Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 7 February 2024.

The minutes of the meeting of the meeting of 7 February 2024 were signed and agreed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that outline planning permission was granted in principle for up to 30 dwellings for an affordable housing scheme, with all units falling within the relevant definition of affordable housing. She referred to photos on the screen during her presentation and feels that the new application increasing dwellings by over 50% to 48 dwellings speaks more of quantity than quality of a home and its amenities raising valid community objection.

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that contrary to some of the national, local and emerging planning policies, this proposal development as per LP1 is not delivering sustainable growth in the present environment and this growth does not benefit the community or existing residents, national planning policy says that it does not take local circumstances into account, does not reflect the character or the needs and has not provided objectively assessed needs for the increasing in the housing, rural housing 78 NPPF 124. She feels the development should be restricted to the initial application of up to 30 dwellings as the proposal for 48 dwellings is contrary to LP12C as it will impact on the surrounding area, a compact estate with no open views to the surrounding landscape and referred also to LP12(d) and (e), LP16(d) and (e) and LP2 as not being of a scale in keeping with the core shape, character or appearance of the village.

Councillor Johnson referred to NPPF, paragraph 124 -130, expressing the view that the proposal extends only slightly the existing linear features of the village and it is not a positive contribution to the character of the area, to the local built form, scale, local street scene, settlement pattern or landscape character. She made the point that Willow Gardens is 1.7 hectares with 37 bungalows, which excludes an attenuation pond and playing field and the extension to Willow Gardens is 1.65 hectares, which also excludes the attenuation pond, for 21 bungalows, Lily Avenue is 3.6 hectares, twice the size of this proposed site, is only 80 dwellings, and Bellway is 3.7 hectares being over twice the proposed site again for only 88 dwellings, with these dwellings having much more amenities per home.

Councillor Johnson stated that the 1.65 hectares proposed for this development includes a large attenuation pond, a play area, an easement strip that has to go 9-10 metres along the length of the western water course, parking courts and a turning place, which, in her view, does not leave much space for the actual 48 dwellings with amenities. She referred to LP12(f), which respects natural boundaries, and, in her opinion, views to the fields to the north and to the public right of way to the east will be blocked by the density of this site and in reference to LP12(j), a risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item P103/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ms Steer, the applicant, and Mr Green, the agent. Ms Steer stated that she currently occupies the piece of land being discussed and has done for 4 years. She stated that as a family of 5, with 1 more on the way, they just want to be able to settle on this piece of land they already call home.

Ms Steer stated that her children go to school within walking distance and they have lots of connections so the very thought of this being taken away from them is extremely distressful and they have altered their plans to include a small hand gate in front of the access point and they have removed all parking on site, which, in her view, solves the highway objection. She expressed the opinion that they have ample options for nearby or town centre parking plus they have already found storage for their touring caravan so they can still make use of it from a different location.

Ms Steer hoped members would see they have overcome every issue presented to them and asked that consideration be taken in the decision the committee makes as it will have a huge impact on her and her family’s future.

Mr Green referred to 1.3 of the officer’s report where Highways stated that should the site function as a car free development there would be no objections, however, the site plan would need to be updated to show how this would function in practice and this has been done and a plan has been shown for a 1.8 metre high fence with a pedestrian exit that is 52 metres from the public footpath. He referred to the report by Jeremy Hurlstone which points out that at Appendix A of parking standards of the Fenland Local Plan adopted 2014 it says that where a site has good public transport links such as in the central area of a market town a reduction in car parking provision may be negotiated and in special circumstances nil parking provision may be appropriate and made the point that there is a bus stop to the south of the access on the opposite side of High Street providing access to bus services, there is also off-site parking at Furrowfields Road car parks within 200 metres of the site access by walking south along High Street and then east into Furrowfields Road, with the car park providing free parking for a period of up to 24 hours monitored by CCTV for added security.

