Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 27 July 2022.

The minutes of 27 July 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record, subject to amendment of minute P27/22 second bullet point of questions to officers where Councillor Sutton refers to Barrier Banks it should read Nene and Ouse Barrier Banks.

During the declaration of interests, Councillor Connor reported that he had been advised that on applications F/YR22/0632/RM and F/YR22/0338/F, which he had called in to be considered by Planning Committee as per the Council’s Constitution, and linked applications F/YR22/0217/LB and F/YR22/0218/F that he was pre-determined which he does not agree with and feels that this has been judged harshly.

Members and officers made comments as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for an explanation why officers believe the Chairman is already predetermined as her understanding is that when the Chairman decides to bring an application before Planning Committee the Chairman makes a recommendation and the Head of Planning actually makes the decision so she cannot see why the Chairman is pre-determined? She expressed the opinion that if this is the case the authority to call-in applications to committee will be taken away from the Chairman and the Head of Planning and authority given to the Portfolio Holder for Planning to make the determination as it is not right that the Chairman has to sit back and not vote and take part in planning applications which he sits on committee to do.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that when this method of bringing applications to the Planning Committee was discussed previously it was decided that the Chairman would decide in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder to recommend applications to committee and it is down to the committee to determine the applications. He made the point that the Chairman is part of the Planning Committee and, in his view, to take him away from the committee he feels is wrong, with people paying good money and a lot of money for their planning applications to be heard and this is impeding the process for these applications to be heard in a fair, open and democratic way and the Chairman should be able to consider these applications. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that, in terms of pre-determination, everyone who sits on the committee starts with an open mind but by the time the report has been read members all have an opinion of some sort that can be swayed and changed at the meeting, which is the democratic process.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has been undertaking these call-ins for approximately two years and he used to use openness and transparency as his reasons and it is only in the last three months that the terms of calling-in applications has been altered whereby he has had to provide reasons why they should come to committee, not his personal thoughts but for committee to decide whether an application is approved or refused.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that her view is that the process was brought in for the Chairman of Planning Committee to be able to call-in applications that were recommended for refusal and when you call them in you are not calling them in as Councillor David Connor but as the Chairman of the Planning Committee so that the wider view of the members  ...  view the full minutes text for item P36/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

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 Ms Wood, the agent. Ms Wood stated the site is partly brownfield and immediately adjacent to the edge of the town of Chatteris. She expressed the view that the proposed development will facilitate the removal and remediation of a noisy engineering company on the site, which is in the process of moving to another location in Chatteris.

Ms Wood referred to the emerging Local Plan which proposes the allocation of 45 hectares of land for employment purposes in Chatteris and she feels there will be no loss of jobs as a result of this development. She expressed the opinion that this proposal will enable the business to build new premises to replace the existing poor-quality buildings on the site, which members from seeing the site will appreciate is partly constructed with asbestos.

Ms Wood expressed the view that the development will also result in road improvements in West Street and members would have seen on site that West Street is a well-used route towards the Pocket Park, especially with dogs. She stated that the application scheme includes the provision of public open space, which will result, in her view, in a more pleasant walking route that will be better overlooked and thereby safer.

Ms Wood stated that the proposed development will result in the provision of much needed affordable housing, 6 units, which will be able to be provided more quickly than waiting for larger housing schemes to come forward, especially as this is a full application. She made the point that the Council is looking to allocate significant areas of land in this locality for housing development in the next Local Plan so, in her opinion, this proposal would not represent undue encroachment into the countryside with the site’s allocations in the Local Plan including over 200 houses to the south-east of this site accessed from Blackmill Road, London Road and Fairbairn Way.

Ms Wood expressed the view that their proposal for 22 homes will contribute quickly to the sustainable growth of the town and provision of choice. She feels the refusal reasons were addressed in her e-mail to members on Monday, but in summary the development will be in character with the area because it will introduce residential use within residential surroundings rather than continuing the industrial use, this locality is evolving into a larger residential location and the development will provide a pleasant area of open space that will form a transition between built development and the countryside beyond.

