caravan that the applicant has been residing in since 2012.

Mr Hall stated that the annexe will allow the family to stay together on site within the same curtilage and made the point that the existing building has suffered from three break ins resulting in loss of goods. He explained that the annexe has been positioned in the location of the existing brick storage building of 144 square metres which is to be demolished and the proposed annexe plan area is smaller measuring 130 square metres.

Mr Hall explained that the reason that the proposal is one and half storeys high is that, following discussions with the Environment Agency, they have requested that the bedrooms should be placed at first floor level. He added that they have also asked that the ground floor level should be raised above the ground to provide sufficient mitigation.

Mr Hall referred to the officer’s site plan and pointed out the dwelling Orchard House comprises two dwellings and explained that the building directly to the north of the site was approved for an annexe in 2019 by the Planning Committee, which is also within Flood Zone 3.  He pointed out the similarities of the annexe and the current proposal and stated that it is his understanding that there was no consultation with the Environment Agency for this application.

Mr Hall referred to the Planning Committee which took place in February when an annexe at Curf Terrace was approved by members against the officer’s recommendation, which is similar to the proposal before members today and he asked members to support the application.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he is familiar with the site, and he knows the area well. He added that the photographs shown depict the open countryside, which is picturesque, however, by turning 180 degrees some of the established local businesses can be seen and, therefore, in his opinion, it cannot be classed as open countryside. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the site would have housed two fen cottages years ago and the adjacent dwelling has an annexe which is similar to the proposal, albeit the proposed dwelling has a smaller footprint. He added it will provide a good family home for the extended family to be able to reside together and he stated that there are only two dwellings plus an office at the bottom of the road and the proposal is on the outskirts of the town centre. Councillor Benney stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P99/21

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from the applicant, Mr Cutteridge.  Mr Cutteridge stated that the Parish Council have not given their support to the application as, in their view, the road is in poor condition, but in his opinion, there is not a single pothole along Hospital Road, and it is checked regularly. He explained that there have been objections from residents in Askham Row and having spoken to them, the residents appear to be more concerned that there will be more properties built on the land behind them should the current application be approved, and he has assured them that this will not be the case as that is where he keeps his horses.

Mr Cutteridge explained that prior to submission of the application he had a meeting with the Highway Authority where he walked the road with them and discussed the roadway with them in detail and they agreed that the road was capable of dealing with the amount of traffic currently. He stated that he also spoke to them with regards to another planning application concerning his business, due to the inclusion of a cafeteria and shop, and it was agreed that additional passing places would be included.

Mr Cutteridge explained that the road used to be the main access to Doddington Hospital for over 40 years and had far more traffic during that time. He explained that the entrance to the proposed two dwellings is right beside one of the access points that went into Doddington Hospital and added that the proposal is located 0.4 miles from the clock tower of Doddington and the village spreads for in excess of a mile in most directions.

Mr Cutteridge explained that he has no issues with walking or using a bicycle to get his children to school and the village can be accessed comfortably. He added that there is a streetlight at the end of Hospital Road which lights that area very well in the evening and the visibility from the proposed site enables anybody to be able to see the end of the road for oncoming traffic.

Mr Cutteridge stated that dog walkers use the lane regularly, he has lived there all of his life and he has never known of any accident involving any pedestrian on the road. He stated that there are 11 dwellings on Turf End Road, which is 0.5 miles from the centre of the village, with a narrower road and has a blind bend and is also no street lighting on the road which also has a hedge and one narrow verge and a further four dwellings are being built.

Mr Cutteridge explained that each of the proposed dwellings will have their own sewerage treatment plant as he is aware that Doddington is already having issues dealing with sewerage. He advised the committee that the Council have advised him that some of the properties in Hospital Road have  ...  view the full minutes text for item P100/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Bryant, an objector to the application. Mr Bryant referred to the presentation screen and explained that that eleven objections to the application are marked in blue with the application site being marked in red. He explained that despite appearances this is not NIMBYism and it is the local community asking the Council to uphold its Local Plan and to execute its statutory duty to have regard to the provisions of the Local Plan and the NPPF along with previous appeal decisions.

