Agenda and minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Purser, seconded by Councillor Sutton and resolved that Councillor Connor be elected as Chairman of the Planning Committee for the municipal year.

It was proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and resolved that Councillor Mrs Davis be elected as Vice-Chairman of Planning Committee for the municipal year.

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 4 May 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the 4 May 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Sutton noted that the Parish Council have raised objections as to the proposal being over-development and having a lack of amenity space and requested confirmation that the properties do have the recommended third of the plot as amenity space?  Alison Hoffman responded that she has undertook an evaluation and calculated all the garden areas to be at a third or above.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to NHS England East request for £9,234 for blue light services and asked if this has been rejected because of the viability as, in his view, it appears to be a small sum being requested and attempts should be made to accommodate it.  Alison Hoffman responded that as the scheme has been proven not to be viable by the Section 106 Officer, the Council would not be able to go back to the agent and request that they make an allowance for this money as this is not part of the Council’s approved policy and if there was money available for the applicant to enter into a Section 106 Agreement the first priority would be for it to be directed to policy requirements.  Councillor Sutton expressed his disappointment but accepted the costs of demolition and remedial work will be huge.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that reading through the comprehensive officer’s report all the residents concerns and complaints seem to have been addressed and as long as there is the third of amenity space he does not feel in terms of policy that members can do anything other than approve the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that officer’s have got the recommendation right and whilst she acknowledges the Parish Council have submitted an objection it is the same objection it submitted on the first application and it has not commented on the additional properties.  She does not see how the committee cannot approve it according to the NPPF.

·         Councillor Mrs French supported the comments of Councillors Sutton and Mrs Davis.  She expressed the view that villages need to be supported where they need affordable housing.

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

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from George Boreham, speaking on behalf of the agent.  Mr Boreham stated that the majority of the letters of support for this application are from people who live in the road, with the remainder from Doddington, which, in his view, shows local support.  He made the point that one of the supporters is Mega Plants which is a business along this road and that all consultees support the application, with no objections.

Mr Boreham acknowledged that the site is in Flood Zone 3, however, mitigation measures have been proposed in the independent Flood Risk Assessment, which has been approved by the Environment Agency.  He stated that the site has had an approval for a residential dwelling for change of use of the existing barn in 2015, with previous approvals allowing the setting of the caravan on the site.

Mr Boreham referred to there being no objections from County Council Highways and an application submitted by Mega Plants will provide passing bays, which will further improve Hospital Road.  He stated that the applicant has lived on site for almost 9 years in the mobile home as well as running a business for the same period of time and during this time he has paid Council and Middle Level drainage charges.

Mr Boreham stated the applicant buys, sells and repairs various machinery and tools and the containers and the shed on site are for equipment and used as a workshop.  He advised that the applicant has been broken into 4 times, with tools and equipment having been stolen.

Mr Boreham stated that the proposal is for a dwelling on site to allow the removal of the mobile home, the dwelling has approved mitigation measures by the Environment Agency and is safer living accommodation than the mobile home.  He expressed the opinion that having a permanent dwelling on site will also aid security and the removal of the mobile home will improve the character of the area.

Mr Boreham reiterated that there is local support for this proposal and from Doddington Parish Council and, in his view, there are no concerns raised about the design, size or neighbouring amenity, with the application being for the running of a local business on a site which has previous planning approvals for a residential barn conversion which would have allowed a residential property on the site.  He stated the business has been running for almost 9 years from this site and is established within the existing barn.

Mr Boreham requested members support this proposal for a local business.

Members asked questions of Mr Boreham as follows:

·         Councillor Benney referred to the fact that it was said the applicant has been paying Council Tax and queried whether also business rates applied to the property?  Mr Boreham responded that as far as he is aware Council Tax has been paid but he is unsure regarding business rates.  Councillor Benney asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item P5/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jake Stentiford, the agent. Mr Stentiford stated that he fully agrees with the officer’s report and recommendation.  He expressed the view that the proposed amendments are minor changes to the footprint and design of the dwellings along with the removal of two garages and provision of a sub-station which is required for the electrical connection.

Mr Stentiford expressed the opinion that there will be no negative effects from these minor amendments and the main positive effect is that this will enable the applicants to increase the provision of affordable homes on the site making the development more policy compliant and increasing the benefits to local people who are in need of affordable housing.  He stated that they are keen to move forward and start delivering these homes so he hoped that members would support the application.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked with this being such a minor amendment, and she does note that the Town Council have not submitted any material consideration objections to the proposal, why this application is before the committee as this would have taken enormous officer time to produce the report?  David Rowen responded that he does not disagree, but the Scheme of Delegation is clear that if the Town Council comments are at variance to the officer recommendation on a major application then it has to come to committee.  He stated that the Town Council have objected to the application reiterating their previous concerns relating to the amount of development and its impact on the surrounding area so consequently it has to be determined by the committee.

