Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 29 June 2022.

The minutes of 29 June 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the applications.

David Rowen presented the report to members and informed members that 25 letters of support for the application had been received due to the perceived improvements to the appearance of the site from residents of March, Doddington, Wimblington and Chatteris.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Gowler of Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Gowler stated that Chatteris Town Council support this application and was delighted to see positive action regarding this property which is on the main route into the Town Centre and has been in decline for decades becoming an embarrassing eyesore to any visitors to the town. He expressed the view that it is visibly in a dangerous state of repair and is a major concern to neighbours of which one has submitted a comment on the Planning Portal requesting that urgent attention is given to action being taken to ensure the safety of their family.

Councillor Gowler expressed the opinion that the current owners of the property have made well documented efforts to renovate the property in conjunction with officers including offering to demolish the building and re-build it back to its original state, but this was deemed to be unacceptable. He expressed the view that the owners have invested considerable time and money into this project only to meet with what appears to be a wholly inflexible approach by officers.

Councillor Gowler stated that whilst the efforts of the Conservation Officer are fully appreciated and they have rules and regulations to adhere to the suggestions for the building appear, in his view, to be micro-managing potential renovation rather than considering the application presented. He feels the reply from the Council’s Architecture displays a precise explanation and in some cases rebuttal of the Conservation Officer’s comments and his professional assessment of the building should, in his opinion, be seriously considered.

Councillor Gowler expressed the view that consideration should also be given to the comments on the delays on any progress to this proposal, with Covid having a severe impact on the whole world and on many construction projects. He stated that the building has been deteriorating for the best part of 30 years despite attempts by the owners to start the renovation which has been disappointedly met with various obstructions and roadblocks by the Council.

Councillor Gowler stated that a major concern relating to this application is the potential message it portrays to anybody considering renovating any property within the Conservation Area in Chatteris and across Fenland, with these renovations needing to be highly encouraged and not discouraged as there are many properties in a similar condition across the District. He made the point that whilst enforcement action could be taken by the Council he feels it is obviously the case that it is impractical due to the sheer number of dilapidated buildings in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P24/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Shelton on behalf the applicant. Mr Shelton stated that the applicant is pleased to receive the support of the Planning Team in respect of this application for a new 56-bed care home and accept all the pre-commencement conditions therein. He made the point that approval for a 56-bedroomed care home on the site has already been given under F/YR21/0284/F and this application changes the vehicular access from Cawood Close to Peterhouse Crescent, with the building being otherwise identical in footprint, scale, location and features.

Mr Shelton stated that this new application allows direct access into the care home from Peterhouse Crescent in contrast with the right of way access that they have over the land to the entrance of the site from Cawood Close, with the revision giving them full authority and rights over the entrance to the site ensuring that the boundary, entrance and roadway outside the home remain safe and free from disruption. He made the point that they had limited right over the entrance to Cawood Close and Peterhouse Crescent entrance will allow them to monitor the safety and well-being of neighbours and residents at all times.

Mr Shelton explained that pre-application advice was sought from the Council and the Highway Authority prior to submission of the application in December 2021, with the new entrance providing a more welcoming space with increased visibility and provides easier access to public transport links on Station Road. He stated that the proposed care home replaces the previous unsightly portal frame asbestos clad building already demolished and whilst trees will be removed as part of the preliminary works under the previous permission, there will be an ecological assessment to ensure that there is a bio-diversity net gain to the site once complete.

Mr Shelton stated that the scheme has received positive comments from all statutory consultees and throughout the application they have updated the design to reflect any comments made by each of the parties including the local drainage board, Middle Level, as well as Anglian Water and the Local Flood Authority. He expressed the opinion that they have attempted to pre-empt issues that neighbours of Peterhouse Crescent would raise and during the application have duly responded to the collective concerns, including:

·       ‘risk of devaluing neighbouring properties’. He does not believe the modern contemporary design of the new care home will devalue neighbouring properties and feels the opposite will occur with removal of the previous cladded warehouse.