Mr Green stated that at the last meeting it was said that it was only highways that was stopping this application from being passed and the Highways Authority have asked for further information which has been supplied. He acknowledged that officers are against the proposal still and he is not sure why  ...  view the full minutes text for item P104/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that the Parish Council wish to support the officer’s recommendation for refusal and as with the previous objection as well they do raise local planning policies that they are objecting and using against these. She expressed the view that the applicant’s prejudicial comment that most of the objections were new to the area is not true and those that have come to the village did so for the open views and the village environment.

Councillor Johnson stated that the emerging Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire results strongly state that open spaces, big skies and the Fen landscape are all distinctive to the characteristics of the village in accordance with LP12 and LP16. She stated that supporters to the application say the village needs to attract affluence into the village and avoid poor quality social housing but she feels they do not frequent the village of Wimblington as per the Housing Needs Assessment provided for the parish the village is very affluent and does require more affordable homes.

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that Bridge Lane is an important historic landmark in the village, it is a small narrow no through rural lane exempt of pavements and with only one official constructed passing point for vehicles, which is situated at the far west end opposite 3 Bridge Lane and nowhere near the proposed site. She stated that if the site is not to be adopted by Highways and, in her view, the applicant is quite happy that it is not there will be concerns regarding refuse collection referring to LP1, LP3, DM3 and 4.

Councillor Johnson stated that the public right of way number 5 is also a very important landmark in the village, it is part of the historic Woodman’s Way and also part of the Greenwich Meridian walk as well as being promoted by the Ramblers Association. She added that the site is situated to the eastern end of Bridge Lane outside the built form of the village and it will coalesce the rural countryside character of Bridge Lane with the more established form of the village.

Councillor Johnson questioned why the applicant perceive it as acceptable that they include a large part of Wimblington’s public right of way into their access road, this would inevitably put the general public at risk from vehicle movements entering and exiting the proposed access road which at present is just an open field with no regular vehicle movements and, in her opinion, it is illegal to change a public right of way unless authorised by Cambridgeshire County Council. She expressed the view that it is visible that the applicant has moved his boundary fence to incorporate part of the public right of way and at some time in 2020 the ditch west of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P105/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation from Sally Bramley, an objector, which was read out by Member Services. Mrs Bramley stated that her presentation was supported by slides which showed:

·         Horses in the field showing wildflowers and hedgerow prior to February 2023.

·         A vehicle bogged down in the field in 2023, which required recovery.

·         Example of large pools of standing water in the field where some of the proposed properties would be.

·         Existing flooding and drainage issues in neighbouring gardens.

·         Removal of hedgerow at the proposed development entrance point in February 2023 which was prior to the planning application submission.

·         Historical media documentation of flooding and drainage issues relating to the field in surrounding residencies in 2004/2005.

·         Video of Bats seen by occupants of the properties that directly back onto the field.

She expressed the view that the lived experience of residents differs significantly to the facts and statements represented in the application.

Mrs Bramley stated that many residents on the Furrowfields estate benefit, knowingly or not, from the hedgerows, and grassland, which house many creatures, supporting numerous ecosystems, including bats, and are rich in biodiversity, with there being a decrease in bird activity since the destruction of the entirety of one side of the hedgerow in February 2023. She feels this destruction also included the non-consensual removal of trees and hedgerows from a neighbouring private property and if members visit the site they will see evidence of previous Lode Way residents ‘laying’ the hedgerow to promote regrowth.

Mrs Bramley expressed the opinion that dueto roadsideparking anddensity ofjunctions,it isalready oftena challenge tosafely pullout ofthe existingjunctions anddriveways nearthe proposedsite entrance and she feels introducinganother junctionalmost oppositeGrenadiers would be an unnecessary increased risk to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. She referred to the sustainable drainage strategy which states that “surface water would naturally drainaway, andrainwater fallingonlandscaped areasof thesite includingthe garden of each new property and the open space will infiltrate into the soil”, but expressed the view that for those that border the field it is known this will not be the case as the water tableis alreadyoverwhelmed evenwith thefield there and ultimatelythere willbe a net loss of permeable surfaces to absorb the water that the field currently holdsand increasethe riskand scaleof floodingto existingproperties.

