Agenda and draft minutes

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Member received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alan Melton on behalf of Manea Parish Council. Mr Melton stated that the Parish Council has no objection to this development and they feel it is a replacement of dwellings that are already there, although they may be caravans. He finds it interesting to note that the proposed development would see the loss of a gypsy traveller site, which may be the strict interpretation of the rules, but having known this family for a long time and know of them and their work this site as a travellers site is dependent and personal to the occupants, Mr and Mrs Savage and family.

Mr Melton stated that under no circumstances, if there had been a planning application come in for a gypsy traveller site in that location, would it have been granted in the first place. He referred to the consultees and made the point that he can see no objections, especially from Highways as he knows residents have shown concern about the access and egress.

Mr Melton referred to the County Ecology report which recommends refusal due to lack of biodiversity but, in his view, it is surrounded by biodiversity and reiterated that there are already structures on the site so he feels it cannot be detrimental by building these homes. He feels there is a lot of writing about ecology but having read it thoroughly, in his opinion, this should all be dismissed.

Mr Melton highlighted the comments from the Council’s Traveller and Diversity Manager who stated the existing development was approved for a gypsy traveller caravan but expressed the view that circumstances and people change, with people wanting to move on and Chatteris and Manea and the surrounding areas years ago welcomed lots of traveller sites and travellers and their descendants are now living in houses and are prominent business people who have contributed a lot to the local economy and the local environment. He, therefore, feels these comments are not relevant and should be dismissed.

Mr Melton referred to local need, with it stating in the report that there is no discernible need but, in his view, from training he has received in the past the baseline of planning is land use and the need of houses will be determined by the market place. He expressed the view that the emerging Local Plan makes no provision for any housing whatsoever in Manea, with in one section it saying it is a growth village and in another section it says there is no growth so it cannot be both.

Mr Melton questioned whether it encroaches into the countryside and referred to piecemeal development, with, in his opinion, anybody who uses that road as regularly as he does will know that Westfield Road is made up of piecemeal development so this proposal is not out of character. He stated that it is the conclusion of the Parish Council that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item P113/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Tierney, ward councillor. Councillor Tierney stated that he is the County, District and Town Councillor for this area but Councillors Hoy and Wallwork have fed into what he is going to say and Councillor Edwards who is a Town Councillor is also present to support residents in opposing this application. He stated that Queens Road is a normal residential street full of family character homes in a well-established community neighbourhood and under the Local Plan’s health and wellbeing guidance LP2 it aims to provide high levels of residential amenity which, in his view, this proposal only pays scant lip service to, with it having almost no communal areas and does not give a sense of community.

Councillor Tierney stated that LP2 also states the ambition to create an environment in which communities can flourish and, in his view, people cannot easily flourish in these sorts of proposed accommodations. He expressed the opinion that this proposal is also contrary to paragraph 8 of the NPPF which states that development should support strong, vibrant, and healthy communities and living in a small box room with no community space he feels is the opposite of that ambition and is not conducive to a healthy life.

Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that the key reason why this application should be refused is that it breaches LP16 in multiple ways, LP16(b) states that development should protect and enhance biodiversity on and around the site, with this proposal not doing this as the garden is removed to create multiple parking spaces but not enough parking spaces, LP16(d) states that developments should make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and this application cannot possibly, in his view, do this, LP16(e) states that development should not adversely impact upon the amenity of neighbouring users, with one example given being loss of privacy, and, in his view, this site will lead to overlooking of No.39 and so contravenes this. He added that LP16 sets out the desire to deliver and protect high quality environments, with this building normally being a high-quality family home but under these proposals becomes multiple small dwellings creating isolation and having an negative effect on the physical and mental health of people forced to live their entire lives in one room.

Councillor Tierney expressed the view that the parking provision is poor for this many proposed residents and committee did refuse another application last year at Langley Lodge, 300 yards along the road, for the same reason, with that application going to appeal and the appeal supported this committee’s reservations and decision and he feels this is the same situation. He stated that LP15(c) stipulates development schemes should provide well-designed car parking appropriate to the amount of development proposed and in line with car parking standards but this development  ...  view the full minutes text for item P114/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Johnson, the applicant. Mr Johnson stated that the original fence design was based on fences previously built and designed by English Brothers for Highways England without any specific data to work from to ensure it was suitable for his site and it became clear that the pre-made panels would be too big and heavy to easily be handled and erected on site. He made the point that they were asked not to include an acoustic fence in his first submission for conservation reasons but it was requested by the committee.

