Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 21 September 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the 21 September 2022 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl 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 Councillor Ruth Hufton, Chairman of Doddington Parish Council. Councillor Hufton stated that Doddington Parish Council object very strongly to the application and whilst in the current Local Plan Doddington is recognised as a growth village and is tasked with a 15% increase in housing during the period of that plan this was achieved in 2020 and she questioned why Doddington is being asked to accommodate a large development of 47 homes and whether the Local Plan has no bearing on what actually happens. She stated that disruption from construction traffic which will come through the quietest most historic part of the village where the Listed St Marys Church is situated and where currently in the region of £35,000 is being spent on repairs to the church wall.

Councillor Hufton made the point that the route to the development is through winding country lanes and through quiet residential streets which are not wide enough to take two passing vehicles and there are no parking restrictions in the area and one parked car could cause traffic congestion. She made the point that there are three very sharps bends that construction traffic would have to negotiate on the route would cause issues for heavy goods vehicles, especially for the number of large vehicles that would be expected for a development of the proposed size and it would also cause disruption to all three access roads into the village which are already very congested.

Councillor Hufton referred to the issue of lack of affordable housing within the proposal and added that the reason given states that viability will not allow for these to be built, making the point that this happens a great deal and the type of housing that Doddington urgently needs never materialises and she expressed the view that what is the point of policy LP5 of the Local Plan if developers are always going to be allowed to develop without the vital homes when viability raises its head.

Councillor Hufton stated that the Parish Council have lost track of the number of times that affordable housing has been promised on original plans and then to be lost because of lack of viability and with very little if anything in the way of Section 106 contributions being offered in its place. She stated that she is of the understanding that £136,000 will be put towards increasing the facilities at the primary school in lieu of affordable housing but made the point that offering young people the opportunity and ability to buy their own homes should be more important than an extension to a playing field.

Councillor Hufton stated that the school is at capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item P55/22

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report the 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 Matthew Hall, the Agent. Mr Hall stated that there is an extensive site history which is listed in the officer’s report, which is prior to his involvement. He explained that the development site did have planning permission for a dwelling and the current owner then purchased the plot.

Mr Hall quoted the Planning Inspectors comments following an appeal where the Inspector had stated that ‘I consider the site large enough to accommodate a dwelling’ and went on to say that they did not consider the end of the cul de sac is particularly spacious in character or affords any significant views of the surrounding land that would be lost as a result of this development and the site has not changed in size or adjacent buildings changed since this time to our knowledge. He stated that the previous appeals for the site were for two dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, a full 2 storey three bedroomed house and the last application was for a bungalow, all of which  were refused, with the current proposal being for a scaled back 1.5 storey dwelling with two bedrooms.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the officer’s report appears to be positive and one third of the plot area is in line with the requirements of the Local Plan and there are no objections from the Highways Authority. He stated that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and has two car parking spaces and the proposal does not result in significant loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing, with proposal not being considered to result in a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours and added that the policy is recommended for refusal under policies LP16 and 7 of the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan, however, he has noted from the report under 10.12 that it states that the policy is acceptable under both of these policies.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal is an ideal straight forward two bedroomed starter home with adequate parking and located within Whittlesey and there are no technical objections to the proposal, and it is compliant with the Local Plan. He added that it has a third garden area, and the officer has confirmed that there are no concerns with overlooking, overshadowing or loss of light and the building material used would match in with the other properties.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Hall if he could advise when the site first received planning permission? Mr Hall stated that the planning permission was approved on 1 February 2007 when an appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate. Councillor Mrs French asked why the development has never taken place? Mr Hall expressed the view that he cannot  ...  view the full minutes text for item P56/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew members 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 Lee Bevens the agent. Mr Bevens stated that some members may recall a similar proposal for this site back in August 2021 and following refusal last time, it was suggested to them that reducing the overall numbers of occupants in the scheme would be supported in an amended application.

He stated that the proposal is a 40% reduction in numbers of persons than the previously refused scheme and a 64% reduction from where the scheme started back in mid-2020.