Mrs Bramley made the point that someof theneighbours’ workshifts orfrom home and thenoise duringthe demolitionof onewell maintainedproperty, andthe constructionof the9 new properties would impact negatively on current residents. She feels there will no doubt be an increase of mud on the roads and ifplanning isagreed, propertiesin LodeWay thatback ontothe fieldwill have roads and potentially street lighting to both the front and rear of their properties.

Mrs Bramley  ...  view the full minutes text for item P106/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey explained that the site is situated between three drainage ditches and as part of the application, the applicant is prepared to offer some street lighting to assist in the lighting of the footpath to the railway station and it will also provide a community benefit to overcome the flood risk issues. He thanked the officers for the report and stated that within the assessment at 10.2 it states that the officer has confirmed that it would be difficult to argue that the principle of residential development was unacceptable given the surroundings hence the application is supported by policies LP2 and LP12 of the Local Plan.

Mr Humphrey explained that at 10.5 it states that the site will read as part of the existing village not to appear incongruous or as an encroachment into the countryside and that the officer’s report states that at the reserved matters stage, the visual impact could be acceptable and that the submitted details would relate appropriately with the dwellings around it and the garden sizes comply with policy LP16(h) and the scheme is compliant with LP16. He stated that at 10.17 with regards to flood risk it points out that there are no other reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development at the time of the application, with there being material changes since he made the last application in so far as the application for 5 dwellings the other side of the railway line has been approved and the access has now moved from the first application as has the red line and, therefore, it is a different application.

Mr Humphrey stated that if members feel that four dwellings is over development then the applicant would consider three dwellings on the site, however, the officer has not raised any concern. He made the point that the planning officer has confirmed in all terms apart from flood risk that the site is in keeping with the area and subject to design and finishes it would not detract from the character of the area, adding that the proposal is to include sustainable benefits for the site in accordance with the exception test which is flood warning, finished floor levels in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, evacuation plan, solar panels and PV triple glazing.

Mr Humphrey asked members to reconsider the proposal from the previous application and support it.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that she is disappointed to hear that Mr Humphrey is suggesting that the number of dwellings be reduced and it is a pity that the number of dwellings was not reduced previously as the committee will be considering the application before them today and the only way to accept the reduction in dwellings is for the application to be refused and for a new application to be submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item P107/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey referred to the site plan and explained that the site is currently residential and there is an existing tree belt which actually divides the garden and makes it into a natural plot, with the cottage that is currently on the site being small in size and the garden is out of proportion with the cottage. He expressed the opinion that there are many factors that lead the site to a natural plot and the plan demonstrates that it is an infill plot and under LP3, the policy allows for such settlements as Tydd Gote to have infill plots and it is clear that the application site is on a corner and you can still have an infill on the corner between the two properties, Green Acres and Chestnuts.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the Planning Officer has a different view and is of the opinion that it is not an infill site, however, in his view it is. He made the point that the officer’s report appears to demonstrate a concern for the loss of the frontage hedge and normally he would look for that to be retained and should members want the hedge to be retained then the applicant would be willing to leave it by way of a condition.

Mr Humphrey stated that there were 8 letters of support and none of objection which is pleasing to see in such a small hamlet. He asked members to review the plan and make their own judgement as to whether the application site is actually in open countryside because, in his opinion, it actually forms part of the existing developed village of Tydd Gote.

Mr Humphrey explained that reason three of the officers refusal refers to no ecology or biodiversity net gain (BNG) but this was not required at the time of the application and the application was validated prior to 2 April as a minor application, however, he would be prepared to provide BNG on the site if necessary as part of a requirement with the retained garden and he asked the committee to consider the application as infill development and support the application.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification with regards to the BNG statement that Mr Humphrey has made. Mr Humphrey explained that one of the reasons for refusal is that there is no ecology report, and it is his understanding that an ecology report was not required at the time that the application was submitted. Councillor Mrs French stated that normally if it is an outline application that does not need to be supplied as it is a minor application. Mr Humphrey stated that is correct.