Mr Johnson stated that realising that he might need some data to go along with an acoustic fence he contacted a firm specialising in designing and installing acoustic fences and they had a computer programme that required him giving them data for parameters but it was a rough and ready tool at best and ended up with a 2.4 metre fence submission. He made the point that post Covid the price of timber has increased and if they are investing a vast sum of money in a fence it needed to be fit for purpose not unnecessarily costly or over engineered and he felt he had no route other than to commission a bonafide acoustic engineer to model the site and carry out a full noise investigation.

Mr Johnson stated that the results confirmed what he expected but to a much greater degree, with the levels monitored from all receptors recorded in the lowest possible table category of none or not significant and were very comfortably inside the upper limit of this category. He asked the engineer if the difference was virtually undetectable to the human ear and he confirmed exactly that and he requested that the engineer include this sentence in the report as he felt it would be more relatable to those who were not used to the technical language but he confirmed that the regulatory body with whom they were affiliated did not permit such a sentence because there is always a chance that someone can produce a person with the hearing of a bat.

Mr Johnson expressed the view that whilst there does not appear to be a document to make it absolute fact it is a long-standing well-known understanding within the planning system that the minimum 1.8 fence to a garden is an agreeable height in order to protect neighbour’s private amenity in terms of overlooking. He added that Peter Humphrey Associates confirmed he had never asked for anything over 1.8 metres between gardens and has never been asked to make a fence 2 metres for that reason, with it being documented in permitted development guides relating to heights of windows that if a window is over 1.7 metres above the internal floor level it is not considered an overlooking issue and also most people  ...  view the full minutes text for item P115/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Maria Hobbs, the applicant, and Ian Gowler, the agent. Ms Hobbs expressed the view that this proposal offers a chance for a property to be built in an established residential area providing Chatteris with another home it vitally needs, which would be a modest home and offer the chance for a self-build or someone to look to start out on the housing ladder either as an owner or renter. She feels that not every home needs to be a 4-bedroom house and the property proposed is the sort that is lacking, enabling a good strong start for people coming onto the housing market or those looking to downsize.

Ms Hobbs expressed the view that Chatteris is ever expanding and whilst there are plenty of new build estates not everyone wants to live on a new estate, with the expansion of Chatteris commercially and residentially she believes that smaller and modest builds like the one she proposes are just as important as brand-new estates. She stated that she runs the Green Welly Café and Garden Centre, a local business run by a local businesswoman, and she has lived here all her life, with economic times being hard through Covid, the cost of living, cost of fuels and materials and she had to close the motel and change it into residential flats due to changes in the economy and running an independent business is now harder than ever and she has had to adapt to the challenges.

Ms Hobbs stated that to move forward with the next stage of developing her garden centre she requires money, banks and private funding are synonymous with long-term debt and it is not sustainable for her to build her own business and by obtaining planning she can provide a property into the pool and also take her business to the next level. She feels it is important to note that the neighbours have not raised an objection to the proposal, there has already been development in Queensway estate showing that the principle of development has already been established within the area.

Ms Hobbs made the point that this is an outline application and as such the Council will have control when it comes to the Reserved Matters application to ensure the property is built sympathetically to the current street view.

Mr Gowler referred to the reasons for refusal, the first being the character of Queensway and, in his view, as can be seen from the site plan the front of the proposed bungalow is slightly set forward from No.54 but does follow the characteristic of that part of Queensway and is also set in line with the property to the rear as it goes around the corner. He stated that in terms of the amenity space for No.54, he notices a lot that properties carve their gardens off without permission so this proposal could already have that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P116/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Derek Widdowson, an objector to the proposal. Mr Widdowson stated that he is speaking on behalf of all the local neighbours affected by the proposal, adding that he lives at Copper Beeches which would be one of the main houses impacted by the dwellings. He stated that it is the fourth time that a planning application has been submitted and all applications to date have been refused by the Planning Committee citing the reason that the proposal is backland development, with the first application going to appeal to the Secretary of State which was also rejected.

Mr Widdowson explained that the current application has been changed to three four-bedroomed detached single storey dwellings and the proposed build is still on back land and has been sited closer to his property, with the site being landlocked, is behind existing buildings and would have no street frontage. He added that the access is very limited and would not be in the best interest of Gull Road, with Gull Road being busy with heavy haulage and farm traffic, and this will not be assisted by new residents and service vehicles which would have to turn into a narrow access road by making a left turn from Gull Road causing some vehicles to use the offside lane of Gull Road against oncoming traffic.

Mr Widdowson added that the 40mph speed limit is not adhered to and the access road itself is only single access in width and is unlit, with it also narrowing to the width of a gate between the corner of his property and his neighbour and there is not option for a passing place which will mean vehicles need to back up. He stated that his two main bedrooms adjoin the access road which, in his view, will be affected by noise and light pollution from persons entering or leaving and he currently has a view of an extensive field which is shielded by a row of conifers on its western edge but that is not shown on the plan.

