Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 1 June 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the 1 June 2022 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the Agent. Mr Edwards explained that it states within the officer’s report that the Agent has gone to great lengths to answer the points raised by the technical consultees and achieve their support of the application, and he is happy to accept the conditions they have proposed, thanking them for their support. He stated that extensive negotiations have taken place over the last year with officers to bring the application in front of the committee, which, in his opinion, addresses all of the concerns in the main to produce a high-quality scheme which is consistent with the Local Plan.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency maps which is not always the case, and the scheme is supported by the Lead Flood Authority. He pointed out that the site is currently pasture land, which has not been in food production for many years and the site is cut a few times a year and bailed so there is no loss of food producing land from this application.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal has 18 letters of support from neighbours and villagers, showing, in his view, overwhelming local support for the scheme. He added that the site is within the built up area for Wimblington, which is a growth village within LP3, where development and new service provisions either within the existing urban area or a small village extension will be appropriate albeit of a considerably more limited scale than that appropriate to the Market Towns, and in his view that is exactly what has been provided in this application.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that this part of Wimblington has seen a modest amount of development over recent years both approved by the Planning Committee and at appeal, however, none of the applications have provided the level of community benefit that the current application will provide.  He stated that the proposal will provide a public open space along with pedestrian and cycle route to connect the existing footpath on Eastwood End to the north east, and this in turn will provide a safe passage for both current and proposed residents to access jobs at the industrial area to the north and to the facilities with the main part of the village including shops and school.

Mr Edwards explained that the roads and footways on the site along with the public open space are to be maintained via a management company which will be funded by the nine dwellings proposed.  He feels that Wimblington has a real mixture of dwelling types throughout, and believes that the scheme will enhance the area and provide large family homes on large plots with adequate separation distances so there will not be a significant detrimental impact in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, light or outlook, which is highlighted in the report.

Mr Edwards expressed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P11/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that the background to this application is unusual in that it is not usual for the Planning Officer to repeatedly question highways advice and apparently seek a reversal of the consultation comments made. He added that members will see from the report that the application is now almost a year old and highways have commented several times and he expressed the view that given the considerable weight and importance that officers and members usually give to Highway Authority comments both the agent and applicant are surprised at this approach.

Mr Slater explained that, in policy terms, the proposal is for limited development on the edge of a limited development village as allocated in the adopted Local Plan, and as such is in accordance with the provisions of LP3 and LP12. He added that the plan, therefore, accepts that the settlement is a sustainable and accessible location for limited new housing and as consequence is deemed to be a sustainable location having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan Policy 1, which is accepted in the officer’s report at point 10.4.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is clear that in spatial terms the site is well related to the historic core of the village and the services and facilities such as the pub, church and school that it contains and it is noted that the site is significantly closer to the centre of the village, and the bus services, along the Main Road than the draft allocations in the emerging Local Plan village insert for Elm. He stated that this gives the site better non-car access to Wisbech for higher order services and facilities than much of the recent development and the planned allocations.

Mr Slater explained that pedestrian and cycle access to the site is also available from Grove Gardens and Cedar Way which is shown as adopted highway meaning that the application site is only 87m from this junction. He stated that the planning objection is predicated on an increase in traffic usage on Atkinsons Lane which is a matter to which the County Council as the Highways Authority does not object.

Mr Slater stated that it appears to be the view of the planning officers that the use of the 87m of Atkinsons Lane as a shared road/footway is unsafe, and the additional traffic generated from up to 4 homes will cause demonstrable harm to safety such that the potential residents will be deterred from walking or using cycles to the detriment of transport sustainability, however, in the absence of an objection from highway on highway function or safety grounds it appears to him that the premise for this assessment is unsound and without an evidential basis and, therefore, he disagrees with this assessment and conclusion. He stated that Atkinsons Lane is narrow being between 2.4m and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P12/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent.  Mr Gowler explained that the application is to replace an existing run-down dwelling which had a fire a few years ago and has been vandalised which is why it has been boarded up. He added that the proposal will include a stables and garage on the large plot of almost 1 hectare and he has worked with the applicant and has looked at extending and renovating the existing house, however, the cost, in-particular 20% VAT, involved meant that it would make more sense to construct a new replacement energy efficient dwelling.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the replacement dwelling approximately 1 mile further along Forty Foot Road and the figures described show that the increase in size was 150 square metres and the new dwelling was 290 square metres which was an increase of 195% which is significantly more than this application which is 186%. He stated that the next slide indicates a similar cottage located in a similarly rural location and whilst this application was not a replacement dwelling it would have still been considered under LP16 and, therefore, the large increase is size is still relevant, where the existing cottage is 140 square metres and is in a very rural location opposite Stonea Camp and with the extension the increase in floor area it equates to 255%.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen and highlighted a collage of photos featuring most of the properties along Forty Foot Road. He pointed out that there are a mixture of styles and ages of properties, from 3 storey modern houses to more traditional farmhouses and due to the mixture of styles along this road, in his opinion, the design and scale of the proposal does fit in with the varied character of area.

