Agenda and minutes

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

The public minutes of the meeting of 9 February 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.  The Conservation Officer was in attendance for this item to answer any questions members had.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kate Wood, the agent, and Richard Donoyou, Heritage Consultant.  Ms Wood made the point that they have been to committee before about the most appropriate way to deal with this building, with in 2019 a conversion being proposed similar to the current application, which was refused on the grounds of the loss of internal heritage assets and that the external changes to the building would have harmed the significance of the application building, 22 London Road and the wider Conservation Area.  She stated that the main external change was the raising of the single-storey element of the roof along with a single-storey rear extension and internally concerns were raised about the vaulted ceiling and the staircase.

Ms Wood stated that following the refusal they applied to replace the building with a new dwelling, which was also refused, but comfort was taken from the committee’s debate regarding that application whereby it was made clear to them that finding some way to retain the existing building was a preference of members.  She stated as a result they have submitted this current application making changes since the previous refusal to overcome concerns that were raised, in particular the height of the single-storey part of the roof has not been raised as much as previously although it is barely noticeable as a change to the existing height and more of the internal features have been retained, additionally a viability assessment has been submitted to justify the need for the building to be converted to a 3-bed dwelling rather than 1 or 2 bedrooms.

Ms Wood expressed the opinion that the proposal is still unviable but they accept that there is a responsibility to the building and the development of the wider scheme relies on this building’s future being clear.  She expressed the view that they are confident the building will remain subservient to its parent dwelling at No.22 and will retain its heritage character and appearance for future generations.

Ms Wood feels the question for members to consider is whether this proposal has sufficiently overcome the previous reasons for refusal for conversion of the building and she would hope that the physical changes to design along with the justification set out in the viability assessment will be sufficient.  She stated that they are keen to commence work on the wider site of which this building is part of in order to provide a pleasant residential development which will include securing this site for the future as a public benefit for Chatteris.

Mr Donoyou referred to the last committee meeting where they were asked to come back with a revised scheme, which they have done and there are things which they agree with officers.  These are that the building was constructed in the 1870s, where most of the towns were being  ...  view the full minutes text for item P88/21

To determine the applications.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent.  Mr Lunn-Towler made the point that the proposed development is located within the Town Centre of Wisbech, a Market Town as identified under LP3 whereby the majority of the district’s housing should take place.  He stated that the dwelling is located between the Market Place and the Castle, has close ties to the town centre and its services, the site enjoys walking distances to the amenities and leisure facilities that the town offers, is in close proximity to job opportunities and the bus depot at the Horsefair, which has access to a wide area of town, villages and cities such as Peterborough and Norwich and bus links to March and Kings Lynn where train stations are located for nationwide travel.

Mr Lunn-Towler acknowledged that the application is retrospective, but it was sought to use a redundant space within the building to provide additional housing.  He summarised that the application is for a new residential unit within the Town Centre of Wisbech and if members are minded to support the application they will be supporting a new residential unit to support the amenities of Wisbech.

Members asked questions of Mr Lunn-Towler as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if someone was living in the property?  Mr Lunn-Towler responded that it did have a tenant who has now vacated.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the report which mentions that the way it has been converted may cause condensation and rising damp and asked what state it was in prior to the conversion and why officers think it will cause rising damp to the other floors?  David Rowen stated that he is not a Building Control Officer but there are construction techniques that are sympathetic to buildings of a certain era and tanking the basement so that the building cannot breathe means that the damp and condensation has nowhere to go than up the building.

·         Councillor Miscandlon clarified that rising damp normally rises to approximately 3 feet above the ground level and this flat would suffer from penetrating damp as it is below the ground level.

·         Councillor Skoulding asked if there were any extractor fans in the property?  David Rowen responded that as far as he is aware the only extractor fan is the one in the bathroom.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor asked if the window in the kitchen, which has something stood in front of it, is able to be opened as other than this there is no ventilation in the kitchen.  David Rowen responded that he assumes the window will be able to be opened as it would be an even worse environment than anticipated, but its size would not allow adequate ventilation to the remainder of the unit.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis questioned whether there was any form of fire escape?  David Rowen responded that there is only one entrance and exit into  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/21

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent, read out by Member Services.  Ms Patrick stated that this application is a resubmission from an already approved 1½ storey side extension to a 2-storey version, with the major difference between the two schemes being the eaves height to enable a full height ceiling to the first floor.  She feels the precedence set in terms of scale has already been approved and the difference in the head heights on the first floor is minimal in terms of the overall scheme.

Ms Patrick referred to the drawings presented with the application which show a coloured line that represents what is approved and what they are applying for.  She acknowledged that the previously approved scheme was talked through at great length before a decision was made, but expressed the opinion that every scheme is and should be decided on its own merits and not on previous approvals.

Ms Patrick stated that the ridge height of the proposal is not changing, therefore, in her view, overshadowing to the neighbouring property will not increase significantly to that of what has already been approved.  She advised that for ease of construction this application has been presented to appease the client’s wishes and needs before the work starts on site, diminishing the need for remedial work.