Mr Widdowson added that the dwellings would be intrusive and would block out his natural light in his property, with the land in question being higher than his ground floor and with current regulations it would force any builders to raise the ground floor to negate the issue of flooding which in turn will mean that his property will be overlooked and dwarfed by all three developments.

He explained that his hedge is 7ft high, however, his privacy will still be compromised within his house and garden with the possibility of at least 10 additional vehicles from dusk to dawn with their headlights shining into his living room and main rear bedroom.

Mr Widdowson expressed the view that a further problem to consider maybe the water table as the land in question  ...  view the full minutes text for item P117/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for 2 two-storey dwellings and at 10.3 of the officer’s report it states that the principle of development is acceptable, and the concerns lie with the scale of the proposal and the impact on the neighbouring dwellings. She added that the applicant are long standing residents of the local area and Swann Edwards were appointed to design forever homes for them and their son and family.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the designs are bespoke to the needs of the applicants and their son and the dwellings will meet the everchanging needs of the users which is something that is supported by the National Design Guide. She stated that from previous applications she understands that there were concerns with the design and general form of the dwellings and, therefore, steps have been taken to revise them as much as possible whilst still meeting the design and accommodation criteria for the family and whilst the dwellings may appear to be longer than other properties in the area, in her opinion, that is not harmful, and they extend no further into the countryside than the existing development to the west or that approved to the east, and they will not be visible from a public viewpoint.

Mrs Jackson stated that the roofscape of the dwellings has been broken up and there is variation in the width of the buildings which results in giving the dwellings character and they do not appear bulky. She advised the committee that the scheme provides over and above the necessary garden land and provides sufficient parking and it will also secure the long-term care and maintenance of the existing lake to the rear as it will form part of the extended garden area for the dwellings.

Mrs Jackson explained that the scheme provides over and above the amenities required within the Local Plan, there are sufficient gaps between the buildings as well as maintaining an internal roadway to the site and, in her opinion, the scheme does not represent over development and as the scheme proposes two dwellings it promotes a better and more efficient use of land which is promoted in Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. She stated that she understands that there are concerns with regards to the application representing an overbearing impact and resulting in loss of light to the neighbouring properties to the west, however, there is an existing hedge on the boundary which is approximately 7.6 metres high which is significantly higher than the eaves height of plot one which is 5.4 metres.

Mrs Jackson added that since the eaves height of the proposal will be lower than the existing hedge and the side elevation of plot 1 would be no closer to the common boundary of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P118/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent, and Nick Price, the applicant. Mr Price stated that he would like to build two quality self-build homes which would be one for his parents and one for his family, which includes four children. He explained that his old, dilapidated house is beyond economic repair, and he stated that he currently has buckets catching rainwater in both the kitchen and his son’s bedroom.

Mr Price made the point that he hopes he does not have to spend another winter in the house due to the cold and damp conditions causing his children to become ill and he aims to work with the developers from the mill development site which is further up the road and to replace a storm drain which runs alongside his plots which will solve the issue of flooding on Fallow Corner Drove. He added that the site will create a footpath for pedestrians to use around the corner and provide a wider visibility splay for motorists.

Mr Price stated that with regards to the concerns raised, in his opinion, he does not feel that there will be a negative impact on neighbouring dwellings, and at the present time there are large 30ft high conifers on the neighbouring property which provide a separation from his two plots. He stated that the sun rises in the rear, in the gardens of the neighbours’ properties and sets in the front.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen and made reference to the overbearing nature of the proposed dwellings, making the point that in photograph two it shows large leylandii trees which are close to the windows of the bungalow and the proposed dwelling is 5 metres away from the exiting bungalow and the trees are on the neighbouring property and will, therefore, be retained. He explained that he has tried to keep that property as close as possible to the indicative layout that was provided to the committee so that there is no real change from the outline application to what is before the committee.

Mr Gowler made the point that one of the benefits to the development includes the introduction of the footpath which goes around the corner and also the intention of the applicant to try and improve the issue of surface water situation along Fallow Corner Drove. He expressed the opinion there have been changes made to the development in order to try and mitigate all of the reasons for previous refusals to the proposal and he would hope the committee can approve the application.

Members asked Mr Price and Mr Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Price for clarification with regards to what the area is like and does it include a mixture of both residential and commercial premises. Mr Price explained that he is currently living on the site, and it is mainly residential. Mr Gowler stated that previously  ...  view the full minutes text for item P119/23