Ms Wood referred to refusal reason 2, the amenity of 88 West Street, and expressed the opinion that this will be improved by the removal of the industrial use and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P37/22

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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson made the point that this application seeks approval for amendments to a dwelling which was approved in April 2022 and was previously approved in 2020, with the difference between the schemes including minor changes as detailed in paragraph 9.4 of the officer’s report as well as a change in the height of the roof. She stated that the application has been recommended for refusal for the reason that the proposed new roof height would be dominant in the street scene which would harm the character of the area but, in her opinion, from the submitted street scene members will note that there is a lot of variety in this particular street scene and the proposal would be no higher than other properties within the area.

Mrs Jackson stated that the eaves height of the dwelling would be the same as was approved in the previous application and it is just the ridge height that is being increased by 40cm because of a change in the roof pitch to 30 degrees. She expressed the view that the reason the roof pitch has changed is because it represents a more traditional pitch which is consistent with other properties in the area, with the roof previously being submitted at 35 degrees but was reduced to achieve the height requested by officers and to gain approval as the applicants are keen to make a start as various external factors had held them up previously following their 2020 consent.

Mrs Jackson stated that the applicants are now in the position of being able to commence development next week and on reflection the applicants consider a 30-degree pitch represents a betterment in terms of aesthetics of the dwelling and would be more visually appropriate as it would match other properties within the area. She feels that the additional 40cm to what was previously approved would appear negligible when viewed from the public advantage, however, it would allow the roof pitch to match the neighbouring dwellings.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the application is deemed acceptable in all other aspects, the point of contention being the ridge height which remains lower than other properties in the street scene. She hopes members can see there is no other harm caused by the proposal and are able to support the scheme accordingly.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that many occasions at this committee he has made the comment where officers have worked with agents and applicants to bring a scheme forward that was previously deemed not acceptable and he has praised officers for this. In a former life, if she had been that officer that was working with that applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item P38/22

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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for two dwellings on a parcel of land which already benefits from planning permission for two holiday log cabins, with the application for the log cabins having been implemented and, therefore, remains extant. She expressed the view that the dwellings proposed are for the daughters of the applicant, Mr Hopkin, and they are employed in the family business at Allenby Farm, currently living at Allenby Farm and do not wish to relocate from the village.

Mrs Jackson stated that the site, which already has planning permission for a type of accommodation, is in a prime location for the future occupiers to carry out a self-build project whilst remaining in close proximity to their existing employment and family. She referred to the reasons for refusal which include there being no justification for the proposal in this countryside location, which would undermine sustainability principles, however, in her opinion, the harm in terms of sustainability if any has already been caused by permission for the holiday cabins which officers have acknowledged can be brought onto the site at any time.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the question is whether new housing in this location would be less sustainable than the holiday cabins and she would argue that dwelling houses are similar in character to holiday accommodation given that they both provide a type of residential accommodation, with one of the key differences being that holiday accommodation is likely to attract further vehicular movements given that holiday makers will travel to and from the site on excursions and for food and drink by private vehicle. She feels this in stark contrast to the proposed future occupiers who will be in walking distance to their place of work and would, therefore, be less reliant on their private motor vehicles.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the permission for the holiday accommodation did not contain any restrictions on the time of occupancy throughout the year and, therefore, the cabins could be occupied by holiday makers all year round in very much the same way as a standard dwelling and she would question what the harm would be in having dwellings on this site in lieu of the permitted holiday cabins. She stated that the application is submitted in outline only and, therefore, the opportunity remains to design an attractive pair of self-build properties which will be of a higher quality, both in appearance and in construction, than the permitted holiday cabins.

Mrs Jackson stated that the site already has permission for two units of accommodation, and it is submitted that the proposal would cause no more harm to the rural locality than the extant permission on site, noting  ...  view the full minutes text for item P39/22

To determine the application.