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Humphrey whether he would be prepared to provide an ecology report?  ...  view the full minutes text for item P108/23

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 and Tom Payne, the applicant. Mr Payne explained that he has owned the Bramley House Hotel for the last three and a half years and over this time he has learnt what is needed in the area is a high standard of accommodation whilst offering food and drink in a calm and relaxed setting. He added that most of his bookings come from local businesses who use the hotel for their staff who have travelled from other locations in the country or abroad.

Mr Payne explained that the companies who use the premises include Stainless Metalcraft, Aerotron, Taylor Made, ALS and Cromwell School along with many businesses working in the area who are working on renewable energy and the reservoir project which brings with it a great demand for accommodation. He explained that many of his guests include visitors for family events as well as corporate events, afternoon tea and evening meals and many of his staff which he employs are local people.

Mr Payne made the point that the extension of Bramley House will make it a viable business for many years to come which will create more jobs and he will use local trades for the building works which will cost in excess of £400,000 and he will use local supplies where possible. He added that he is currently turning away business on a regular basis.

Matthew Hall stated that the key point to the application is Policy LP6 of the Local Plan which welcomes new accommodation and hotels and, in his view, the proposal fits in with the broad location for growth with Chatteris being one of the four market towns and the site is in Flood Zone 1. He referred to 9.14 of the officer’s report which states that there would not be any significant overshadowing as there is a car park to the north and at 9.15 it states that there would be no overlooking issues to address and the principle of development at this location has been accepted by the Planning Officer.

Mr Hall made the point that the proposal will allow for ground floor rooms to be offered with access off of the car park for any persons with disability as the existing building has a number of steps. He stated that there have been no objections from the properties in the adjacent Boadicea Court and he added that he has spoken to the Town Clerk at Chatteris Town Council who has advised him that there is unanimous support from the Town Council for the application.

Mr Hall made the point that the site is located in the centre of the market town of Chatteris and there are good transport links to the adjacent village, towns and cities. He stated that the present time there is on-site parking, and the proposal looks to retain a similar amount of parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item P109/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application generated three letters of objection and 13 letters of support, with it being clear from the consultation that the application should provide the footpath link to Bramley Court along with street lighting. He added that the application seeks to mirror the adjacent built scheme at Bramley Court from which it can be seen the type of development that can be delivered, with the site being clearly adjacent to the developed footprint of the village and forms a natural infill between an existing built form and the natural tree landscaped area.

Mr Humphrey explained that it is only an outline application, and all details can be agreed at a later stage and the applicant would also be happy to provide traffic calming measures which is something he believes the residents of Coldham would like. He added that it would prove difficult for that to be achieved from any other development because it is an infill only village and the applicant has stated that they would be happy to offer that, and it would also assist with the visibility from the site.

Mr Humphrey stated that it should be noted that the site has been allocated in the emerging Local Plan and whilst it does not carry any weight at the current time, officers have reviewed the site and believe that the location, flood risk, highway, size of development, natural environment, development in the countryside and amenity provision are all accepted in the emerging plan. He expressed the view that the emerging plan can be given some consideration, and he asked the committee to support the application.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks asked for clarification where the traffic calming measures will be placed? Mr Humphrey stated that he is unsure, however, the comments from the local residents and the site owner appear to highlight that it has been raised. He added that there would need to be some liaison with the Highway Officers but certainly traffic calming measures would be welcomed and of benefit to the village.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he appreciates that it is an indicative plan, however, he does have concerns with regards to dustcart parking and bin collections. He questioned whether the residents would have to pull their bins to the top of the road for collections to be undertaken? Mr Humphrey stated that the collection would be identical to that of Bramley Court where the refuse collection vehicle will enter the road and use the compliant turning head at the end of the road to exit.