·       ‘increased disruption from construction traffic’. He stated that it is their intention to utilise the rights of way they have over the Cawood Close entrance as its construction entrance for all activities other than a few activities that affect the Peterhouse Crescent boundary, therefore, mitigating any nuisance.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P25/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Gowler of Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Gowler stated that Chatteris Town Council support this application as this piece of land just off the Town Centre has been an eyesore for many years, with the proposal providing two good quality houses, a flat and garages in a prime location in town. He stated that the Town Council did not consider this proposal to be overdevelopment, which they feel is a subjective opinion.

Councillor Gowler expressed his surprise that parking is being taken into consideration within a Town Centre location when in many cases, despite concerns raised by the Town Council, little to no consideration is made with other applications including the very recent acceptance of an application on the former Baptist Chapel in West Park Street to convert it into flats with little to no provision being made for the many vehicles that will inevitably result from it. He asked members to take these observations into account when making their decision on the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent, and Darren Smith, the applicant. Mr Bevens stated that he has been working on this site now for 8 years with different proposals for the site from various clients but no application to date has been implemented for good reason. He expressed the view that the main reason is due to the associated costs with getting a scheme that is financially viable to implement as not only are there associated costs with the former barn on site and regular anti-social behaviour until the site was more recently secured, but also additional costs associated with archaeology and contamination both of which have yet to be carried out as well as escalating costs of materials and labour.

Mr Bevens made the point that there is extant consent for a 4-bedroomed detached dwelling with detached garage on the site, but, in his view, this is the wrong site for this type of property in the centre of town where you would expect smaller properties and goes against National Planning Policies including the NPPF in not making the best use of land. He expressed the opinion that this application makes the best use of the site and is not overdevelopment as it makes best use of the land available and will make this eyesore of a site attractive to live at, offer a good variety of housing types, provide passive surveillance to both King Edward Road and the car parks at the Conservative Club and the George Hotel and an overall positive contribution to the town.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposed development will make a positive impact on the character of the area both visually,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P26/22

To determine the application.

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that Councillor Mrs Mayor chaired the meeting for this item.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Joseph Jones, the agent. Mr Jones stated that he has engaged with the Council to put together an application which they hoped would be acceptable and have redesigned the layout of the site after consulting with the Council. He expressed the view that as there is unmet need in the District the consent here would be a positive initiative mitigating against the unmet need.

Mr Jones referred to the NPPF in its policy for travellers’ site which is supportive of gypsy sites in certain circumstances as in this case and is the officer’s recommendation. He feels there are no significant objections locally to the application.

Mr Jones expressed the view that there a number of material considerations when taken separately or together which can outweigh harm, policy issues or other considerations and this case includes primacy of a child which has to be taken into consideration, the applicants are travellers and have gypsy status for planning purposes, there is an unmet need for more pitches in the District and within the region which carries significant weight, the proposed applicants need a place to live and the Council needs to balance its duty of care, the unmet need, targets for pitches in the area and residual obligations carried forward from the Housing Act. He expressed the opinion that the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act are also engaged in the situation and need to be given weight as well as consideration to the necessary five year supply of land for the gypsy/traveller community and if the local authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites then the NPPF says consent should be granted, with those targets being reviewed annually but, in his view, at the moment this is a policy failure.

Mr Jones expressed the view that the site is sustainable, any new site in the area is going to be in the open countryside and the application has limited impact and additional screening can be carried out. He stated that there are no objections in policy terms that are not outweighed by the personal circumstances or considerations and planning guidance says that if a condition can address concerns raised by a planning application then consent should be granted with the relevant condition, with the conditions proposed for the application being reasonable and acceptable to the applicant.

Mr Jones concluded that the site is available, deliverable and sustainable and he urged the committee to look favourably on their planning application.

Members asked questions of Mr Jones as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs  ...  view the full minutes text for item P27/22