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

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 expressed the view that the scheme is a long time coming and her only concern is parking, with there being parking issues all over Fenland but especially in Wisbech. She asked if officers are satisfied that the proposed parking is adequate? Alison Hoffman responded that the site is well located to the town and bus station, and it does not necessarily follow that car parking spaces are required as these are 1-bed units and not family homes.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the flats approved at 24 High Street without a lift and this proposal is a 3-storey building and has no lift, but asked if this is a Building Control issue? Alison Hoffman responded that accessibility falls under Building Control but from a planning perspective officers could not insist that a lift be provided.

·       Councillor Connor expressed his surprise to learn that this site was in Flood Zone 2 as it is near the River Nene and the area did flood in 1978.

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

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that this proposal is for an extension to the front to form a new attached double garage and first-floor extension above the existing front projection to form an additional bedroom in the form of a master suite and storage. She expressed the opinion that the applicant is committed to a high-quality design and the proposal is as a result of his desire to invest in his family home and provide a high-quality property which meets his family’s needs, which is something that is supported by the National Design Guide.

Mrs Jackson stated that the site is located at the end of a row of houses and provides a natural stop to development along the Barton Road street scene as can be seen on the submitted location plan. She expressed the view that being on the end of a row the dwelling is not in a prominent position amongst the existing development and is in a location which is visually capable of accommodating extensions and alterations.

Mrs Jackson stated that a variety of roof heights is proposed within the development to provide character and visual interest when approaching the site from either direction along Barton Road and it is submitted that variations in roof heights and vertical visual breaks would avoid any undue bulk and massing contrary to the assertions made in the reasons for refusal. She expressed the opinion that it is admirable that the applicant wishes to invest in this property to provide a high-quality living space which meets his family’s needs and the scheme before members has been carefully designed to reflect this.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the site is on the end of a row of houses and, in her view, is capable of accommodating the proposed scale and design of the extensions given that it forms a natural end to the street scene. She hoped members would be able to support the application and grant planning permission.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that this is a large house, and the applicant wants to put a large extension on it, with there being only one reason for refusal due to bulk, design and being unduly prominent in the street scene which she feels is a matter of interpretation.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to a previous application where roof heights were being discussed and this property is going to have various different roof heights, with one of the extensions removing light from an existing window in the property which does not sit comfortably with her.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that the applicant has designed the proposal this way to take the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P41/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman 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 made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the application is recommended for refusal under LP16, which she feels is open to interpretation. She expressed the view that people want executive and large homes, and she does not see much problem with the application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she tends to support the application, with the surrounding properties being all different in size and she does not feel this proposal will have an impact as it is on the end.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he remembers when this application was considered at outline stage, which members supported and he thought it would be a grand design, which he would like to see more of in Fenland. In his view, the site is on the entrance to the village and the proposal would enhance the area and the entrance to the village.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the proposal would not be of an incongruous appearance, layout and substantial scale resulting in undue dominance within the street scene and being harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

(Councillor Connor declared that as he had called this application to be determined by committee, he has been advised that he is pre-determined and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Davis took the Chair)

To determine the application.

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

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 asked for clarification that there is already permission for 10 dwellings and this proposal is for an additional 9? Alison Hoffman responded that this is correct, the 10 is at the front of the site which committed the road access and improvements, and this proposal is for an additional 9, which is the maximum that can be applied for. Councillor Mrs French asked as there will be 19 dwellings in total will there be any Section 106 requirements? Alison Hoffman responded that these details would be considered when an application is submitted, but on this application, officers can only look at use, location and amount.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the school is going to be increased by 60 pupils due to the great need and she hopes this proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the school. Councillor Connor agreed that County Council members, particularly Councillor Hoy, have been pursuing this issue for some time.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that there is so little to look at on this application and if officers are agreeable, he is not sure what there is to debate.

·       Councillor Topgood expressed his reservations about the scheme especially with the expansion of the school and also the state of the road, but he cannot see any reason to refuse it.