·         Councillor Marks questioned whether all parking will be off the main road? Mr Humphrey confirmed that is correct and the houses in Bramley Court are medium to large houses with ample parking and that is how he envisages these proposed six dwellings.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses  ...  view the full minutes text for item P110/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation from Debbie Fryett, an objector, which was read out by Member Services. Ms Fryett referred to her comments placed on the public access platform on 12 December 2023 stating that she has been a resident of Mill Road for nearly 30 years and the road is still in a bad state of repair, the flooding issues reported to highways over the last 15 months have still not been addressed, the footpaths cease at the end of the houses that were completed around 25 years ago, so there has really not been much progress with the existing issues that the residents of Mill Road already have. She agrees that everybody is entitled to an opinion but would ask that the Planning Committee consider the opinions of the local residents that it directly effects.

Ms Fryett expressed the view that after these 3 plots there is a substantial area of land that would be in line for planning if this application was successful and she would ask that the committee would consider the recommendation that paths and possibly passing paces were installed before any building commences.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent and Luke Patrick, the applicant. Mrs Patrick explained that the application is before the committee with support from local residents and whilst she acknowledged that there is some opposition to the development the reasons for their objections are mainly due to road safety. She added that there is a path in motion of being extended in an easterly direction and the Head of Planning is aware of this, which will aid the road safety concerns that the residents of Murrow have, with the path being currently in its final stages of being approved for the extension.

Mrs Patrick made the point that the Highways Authority and the Environment Agency have no objection to the proposal, however, if members would like to see a further extension to the path then a condition would be accepted. She explained that a sequential test has been undertaken in Murrow and it is felt that the proposal is not classed as an elsewhere development as it abuts the development boundary and is opposite residential development and, therefore, it is a natural extension and is a house type that is suitable for all and is not a large house type which has become typical in Murrow in recent times.

Mrs Patrick explained that at the current time the land is scrub land, it is not a commercially farmed field and, in her view, over the years members have seen developments such as the proposal before them come forward, such as Gull Road in Guyhirn, which is not seen as the main settlement and the committee made the correct decision as it is a flourishing location to live in. She expressed the view that Murrow is now a popular location to live due  ...  view the full minutes text for item P111/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent and Calum Hamilton, the applicant. Mr Gowler stated that there are no technical objections to the proposal, and he is pleased to see that the officer recommendation is for one of approval. He explained that the site was part of a larger site of 13 houses although only nine of those were actually located on the site which was approved but the permission has now expired.

Mr Gowler stated that the first objection raised by the Parish Council refers to the development being against the character of the open countryside but, in his opinion, the proposed residential development will actually enhance the appearance as you approach that end of Doddington. He explained that the second point of objection raised by the Parish Council is that the access would be unsafe, and he explained that there is currently an access to that part of the site already and as part of his proposed design there have been visibility splays incorporated as required by Highways.

Mr Hamilton stated that he has lived in Doddington for 40 years and it was always his aim to purchase the house should it ever come up for sale, adding that the residents from the property next door were sellers of produce and as they grew older, he also looked after their back garden to provide them with assistance. He explained that after one of his neighbours passed away, which was after the planning application for 13 dwellings had been submitted, his other neighbour found she was no longer able to cope and moved into a smaller dwelling.

Mr Hamilton explained that a developer had agreed to purchase the whole site including the neighbour’s property but in June 2023, the developer decided to withdraw the reserved matters application and that is when he discovered that the planning application had expired. He explained that he is now struggling to maintain the property in a way in which he would like to and has decided that if three dwellings were located at the front then he would be able to manage the rest of the land, with his wish to stay there and to enhance the entrance into the village.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked what was the viewpoint from the Parish Council when the proposal was for 13 dwellings? Mr Hamilton confirmed that they were in support.

Members asked officers the following questions.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarity that the Parish Council supported 13 dwellings but do not support 3. Officers confirmed this to be the case.

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he cannot see anything wrong with the proposal and he agrees with the officer’s recommendation, and it should be approved.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that this is a straightforward application  ...  view the full minutes text for item P112/23