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

·         Councillor Sutton reiterated the concerns of other members that this proposal is absolutely unnecessary to be before committee as, whilst the Town Council objected to the original application, it does already have planning permission.

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

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser registered, in accordance with the Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Dave Bridges, the applicant, and Russell Swann, the agent.  Mr Bridges stated that he and his wife were both born and bred in the local area spending the first 20 years in March and the last 11 years in Doddington and love the villages of Doddington and Wimblington being keen to stay local.  He stated that his 3 children are at the local school and he and his wife are on local charitable committees.

Mr Bridges stated that they have been looking to move, whilst staying in the village, for 3 years but cannot find any properties within their budget for their family’s needs.  He explained the site forms part of a larger farm owned and run by his father-in-law, with the 3-acre corner field being of low-grade agricultural soil and with fertiliser costs tripling this year it is non-feasible to farm in the current market.

Mr Bridges expressed the opinion that a single-family home would help off-set these losses, with the corner chosen for agricultural reasons so tractors can still access the other part of the farm.  He stated that the home will be built set back from the road, with the hedgerow replanted further back to allow visibility and passing along Blue Lane, which, in his view, will improve safety.

Mr Bridges advised members that he runs a local fire and security business which employs 11 people in highly skilled and highly paid jobs, which, in his opinion, is of great benefit to the local area and is the only approved firm in Fenland.  He stated that they have a small retail unit in Whittlesey which is used as their operation but need a workshop that can be accessed 24/7 for the assembly of control equipment and transmission devices, with the devices needing to be preconfigured prior to being delivered on site and the application site is perfect as there is an 800 metre line of sight to his father-in-law’s sheds and, therefore, he can set up and use these long distance transmission devices, which will result in the increase of the products he can offer and in turn employ and train more local people.

Mr Bridges expressed the view that this development is essential in providing his family with a quality home, whilst improving additional jobs in the area.

Mr Swann stated that the application is before committee due to the level of support received and the site is currently a small triangular grade 3 piece of agricultural land, which has been owned by Mr Bridges for many years, has not been farmed and is on the edge of the built form of Wimblington.  He referred to the Planning Officer comments within the report that state the site is located in an elsewhere location but expressed the opinion that LP3 classifies Wimblington as a growth village and this site is opposite Coney Walk estate and adjacent to residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item P7/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from George Boreham, on behalf of the agent.  Mr Boreham stated that there are no technical objections to this application and all letters of support submitted are from Doddington Road where this proposal is located indicating local support.  He made the point that Benwick has a shop, primary school and roads connecting to Whittlesey, Chatteris and the surrounding villages.

Mr Boreham stated that the site is located in Flood Zone 3 and a detailed Flood Risk Assessment has been provided and approved by the Environment Agency with mitigation measures which will comply with Policy LP14.  He made the point that the majority of Benwick lies in Flood Zone 3, with a limited amount of land in Flood Zones 1 and 2, which has been developed.

Mr Boreham expressed the view that the proposed dwelling is a modest 3-bed chalet bungalow, which limits the height of the dwelling.  He referred to concerns regarding on-street parking but stated this would not take place as the proposal provides off-street parking for both the proposed and existing properties.

Mr Boreham explained that the proposed dwelling will have an air source heat pump and solar panels to ensure energy efficiency for health and well-being as per LP2.  He referred to a map displayed on the presentation screen and pointed out that when you view along this section of Doddington Road there is Fountain Close, which extends further away from Doddington Road rather than just frontage development, and further west into Benwick along Doddington Road other developments have been allowed, such as Heron Way and Cricketers Close, which extends back from Doddington Road.

Mr Boreham referred to 10.5 of the officer’s report which advises that the design and materials will not be incongruous with the surroundings and under 10.7 there would not be adverse impact on residential amenities.

Member asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked someone to explain what is the difference between this application and the previous one as all he can see is referral to the number of supporters?  David Rowen responded that this is an identical application to one that was refused planning permission earlier in the year other than this application has been accompanied by letters of support asking it to be referred to Planning Committee.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the reasons the previous application were refused have not been addressed?  David Rowen responded that to be fair to the applicant it is difficult to address the issue of back land development, the site is where it is but nothing has changed from the previous scheme.

·         Councillor Murphy referred to the letters of support and expressed the view that these were proforma letters with names and addresses added and feels this does not constitute letters of support.  David Rowen confirmed that the letters of support were not individual bespoke letters they were of a uniform nature.

Members made comments, asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item P8/22

To consider the appeals report.

David Rowen presented the appeals report to members.

Members made comments as follows:

·         In relation to the appeal for F/YR20/0985/O, Councillor Benney expressed the view that this site is opposite his house and was refused under delegated powers which he feels was the correct decision as there was a previously application on the site which had expired and since then the leisure centre has been built with its access directly opposite, with the junction being much busier, and this does not seem to be reflected in the appeal.

Members considered and noted the appeals report.