Proposed by Councillor Topgood, seconded by Councillor Clark and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

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 Alex Patrick, the agent. Mrs Patrick expressed the view that at present this site is an eyesore to its locals with various rubbish often dumped and left and if this application is approved it would facilitate a much-needed home for Mr Carmen and his family. She feels the scheme would not be dissimilar to its existing surroundings, the adjacent Council owned travellers’ site and various privately owned travellers’ sites.

Mrs Patrick stated that the site has a 9 metre bylaw to the rear which dictates only small development potential such as this proposal. She made the point that they have support from the Gypsy Traveller Liaison Officer, the Highway Authority, along with a place obtained at the local pre-school and a family tree to show the link from the applicant to the local Cunningham family.

Mrs Patrick expressed the opinion that this is a very similar application to the approved F/YR21/0309 at Garden Lane, Wisbech St Mary, F/YR21/1501/F at Wolf Lane, Leverington and F/YR20/1010/F at Sealeys Lane, Parson Drove, which are all small scale in nature, all in Flood Zone 3 and all adjacent existing traveller sites and within 2 miles from this site. In relation to the Flood Zone 3 area, on this occasion if the committee are minded to approve the application, she feels the issue can be addressed by installing an emergency loft window for access to the roof in the event of flooding.

Mrs Patrick referred to the presence of biodiversity and made the point there are no trees on site, it is very sparse and has a drain behind it so, in her view, any Great Crested Newts or bats would not reside in this location but a condition could be placed on an approval to rectify this if it was felt appropriate. Whilst not a planning matter, she stated that Mr Carmen is self-employed, is fully self-sufficient and he will not put a stress on the Council services, temporarily residing with family until this application is decided and although the report mentions half-siblings they are within shared custody with the ex-partner of Mr Carmen and attend schools elsewhere.

Mrs Patrick hoped members would be able to support this application.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to there being a shortage of sites and that there are already 21 sites in this vicinity and asked if they were all full week to week? Theresa Nicholl responded that she asked this question of the officer who managed the Council’s Traveller sites on one of her applications that came to committee last month and was told that all of the Council’s sites are full and there is a long waiting list.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the lobbying  ...  view the full minutes text for item P44/22

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that members will have noted in the officer’s report that there are no technical objections to this application and March Town Council has supported all the previous applications on the site. He made the point that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is in an area of approximately 24 residential dwellings located off Flaggrass Hill Road which links with Creek Road.

Mr Hall stated that the majority of this site is covered with concrete hardstanding and some former buildings and, in his view, by removing this the drainage situation would improve with less impermeable areas as on previous applications concerns had been raised by residents regarding localised flooding. He feels the indicative layout allows for a far greater permeable area for this entire site.

Mr Hall stated that all the properties in this area have septic tanks or treatment plants and soakaways for rainwater, which is what this proposal would have as well. He expressed the view that a drainage condition can be applied to any approval ensuring an engineered design is agreed for the site.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that previously the applicant obtained an ecology report for this site which was submitted with the previous application but the whole site could not be accessed and what has not been indicated in the officer’s report is that the applicant obtained a further ecology report that was submitted with the application, which following some site clearance allowed access to the remainder of the site and the recommendations within that report can be implemented as part of a condition. He stated the proposal for this site has been revised as concerns were raised by members and adjacent properties regarding large two-storey dwellings, with this proposal now being single-storey dwellings only.

Mr Hall stated that officers on the previous application also raised concern regarding the visual conflict with the bungalow to the front of the site and it is now shown to match in with single-storey dwellings. He made the point that the applicant has gone away and listened to what members have said and reduced the dwellings all to be single-storey and it was agreed with the officer during the application that the description would be amended to single-storey only.

Mr Hall made the point that a further ecology report has been undertaken on the site, so it has now had two and there are no technical objections to this application.

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

·       Councillor Benney remembers when the previous application was before committee and a lot of the members concerns were the two-storey aspect and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item P45/22

To determine the conditions for the applications.