Mr Bevens explained that the previous owner of the Classic restaurant had accommodation for up to 9 guests in the main building and this excluded rooms, which the current proposal looks to convert into additional accommodation and then latterly they used their private annex as B&B accommodation sleeping up to 4 adults and this coupled with the restaurant business at its peak would have seen numerous vehicles coming and going throughout the day. He made the point that there are no objections from statutory consultees and refuse collection will be undertaken privately.

Mr Bevens made reference to the reasons for refusal, referring to LP15 stating that it is widely acknowledged and accepted by the Council that in previous similar applications that there are no adopted parking standards for HMO’s, and it is reasonable to conclude that car ownership would be lower amongst the residents of such properties than for more conventional means of residential occupation. He stated that the proximity of the site to the centre of Manea, cycle provision and the proximity of the railway station which would be a 20-minute walk would also contribute toward encouraging lower car ownership amongst its occupants.

Mr Bevens referred to recently approved decisions namely F/YR20/1047/F which was approval of a 6-bed house to a HMO for 9 persons and F/YR20/1131/F which was approval of a 7-bed hostel to a HMO for 7 persons both of which were approved by the Council with less parking than required namely 4 spaces and 2 spaces, respectively. He explained that he has identified an area of cycle storage and with the local bus service and the train station, in his view, it is reasonable to expect occupants to use sustainable transport methods wherever possible.

Mr Bevens stated that when looking at Policy LP2 and LP16, this requires amongst other things that development proposals provide high levels of residential amenity and Policy LP16 requires development proposals to demonstrate that they do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses with the guideline for non-flat development being one third of the plot area. He explained that the existing building was in use as a restaurant and B&B  ...  view the full minutes text for item P57/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew members 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, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has noted from the officer’s report that there is a restriction on operating hours and she does not think at this time it would be appropriate to place a restriction on its hours of use as there is no indication currently what the building will be used for and who is going to operate it if it actually goes ahead. She stated that it has been several years since the proposal had been considered and does not know whether the grant funding of £10,000 from the Council is still available. Councillor Mrs French feels that the application should be supported but not to include any time restrictions.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he will support the application, but he expressed the opinion that the design is totally out of character with the locality. He added that, in his view, Wisbech Town Council should be responsible for the development rather than the whole of Fenland.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the proposal is part of the County Council’s Communities in Partnership £5,000,000 scheme that was introduced in 2019-2020. She added that she agrees that the design could be far better, and it remains to be seen whether it will ever be built.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the Council has brought forward an application for a building for which the use of is unknown and questioned who will be responsible for operating it.

·         David Rowen stated that the hours of opening that are referred to in the conditions have arisen as the result of the hours that were included within the application. He stated that it has been noted that in the longer term the building does need to be more flexible in terms of when it can be open, and explained that there is currently a consultation exercise open on that issue, however, to date there has not been any feedback and if it was proposed by members to grant the application with the removal of that condition then there is the potential for members of the public to state that they have not had the opportunity to comment. David Rowan made the point that if members were minded to grant planning permission with an unrestricted use on the building then it is possible that it could be subject to delegation to officers to pick up any issues arising from the current public consultation and impose appropriate conditions. Councillor Mrs French stated that she was happy with that proposal.

·         Councillor Sutton asked David Rowen to clarify that the decision notice would not be issued until 14 days after the consultation period and David Rowen confirmed that is correct.

Proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P58/22

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 received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the Agent. Mr Hall stated that the application has been subject to numerous discussions and amendments in order to achieve an acceptable scheme, with the existing building on the site having not been used for in excess of 15 years and being in very poor condition with sections of it even lost. He explained that the bricks from the demolished building will be used in the proposal in accordance with the planning condition and advised the committee that an independent tree report was commissioned with regards to the tree onsite which advises that the development can be built out without any damage to the tree.