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the original application was approved in 2012 which was 10 years ago and asked if anything has actually happened on site since then or does this actually require a full application rather than a change of conditions? Theresa Nicholl responded that she did investigate this, and she received confirmation from Building Control that the foundations for one of the garages had been laid in 2016 following discharge of the relevant conditions and also some of the buildings on site have been demolished and on the balance of probabilities her assessment was that the development had commenced.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with the comments of officers and does not understand why there is any doubt about it as the 2012 permission was for the erection of 9 dwellings involving demolition of the existing buildings so as soon as the former buildings were demolished the development had commenced and he knows for a fact, as he spoke to the builder, that the garage base on plots 2 and 3 was put in at that stage as he walked on site and spoke to him so he can confirm that there is no issue with commencement. He referred to the latest iteration of the plan and officers, in his view, have worked with the agent very generously to accommodate the request of the Old School House and the Old School to be able to access their cesspit for emptying and on the original 2012 plan there was just a very narrow 1 metre wide pathway and through negotiation the applicant and agent have made it better so they can reverse down and get closer to it. Councillor Sutton referred to plan 08N and expressed the view that there is a discrepancy between that and MTC’s plan and if officers are saying the development has to be built to comply with 08N, in his opinion, it cannot because 08N shows the services going from the road down to the back of the site and going right through the attenuation cage so he thinks before permission could be given 08N needs revising unless he is told that this is a minor issue. Theresa Nicholl responded that the plan has changed considerably as she has been working with the agent to try and clear up the outstanding conditions and she had not picked this up on the most recent plan, however, she thinks that as this is below ground services she believes it could be de minimus and it could be dealt with later as it does not change the appearance of the development and is more of a building control issue.

·       Councillor Skoulding thanked officers in assisting with a fantastic design but asked if there will be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P28/22

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater on behalf of the agent. Mr Slater stated that the officer recommends refusal on two grounds, which he will address, and it is pertinent to note that there is significant local support for the scheme, with 16 letters of support and non in objection, and the Town Council is supportive. He feels the site is a sustainable and accessible location on the edge of March, with it having good access by road, cycle and footpath links to the Town Centre.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that the new Gaul Road cycle way passes immediately to the south of the site giving enhanced and sustainable access to the town and is closer and more accessible to the Town Centre than much of the existing town itself. He expressed the view that the adopted Local Plan enables new development on the edge of the town under the provision of LP3 and LP4, with LP4 noting that development of up to 249 dwellings can be acceptable on the edge of market towns on unallocated land.

Mr Slater stated that the application site sits close to the established developments north of Gaul Road and adjacent to the allocation and Broad Concept Plan area to the south of Gaul Road. He made the point that it is common ground with the officer that there was at least one dwelling and associated outbuildings on the site until comparatively recently, with the 1999 Google earth view of the site showing this and whilst the site has been cleared in the interim it remains previously developed land, it is not agricultural land nor does it form part of a wider land ownership of the land between Gaul Road and the river.

Mr Slater contended that the historic presence of a dwelling on site is material as it provides an indication of the built form of development along Gaul Road and shows that along Gaul Road, as is common with many Fenland roads, the characteristic built form is sporadic homes, with the planning weight to be given to this fact a matter for the committee. He stated that the application was accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment as stipulated by the Council’s validation requirements and the Environment Agency raises no objection to the scheme and there is no consultation response from Middle Level on file.

Mr Slater made the point that whilst the site lies in land shown as Flood Zone 3 on the Environment Agency maps, members will be aware that this mapping is based on the assumption that the land is undefended in that flood defences are not taken into consideration. He expressed the opinion that the Fens are the oldest, best understood, best defended and best managed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P29/22

To determinbe the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater on behalf of the agent. Mr Slater stated that Manea is identified in the adopted Local Plan as a growth village reflecting the range of local services and facilities as well as access to the railway station. He expressed the view that Station Road is essentially a linear extension of the village which links the historic core of the village to the railway station and over the past 20 years the extent of this development has increased such that there is now continuous development to the station on one side or the other of Station Road for its entire length.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that this proposal is entirely consistent with this approach and is in keeping with the linear form of development which characterises Manea. He feels the proposal is to all intents and purposes an infill development within an otherwise unbroken form of development along the western side of Station Road and made the point that the officer’s reasons for refusal do not refer to the principle of development nor the design details, but confirm that the proposal is consistent with LP3 and LP12 in terms of spatial principles of the development and could be made consistent with LP15 in terms of design and impact.

Mr Slater stated that the application is accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and whilst it is accepted that the land lies in Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency maps he reiterated that members will be aware that this mapping is based on the assumption that the land is undefended, which he feels is clearly not the case. He highlighted again that, in his view, the Fens is very well defended, understood and the best managed river system and the actual risk from flooding is not reflected in the Environment Agency’s maps as the site, in common with most of Fenland, is subject to layered engineering and management defences, with the Mid Level barrier bank providing a 1 to100 year protection further reduced by freeboard in the Manea and Welney District Drainage Commissioner’s system.