Nick Harding presented the proposed conditions to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Murphy as a local councillor. Councillor Murphy stated that he wanted to make a statement so that it is clear to Chatteris Town Council and the people he represents in Chatteris that he will not be speaking on this application as a planning committee member, and he has been advised about speaking against the conditions as they are detrimental and pre-conceived to the officer’s decision. He feels there is no longer free speech or common-sense prevailing.

Councillor Murphy made the point that these are his opinions only, he is not against conserving buildings per se but single small properties such as this he believes there has to be some give and take working together for the betterment of the property. He stated that when he read the conditions being imposed on this property he was staggered and feels it is no wonder developers shy away from restoring these properties and let them fall into disrepair as there is no way they can afford to renovate to this degree to be able to re-sell and no one can afford to purchase the property with these conditions.

Councillor Murphy expressed the view that he can see the reasons to preserve the general exterior, which the developer is happy to do and he agrees with, but when it comes to the windows, the doors and drainpipes etc and there are a lot of these etcs in the conditions which he feels is ludicrous as they are to be replaced in perpetuity with 1800s materials and he feels that nobody can live like this in this day and age. He expressed the opinion that people want comfortable and stress-free maintenance.

Councillor Murphy stated that it is possible to implement conditions of this type referring to refurbishment of Chatteris House years ago when it was turned into six apartments and four houses but, in his view, this cannot be undertaken in a single property as is in front of members today. He feels common sense is needed but recognises that this is not a planning matter or reason.

Councillor Murphy referred to the reasons why he supported this application, backing up Chatteris Town Council, on visual impact, scale, character, appearance and NPPF policies 185c, 191, 192c, 195b and 195d, which he feels can all be taken with ambiguity.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked that as the building is in a derelict state it will have to be re-rendered so why it is being specified what paint can be used? Nick Harding responded that if paint is used that ends up sealing the outside of the building it could end up with damp and condensation problems.

·       Councillor Sutton asked that if these conditions are not placed on this application could it have huge implications for other properties and leave the door open for others to follow? Nick Harding responded that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P46/22

To determine the application.

The appendix to this report comprises EXEMPT INFORMATION which is not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 Andy Brand, an objector. Mr Brand stated that together with his wife and four daughters he lives at 5 Askham Row, which, in his view, is the property that is most impacted by this retrospective planning application. He stated that both himself and his wife are Town Planners and have both worked for Fenland District Council, with his wife currently validating planning applications for the Council but does not have any decision-making functions in the planning department. He stated that he has also been appointed recently as a project manager for the Doddington Neighbourhood Plan Group, which is seeking to promote sustainable development whilst protecting the character of the village and considers that he is well placed to comment on planning policy matters.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that the drawings submitted with the application are not correct in terms of the land to the east and the west and that plan also references to the north Megaplants but that business is actually located approximately 400 metres to the north. He feels the proposal clearly conflicts with an important principle of planning policy, protection of the countryside from uncharacteristic and unnecessary development, with that policy position sets out in paragraph 3.11 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 174 of the NPPF, with this presumption against the proposal development applying in full against this planning application.

Mr Brand expressed the view that this proposal is unnecessary in the context of Local Plan Policy LP3 and alleged biodiversity benefits cannot be given weight in favour of the proposal as those works themselves do not require planning permission. He feels the officers have correctly drawn to the committee’s attention an appeal in Coates where a similar proposal was dismissed on the very same basis of the harm caused by this proposal, with the Coates appeal site being around one fifth of the size of this planning application so the impact would be greater in this proposal.

Mr Brand expressed the view that planning law requires decisions taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and the situation here is that there is clear non-compliance with planning policies which have been identified by officers and tested at appeal in Coates. He stated that the Council has a legal duty to have regards to this previous appeal decision and to act consistently in its decision making, with the proposal being in his view unnecessary, unauthorised and unacceptable and must, therefore, be refused planning permission.

Mr Brand stated that as a parent before undertaking the unauthorised development on the land the applicant advised that he intended to plant an orchard behind his property given that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P47/22