Mr Hall made the point that there are no technical objections to the proposal and the site is in a town centre location which allows the existing building to be demolished and the site to be regenerated for residential usage. He explained that there have been a number of different planning officers considering the site under two planning applications and officers have provided some excellent advice and have worked with him to bring the proposal before the committee today with a recommendation of approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that Mr Hall had referred to the re-use of materials from the demolished building and asked whether this is something that can be achieved? Mr Hall stated that the bricks would definitely be used as it is a 215 wall and they can be turned around, but there is likely to be a shortage of bricks and there may need to be some bricks made up. He added that the roof tiles, the timbers and floor would definitely not be reused.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that the Town Council has recommended refusal and have stated that there are concerns in the area regarding the illegal use of the roadway during the designated times. He added that it is a pedestrianised area, and he would have thought that the applicant should be aware of the restrictions. Mr Hall stated that on the three occasions he has been to the site there has been a car parked at the access point on one occasion and on the two other occasions there has been nothing there. He added that it is a pedestrian zone, and the applicant understands that which is why the scheme includes no parking.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she is the Ward Councillor and the loading and unloading allowance is before 10am and after 4pm and asked Mr Hall how he intended to facilitate any deliveries to the site as there is no back access to the site? Mr Hall explained that the applicant is also the developer who is likely  ...  view the full minutes text for item P59/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members 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 Mr Andrew Hodgson, the agent. Mr Hodgson explained that he was asked to review the application following a technical issue concerning one of the flood risk conditions regarding contamination which had not been addressed previously and, in his opinion, the site should be built out by now but when it was reviewed by officers, they determined that the contamination issue had not been resolved. He stated that the detail of the application has not changed at all, and the layout is the same as previously submitted.

Mr Hodgson explained that the only changes are technical changes which have become necessary due to changes in planning policy. He explained to the committee that there is some on site diversity net gain which was not on the scheme previously and the site now shows the digester and the attenuation basin which deals with the drainage scheme and was not shown on the plans previously.

Mr Hodgson stated that the site still provides an efficient use of land, and it is only a technical issue dealing with contamination that has caused the delay with the build.

Members asked Mr Hodgson the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton made reference to the digester and stated that in the conditions there are details concerning a management company looking after the roads and other elements of the development but there is no reference made with regards to the digester plant and he asked whether that is maintenance free? Mr Hodgson explained that the way the digester works means that it may have to be an annual maintenance requirement which would be undertaken by the management company. Councillor Sutton stated that the detail surrounding that maintenance needs to be considered by officers when adding conditions.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has seen a comment in the officer’s report concerning the March West and White Fen Internal Drainage Board, of which she is a member, with the report stating that a 5-metre-wide maintenance access strip has been provided for landowners beside the watercourse and she asked Mr Hodgson whether he was aware that the Middle Level Commissioners will not allow anything less than nine metres for maintenance? Mr Hodgson stated that is something that will need to be addressed, however, the Middle Level Commissioners have not made any comment on the proposal to date.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether there was going to be a contamination report and Mr Hodgson stated that the reports have all been undertaken. He added that there is a condition which states that there is a requirement to report any contamination should any be found once development commences.

Members asked questions, made comments and received  ...  view the full minutes text for item P60/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application submitted is for up to eight dwellings and has been submitted in outline format with only matters of access committed for consideration at this stage, with the application being recommended for refusal for reasons of principal flood risk and highways. She explained that there are limited opportunities within the existing built up footprint in the village to achieve new development and no new housing allocations which have not already commenced have been proposed in Tydd St Giles in the emerging Local Plan which she stated has given cause for concern from the Parish Council who have recently posted on social media that the plan for their area is too restrictive and without any further development within the next 18 years the village will be non-existent, with them also expressing the view that they need to see the provision for some housing to go ahead.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that although they have raised concerns the proposal does represent an opportunity to meet the aspirations of the Parish Council, with the proposal providing eight dwellings which will adjoin the existing built form and would reflect the former nature of the development which can be seen on the other side of the village at Kirkgate. She stated that the plots are large enough to accommodate family sized dwellings which would help to support the local services and facilities including the local primary school which will enable the village to continue to be a nice place to live and that the principle of development, in her view, can be supported on the grounds of the benefit which will be brought to the settlement.