Mr Slater expressed the view that the Flood Risk Assessment sets out clearly the risks and mitigation and confirms that the site is within a defended area benefitting from several engineered defences that offer layered protection to the site so that the risk of flooding can be made safe from the threat of flooding for its life span at 1 to 100 years plus climate change, which is what the Environment Agency’s processes aim to do. He made the point that the Environment Agency raises no objection, and the applicant is accepting the advice provided by the Environment Agency regarding flood warning and foul drainage which could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item P30/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Topgood stated that the plan shows the red line going around the taxi rank as well but it is his understanding that this area does not belong to the applicant so questioned whether it should be included on the plan? David Rowen responded that on the location plan that has been submitted this does appear to be the case but he is not aware of what the ownership arrangements of this area is and whether it is actually part of the application and officers may need to seek clarification on this depending upon the outcome of the application.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that there are 3 flats that already have established planning use so he feels that all members are looking at is another 3 flats. He made the point that there is an abundance of surplus retail space, which will only rise as there is more online shopping and the cost of running businesses from expensive places such as a shop or a restaurant goes up, and these buildings are going to stand empty and the Government does not want empty buildings but there is a shortage of housing and to him this development falls well within that policy. Councillor Benney recognises this policy is not within the Local Plan policy but referred to Peterborough where spaces above retail units have been converted into flats or are being converted and, in his view, this is progress, the way forward and the market should not be blocked on this, the market is saying this is where this proposal needs to go as there are empty properties, empty shops and there will be more of these to come. He made the point that planning is about land usage and, in his opinion, the loss of a pub/restaurant, which is an expensive business to run, and turning it into a smaller shop is not taking away the full commercial aspect of the property but will enable the owner to generate revenue. Councillor Benney expressed the view that if an owner does not make money out of these buildings they will fall into disrepair and this proposal will ensure this building stays in good order.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees broadly with Councillor Benney and when members visited the building it was difficult to see what businesses would be successful there as it is set way back from the Town Centre and better use of the building may be made by having more flats.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees to a certain extent with the previous speakers but he does not think he can support this proposal in its current form due to some of the bedrooms  ...  view the full minutes text for item P31/22

To determine the application.

This agenda item had been withdrawn.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Allison Curtis, the applicant. Ms Curtis advised members that she lives at East View, Gote Lane which has been her home for over 20 years and previously belonged to her former in-laws. She expressed the view that she has been lucky enough to bring up her three children here and has an abundance of memories contained in her home.

Ms Curtis stated that in 2005 her then husband was involved in a horrific RTA which left him with severe head injuries and led to the unfortunate break down of their marriage in 2008, finding herself a single mum of 3 children living in a large house with an even larger garden which she cannot cope with on her own. She stated that she has always worked two jobs to keep afloat, with one of them being a small business which she runs from home, and she would lose this if she is forced to sell her home to downsize.

Ms Curtis referred to one of her clients, who had become a close family friend, being a councillor and he suggested that she apply for planning for an infill plot, which would cut down her workload and make her garden look better under control when her clients visited. She stumbled through the process at that time only to get her application refused, it is now a few years on, and she has a little more understanding as to why her original application was refused, but with that limited understanding comes her reasoning for disagreeing with the recommendation at this time.

Ms Curtis stated that she is unable to see why this development is not acceptable in principle, it is well within the village sign this being about 30 metres away from the property and after this there is quite an open area but not so much before this. She has always considered that she lives very much in the heart of the village being just about 350 metres away from the centre within easy walking distance of every amenity on offer and she used to walk her children to Gorefield Primary every day and they then walked to end of the lane to get the bus to High School.

Ms Curtis expressed the view that she stills walks to the post office, the butchers, to the beer fest at the Pavilion and also walks her granddaughter to the playing field when she is visiting and feels she is lucky to live in Gorefield. She stated that her house and intended plot is not on agricultural land but on her garden and is to her mind a logical infill plot, it is far from an open space currently due to the trees being so dreadfully overgrown,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P33/22

The confidential minutes of 29 June 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)