Ms Patrick expressed the view that the resubmission of this scheme is in similar context to that approved at committee for a rear full height extension to a new dwelling approved under F/YR18/0579/F, with members drawing the same conclusion that even if the scale and size of the dwelling did not comply with LP12 Part D they did not consider that this would cause harm to the rural character of the locality given the positioning and dimensions of the plot.  She asked members to support the application given the nature of the site and its location along Broad Drove, where the dwellings in this area are, in her opinion, all of a substantial size given the large grounds the dwelling is located in.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the 3.4 metre gate, which she initially thought was a printing mistake, and questioned why anyone would to barricade themselves in like this.  David Rowen responded that the report does refer to the gates being out of keeping with the rural character, but officers do not feel it is so bad as to warrant refusal.  He stated that the gates were included on the previous application and the 3.4 metre height is at the centre point of the gates.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that himself and Councillor Mrs French visited the site and, in his view, it is well out of the way, it is a large site, well shielded by trees and stables.  He acknowledged that the proposal would make  ...  view the full minutes text for item P91/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The Legal Officer stated that no member indicated that they are a member of Whittlesey Conservative Club as this would be a disclosable pecuniary interest.  He advised that, in this instance, where the applicant has a political affinity it is essential that all members of the committee display absolute scrupulous decision-making on the application.  Members have all been made aware of the issues of bias and pre-determination and members need to satisfy themselves and demonstrate that they are not biased or pre-determined about this application as if any decision were taken and challenged at the Court, they would be questioning this.  He stated it is absolutely essential that the planning merits of the application are carefully assessed and demonstrably so in the way in which this application is determined.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Broker, the agent.  Mr Broker stated that the only reason for this application is to secure funds for the continued operation of the Conservative Club, which is a decision made with a heavy heart and does distract from the club premises, but without these funds the club could close.  He made the point that club membership has declined by 25% and opening hours have been reduced by 30%, with income only being able to be maintained by an increase in fees and charges but this alone cannot sustain the business.

Mr Broker expressed the view that the club can survive with less parking spaces but cannot survive with less funding and the previous application was withdrawn to enable them to address the concerns of the Planning Department, which they have tried to do but according to the officer’s report they have failed.  He feels the site is considered to be in a suitable location for development and not within the Conservation Area, but the Conservation Officer is still involved being critical of the design.

Mr Broker stated that from the previous application officers did not want a simple terrace of 4 dwellings and this has been reduced to 3 and the appearance changed away from a terrace but this is now not what officers think is suitable.  He made the point that access and bin storage is questioned but it is clearly demonstrated that this is one of the best accessible sites in the Town Centre, with space for bins adjacent to the main road.

Mr Broker referred to the enclosure of the development being questioned but asked how it differed from those other backland developments that have been approved.  In terms of overlooking of one dwelling into another’s garden, he feels this could easily be rectified with a window being moved to the side.

Mr Broker appreciated that the Planning Department must tick all the boxes, but the tick box system does not always, in his view, allow for a broader picture as in relation to the aesthetics, which the officer’s report criticises, it does not consider the extensive number  ...  view the full minutes text for item P92/21

To determine the application

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Sutton, the agent.  Mr Sutton referred to the officer stating that this site is located in a unsustainable location where future occupiers would be reliant on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities and he would argue that the whole of Colletts Bridge rely on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities and yet Colletts Bridge is still included in the adopted Local Plan under Policy LP3 as an Other Village within the development hierarchy, which is the strategy for sustainable development, therefore, in his view, the use of private motor vehicles for these reasons making the development unsustainable would be contrary to the inclusion of Colletts Bridge within Policy LP3 of the Local Plan.

Mr Sutton referred to Policy LP12 which states that unlike the previous Local Plan there will be no fixed development area boundaries around each of the settlements, yet, in his view, the officer is trying to justify that this infill development is contrary to policy, which they should not be doing to determine this planning application.  He stated that application is for a proposed dwelling in Colletts Bridge, which is listed in Policy LP3 under Other Villages, which states that residential development will be considered on its merits and will normally be restricted to single dwelling infill sites situated in otherwise built-up frontage, which, in his view, perfectly describes this application.

Mr Sutton referred to the officer drawing comparisons to a previous appeal decision for a development in Crooked Bank and made the point that Crooked Bank is located in the settlement of Begdale, which is not listed within Policy LP3, and therefore, he does not feel that comparisons can truly be made between the sites.  He stated that the officer concludes that to allow this application would set an unacceptable precedent for development in this unsustainable location but, in his view, the precedent of a single infill development in Colletts Bridge has already been set by the Local Plan.