Mr Bryant stated that the residents were pleased that Elm Parish Council voted to object to this application quoting LP’s 3 and 15, and the NPPF. He expressed the view that with regards to environmental protection over the last year in two brutal phases trees a long-established native hedgerow and all other vegetation were destroyed on the site and all wildlife disappeared.

Mr Bryant explained that a flock of 50-100 sparrows lived in the hedgerow and the inevitable sparrowhawks have gone and that just because this pre-emptive environmental damage by the builder that owns the land makes it look like a building site does not mean it should become one. He expressed the view that the application fails to meet the requirement of LP3, and it should be refused under the Local Plan referring to 2.1.7 where there is a reference to: “flat open landscapes and big skies” showing a view taken from Lowlands opposite the site, adding that the committee have an opportunity today to continue to protect this view that many local residents cherish.

Mr Bryant referred to sustainability and stated that in the 2014 Planning Committee minutes for this site he noted 2 quotes where it stated that “If we pass this and agree that this is sustainable and also, in Councillor Sutton's view there is not another unsustainable area in Fenland“ and “Members feel that the proposal is not in a sustainable area”. He referred to the next slide on the presentation screen where the table shows a striking difference in the supposedly “similar” journeys from site to amenities and along with the Planning Officer he rejects the applicant’s comparison of the application site with the appeal at Eastwood End as these sites fall under different levels in the LP3 hierarchy and, therefore, as the comparison fails it means the acceptability of the site under LP3 falls with it.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that development on this site is unambiguously contrary to the Local Plan and neither Colletts Bridge nor it’s protection in the plan have changed since 2014, with it remaining a single-track cul-de-sac with no turning or passing places as the Cambridgeshire Highways sign at the lane entrance indicates. He made the point that development on the site fails to meet Local Plan Policies 3, 12, 15, 16 and the NPPF and expressed the view that the principle of development on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P101/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 thisapplication comebefore the committeewith thesupport ofMarch Town Counciland all other standard consultees, and although the site is within Flood Zone 3 it is no different to the whole of the village and many other developments within the district, with the submitted FloodRisk Assessmentdemonstrating thatthe schemecan bemade technically safe from flooding and has the support of the Environment Agency. He added that technically the site has an address that is in March where under LP3 the majority of development is to be found in the market towns, and, in his view, althoughtechnically itis inMarch everyonewould associateit withTurves which is a small village capable of development.

Mr Edwards explained that the site is in a cluster of dwellings with a continuous frontage of a mixture of dwelling types and it also mirrors a number of recently approved dwellings within the district and surrounding area, with a recent approval for 6 dwellings furtheralong WhittleseyRoad whichcomprises of4 frontagedwellings and 2 further executive dwellings to the rear, with one of these executive dwellings only being approved under planning reference F/YR21/0832/F on 8 October 2021, this was for a revised design and the approval highlights that tandem forms of development have recently been approved in Turves. He stated that the dwelling has been designed so as not to have a detrimental impact on neighbouringproperties andwill utilisethe existingaccess onto thesite, which will be upgraded as required by Highways.

Mr Edwards made the point that the only window of significance that will have any impact on neighbouring dwellings is to bedroom 4 and is over 30m distance to the rear elevation of 717 Whittlesey Road. He explained that it should also be noted that the site has an existing agricultural building on it which previously had an approval for its conversion to a residential dwelling, which is believed could be converted under a Part Q application and further emphasises that a built form already exists on the site so there is already a tandemform ofdevelopment onthe site.

Mr Edwards expressed the view thatthe proposeddwelling will enhancethe site,is notdetrimental as thecurrent building has norestrictions on the time it is used, and this proposal will create a use consistent with neighbouring residential dwellings. He stated that he has had a full ecology survey and report carried out on the site, which Natural England confirm that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the proposed building can be built on the site beforethe existingbuilding needsto beremoved soany furthersurveys canbe carried out at the required time.  He stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item P102/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent, read out by Member Services.  Mr Lunn-Towler stated that it is important to make the committee aware that they recently applied to Fenland District Council for a variation of condition application, reference F/YR21/1490/VOC, which wasapproved and the aforementionedapplication was seeking the same details as this application, with one material difference.  He made the point that the one material difference between the application presented to committee today, and the recently approved VOC applicationis that this application is seeking tomove the garage to a differentposition, forwardof theprincipal dwelling andconsequently alteringthe elevations of the garage to suit and this is the only difference.

Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the view that elements of this application regarding changes to the dwelling appearance and the various lineson thesite planhave beenapproved byFenland DistrictCouncil already and, therefore, he asked members to focus their attention on the material part of this application, which is seeking to move the garage location.  He stated that the applicant has discussed the garage position with the neighbour impacted, and whilst he has not formalised this in writing, the neighbourverbally suggested that the garage wouldbe better in the newproposed position,as thismeans thatcars willnot bedriving nearthe neighbour’s property.

Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the opinion that this will reduce noise impact to both parties and the proposed positionof thegarage provides an enhancementto the site for theapplicants, asto allowa cleardirection ofdomestic parking,as well asproviding more garden space to the dwelling. He respectfullyrequested, given thereasons presentedtoday, that the committee support this application.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor asked officers to confirm how many Variation of Condition applications are people allowed to submit? David Rowen confirmed that it is unlimited although if the scheme becomes significantly different to the one that was originally approved then there would be the requirement for a new application to be submitted. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that this is the second variation of condition that has been before the committee, and it is her belief that the second variation appears to be changing the garage back to where the garage was originally, and she asked for clarity over this. David Rowen confirmed that Councillor Mrs Mayor was correct in her understanding. Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the view that a great deal of officer’s time appears to be wasted dealing with applications like this that are coming backwards and forwards. Councillor Connor stated that he called the application in as he failed to comprehend that the application was exactly the same as the first application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that when he attended the site, the planning notification notice affixed to the gate at the site location, does  ...  view the full minutes text for item P103/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens referred to the officer’sreasons forrefusal inthe executivesummary and stated that at 1.2, the previous scheme for 2 bungalows adjacent to this scheme approved back in2019 wasnot residentialinfilling either,but members agreedthat afurther 2dwellings along this section of road followed the general pattern of development along Wype Road which is ribbon or frontage development. He stated that he disagrees with officers that this proposal would fail to respect the core shape and form of the settlement by virtue of following the pattern along Wype Road with frontage development.

Mr Bevens referred to 1.3 and stated that hedoes notbelieve thatthe siteis contraryto PolicyLP12 Part A(a, c,d, and e) as the site isadjacent tothe existingdeveloped footprintof thevillage, beingthe twolarge, detached bungalowsto thenorth-east and, in his view, itwill nothave aharmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, as the dwellings proposed will be single storey in height and reflect nearby dwellings. He expressed the opinion that the proposal is of a scale and in a location that is in keeping with the established form of Wype Road, which is frontage development, and it will not adversely harm the character and appearance and finally it will extend the linear features of the settlement but in a mannerwhich isproportionate tothe smallvillage ofEastrea and willprovide 2bungalows offering a wider choice of housing.

Mr Bevens added that officers have referredto Policy LP16 (cand d)in their recommendation andthe site does retainthe hedgerow tothe frontof thesite and thiswould bereinforced ina futurereserved matters application and could be conditioned. He feels the scheme will improve the character of the local area and does not adversely impact on the street scene, settlement pattern or the landscape character.

Mr Bevens pointed out that theapplicant and LBevens Associateshave spentsome 18months agreeingthe relocationof the speedsignage intoEastrea along WypeRoad toslow downtraffic enteringthe village and he referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that that this will see an improvement in speed reduction, with the 30mph speed limit being moved some 70metres south-eastfrom itsformer positionand the nationalspeed limitexiting the village being moved some 140m southeast from its former position. He stated that theapplicant haspaid forall theworks tobe carriedout for thedesign andinstallation ofthese signs and explained that theproposed scheme will offer welldesigned bungalows, whichwill meet local demand.

Mr Bevens stated that theTown Councilsupport theproposal, EnvironmentalHealth and Highways have raised no objections. He explained that t  ...  view the full minutes text for item P104/21