Mrs Jackson referred to flood risk, with it being a known fact that a great deal of the land within Fenland is at high risk of flooding and due to this fact, many applications that come before the committee will be in Flood Zone 3. She explained that a sequential test has been undertaken which has proven that there is no sequentially preferable land available within the village and the reason for refusal states that the search area for the land for development should be the whole of the district given the location of the site, however, she disputes that point, given that the dwellings in questions would serve the local amenities and facilities in the village, the area for search should be Tydd St Giles itself.

Mrs Jackson stated that given the characteristics of the area any new development in or around Tydd St Giles is likely to be on land at high risk of flooding and if new  ...  view the full minutes text for item P61/22

To determine the application.

This application was withdrawn.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members 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, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton provided members with some background information on the history of the Dun Cow Public House due to his local knowledge and that new occupiers have moved into the area. He explained that at a recent meeting of the Parish Council, it had stated that the occupation of the upper floor for living was ancillary to the living accommodation, and although he is aware that it is disputed by officers, Councillor Sutton stated that he was asked for his opinion at that meeting and he had stated that he thought that planning permission would not be needed as it would be classed as ancillary. He stated that he agrees that the caravans will and do have a temporary look, but, in his opinion, a new business should be given as much help as possible and he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation, however, he would like to see the permission being for a temporary period of three years which will give the business enough time to be operational and for the tenants to be able to work with the brewery to consider an extension to be built on the back of the Public House for those persons with disabilities.

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that there are many rural public houses which are no longer trading and a public house in a rural location has to succeed and make money in order to survive, with new tenants in the premises trying to add value to the business. He referred to the officer’s report where it states at 10.14 that there is existing living accommodation within the Dun Cow and, therefore, it is not considered that the caravans proposed could be considered ancillary to the use of the Dun Cow given the existing presence of living accommodation on site and that the report also states that the extra accommodation is not essential to the success of the business but, in his opinion, that is a judgement, and the new landlords should be given assistance in order for them to move forward. Councillor Cornwell questioned whether it would be possible to include a condition for the caravans to see how successful the business is and then let the tenants prove that part of the success, or otherwise, of the business because they have or they have not got a caravan to bring some more people into the business. He made the point that it is a very difficult time for the pub trade at the moment and even the pubs in town locations are suffering and, in his opinion, the applicants should be given the opportunity even if it means imposing a time  ...  view the full minutes text for item P63/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members 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 Mrs Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is an application for two dwellings and is submitted in an outline form with all matters reserved. She stated that the proposal has been recommended for refusal under reasons of principle and flood risk and made the point that Turves is classed as a small village within the Local Plan and in small villages infill development is supported.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application site is located between two built up frontages of Whittlesey Road and March Road and it is a gap within an otherwise built-up frontage and would meet the definition of infill development and it would also round off the existing built form in a logical way and, therefore, the principle of development in respect of Policy LP3 is supported. She stated that with regards to flood risk, the reason for refusal states that the search area for land for development should be the whole of the district given the location of the site but she disputes this, given that the dwellings in question would serve local amenities and facilities within the village and are positioned within the existing footprint of the village she feels the search area should be Turves itself and not the whole district.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the sequential test has proved that there are no alternative plots available to serve the development and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the dwellings will be technically safe from flooding, which the Environment Agency have accepted and, therefore, there is no harm caused in respect of flood risk. She pointed out that it can be seen that the scheme itself is very similar to the scheme at Red Barn which was approved and received officer’s support, with the application being supported by March Town Council and local residents, and, in her view, resulting in no conflict with planning policy which has been assessed in the reasons for refusal.

Members asked officers the flowing questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she recalls visiting this site in the past and referred to the planning site history which she believes maybe incorrect as she can see no reference to the application which caused her to visit the site. She added that she would also like to make the point that the application site is in March and is not in Turves as the site is in her ward. David Rowen responded that there was an application a few months ago which was further along March Road which was an agricultural building which was to be demolished to make way for a dwelling which the committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item P64/22

To advise members of the current situation regarding the above site and to authorise legal proceedings to secure compliance with the Notice.

David Rowen presented the confidential report to members.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and AGREED that prosecution of the owners and occupiers of the land be authorised, under Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

(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)