Mr Sutton expressed the view that the proposed dwelling is in keeping with its surroundings, does not cause harm or adversely affect the local area, there are no statutory consultee objections having worked proactively with Highways to revise the site plans to show the visibility splays and no objections from local residents, with the only objection being from officers.  He urged members to approve this application for a single infill dwelling within Colletts Bridge.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked where Crooked Bank is?  Alison Hoffman responded that it is in Begdale, off Redmoor Lane near Little Ranch.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that, as much as the application does not comply with LP3, it is a good site for development and it will be a nice high-quality development, which only get built in rural locations.  He feels  ...  view the full minutes text for item P93/21

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Joshua Newell, a supporter.  Mr Newell stated his father has lived in Glebe Close his entire life with the land in question being where his father was born and brought up and the purpose of the application is to build two houses, one for himself and one for his brother.  He stated that him and his brother have lived in Glebe Close since birth and the houses would be 3-bedroom family homes.

Mr Newell expressed the opinion that it is not backyard development as historically Glebe Close was built on greenfield land as affordable homes as a cul-de-sac close from the main road to Darcey Lode, which is the Manea ward boundary.  He understands that another planning application for 26 dwellings is at present being considered by the Planning Department by a developer who has already built off Westfield Road towards Darcey Lode, which is adjacent to the land for this proposal.

Mr Newell expressed the view that the proposal would also provide enough space for 6 vehicles, 3 per property, and access is through Glebe Close, with the Highway Authority not giving any reason to refuse on access grounds.  He made the point that recently, before Covid, another property has been built in Glebe Close and the close has recently been resurfaced in the last 18 months, which his family were heavily involved with.

Mr Newell expressed the opinion that availability of 3-bedroom houses in Manea are few and far between and allowing this development would allow himself and his brother to own their own homes within Manea, which would mean that they would not need to leave the village.  As Manea is a designated growth village, he feels property is becoming scarce and the new car park at the railway station is pushing the cost of houses up meaning that a number of families are being pushed out of where they have been born and lived all their lives.

Mr Newell stated that the land for the proposal is part of a property that his family owns and is tenanted by a family member.  He expressed the view that he has seen Manea being developed over a number of years with back garden development and permission has recently been given to two developments off Westfield Road, Smart Close and land at the Dairy Yard, and he believes their application is no different.

Mr Newell stated that for bin collection the wheelie bins would be put to the entrance of the property but still remain on the property not causing any obstruction on the road.  He stated that if permission is given for the proposal as a family they are happy to work with officers via their architect to design affordable housing so they could stay in Manea.

Members asked questions of Mr Newell as follows:

·         Councillor Topgood asked for clarification that the properties would be for Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item P94/21

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent, read out by Member Services.  Ms Patrick stated that the application is for support for Mr and Mr Harrison to continue living on site, with the applicants being agricultural workers for local farmers, along with having their own business in agriculture that involves the orchard they live on, utilising fruit, the branches and logs of the apple tree.  She expressed the view that the applicants live a simple life with little luxury and it would have been detrimental to show the income of the business on this occasion.

Ms Patrick stated that the applicants could not be at the meeting today due to the stress and anxiety that this application has on them, she asked members not to think of this as ignorance as their mental health is at stake.  She made the point that the applicants have lived on the site for many years, applying for an agricultural building in 2007 for their machinery and tools as they continue to work in this domain.

Ms Patrick stated that the orchards on the land are maintained and utilised for the applicants own business to earn money and they also work to serve the farming community.  She expressed the view that there has been support of their activities on the site and proof of their existence in the support letters, with them being an asset to the community, and the application has had tremendous support from local residents and the Town Council, imploring members to approve the application on the grounds of exception circumstances.

Ms Patrick noted the Environment Agency’s objection to the application but expressed the view that the Council has approved mobile homes in and around the area, North Brink and Bevis Lane to name a few, which has set a precedence for this application, with the mobile homes set 500mm above ground level automatically aiding the flood measures.  She stated that a confidential statement accompanied the application detailing the turmoil the applicants have had to deal with in their farming journey and why they ended up residing on this site having previously lived in farm worker dwellings.

Ms Patrick expressed the opinion that, whilst the application may not comply with all legislation, it would not cause harm to the rural character to the locality given the positioning of the mobile homes and the current set up.  She stated that they would be happy to accept a condition of only “Mr and Mr Harrison to reside on site.  When the applicants cease to live there, the land will return back wholly to an agricultural orchard”, which, in her view, helps prove that the applicants do not wish for monetary gain but to continue their simple, humble life on the land as long as they live there.

Ms Patrick asked members to support the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P95/21

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site and feels the residents would prefer to have a residential rather than the current commercial use on this site so agrees with the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillors Skoulding and Murphy both supported the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the comments of the Town Council, who recommend refusal based on LP3, and whilst he takes note of this he feels the preference for development on a brownfield site seems to be lost.  He asked why you would not want to remove lorries from this site and replace it with a few cars?  Councillor Sutton stated that he cannot see anything wrong with the application, it is a brownfield site which should be supported in preference to greenfield.

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

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Marks and Mrs Mayor had left the meeting prior to the discussion and voting on this application)

To confirm and sign the confidential minutes of the 9 February 2022.

The confidential minutes of the meeting of 9 February 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

(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)