Mr Gowler referred to the screen and pointed out three large three storey dwellings which are considerably larger in footprint area than the proposal before the committee. He made reference to Flood Zones and stated that there is an existing dwelling that can be used, however, a Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken and as a result the recommendation has been to raise the floor areas and, in his opinion, the proposed dwelling does fit with policy LP12 of the Local Plan and LP16.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that Mr Gowler had provided examples of old and new approved dwellings and asked whether there was a policy in place of what is considered acceptable as a replacement building and how can it be determined as to whether something is in fact too big and out of character? He expressed the opinion when referring back to the size of the original building, it would not necessarily expect any family to live in a dwelling that small and therefore any replacement is likely to be bigger, questioning  ...  view the full minutes text for item P13/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the officer’s report details the fact that the application has the support of the technical consultees along with the Town Council and the number of dwellings has been reduced from four to two which has achieved the support of the planning officers. He explained that extensive negotiations have taken place over the last year with officers to bring the application to committee, and, in his opinion, the main concerns have been addressed to produce a high-quality scheme, which is consistent with the Local Plan.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency maps which is not always the case in Wisbech. He pointed out that the site is within the built-up area for Wisbech which is a market town within LP3, where the majority of the district’s new housing should take place, with the site having an extended garden area from the host property which still retains ample amenity space which is consistent with policy.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that Wisbech has a real mixture of dwelling types throughout, and the scheme will enhance the area and provide good sized family homes on good sized plots with adequate separation distances so there will not be a significant detrimental impact in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, light or outlook. He stated that the dwellings are to be constructed with materials that are sympathetic to the adjacent dwellings and street scene as a whole and the development will provide a positive contribution to this part of the Town and enhance the street scene.

Mr Edwards asked the committee to support the proposal and approve the application with the conditions indicated and highlighted that he has addressed the points from the technical consultees so that it achieves their support, the design picks up on features from other neighbouring dwellings, addresses the street scene, is within Flood Zone 1, and is Policy LP2, 3, 12, 15 and 16 compliant.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked that if the application is approved would he be prepared for conditions to be imposed so that the construction works do not cause issues and concerns for the existing local residents. Mr Edwards stated that if a condition were required it could be considered.

Members asked officers the following questions

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she is pleased that the applicant and agent have worked with officers to negotiate a scheme which is acceptable as it had previously been refused as it was considered as over development.

·         Nick Harding stated that, in response to Councillor Miscandlon’s question concerning a condition for hours of construction, a construction management plan had not been proposed as it is not something that would normally be considered for this scale of development, and given the physical constraints of the site it would only be  ...  view the full minutes text for item P14/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Jakub Blazczak, an objector to the application. Mr Blazczak referred to the location and introduction of the second layer of buildings away from the street and added that there is plenty of space to create dwellings alongside the field. He stated that the presentation has shown the views from the ditch and the property named Conway, but the only thing that can be seen from Mill Road is the hedge belonging to Conway and the bungalow itself.

Mr Blazczak referred to concerns regarding privacy, which could be mitigated by a redesign of the dwelling and upgrade of the fence. He expressed the view that the privacy concerns of the property named Conway cannot be mitigated in the future as he has been made aware that there is no possibility of erecting a fence alongside the ditch as it is not permitted and, therefore, there will be no barrier between Conway and into the bedroom of the neighboring property.

Mr Blazczak stated that the shape of the proposed plot is such that it gets narrower as it goes easterly and, therefore, the windows that will face south will face Conway. He explained that there is a long gravel driveway at the site and a separate access which is private and the only other way to shorten the route to the main road would be by creating a new access which cannot happen.

Mr Blazczak explained that there is 80 metres of gravel roadway and a stretch on the other side to drag the refuse bins for collection and the driveway is soft and cannot accommodate heavy vehicles and, therefore, any residents in a new dwelling would have to drag the bin for more than 80 metres which is not ideal for potential disabled and elderly residents.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that under LP3 of the Local Plan Murrow is a small village which in these villages’ development will be considered on its merits but will normally be of a very limited nature and normally be limited in scale to residential infilling or a small business opportunity. He stated that he would argue that this plot of land is infilling development as it has a road frontage and follows the development line of the six dwellings numbers 16 to 24 Mill Road and will finish off this part of the village and utilise a section of land that is difficult to farm as it is adjacent to the neighbouring dwelling as seen on the proposed indicative drawings and in a corner.

Mr Edwards stated that the site is within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency maps which is the same as the adjacent recently developed dwellings on Mill Road and pretty much the whole of the village, having checked Rightmove this morning there are no  ...  view the full minutes text for item P15/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler explained that it is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a pair of semidetached cottages as the existing cottage has subsidence and would require significant repairs to bring it up to a modern standard. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the photo showing the site and the gap along Chapel Lane that is referred to was previously a large privet hedge which was removed by the applicant to clear the overgrown garden.

Mr Gowler stated that the new pair of houses have been moved along compared to the existing cottage, but overall, it is only 4m wider than the original cottage, therefore, in his view, the gaps in the street scene are still present they are just more balanced each side of the proposed building. He explained that by moving the properties along the windows will no longer overlook the garden of 22 Angoods Lane and the front windows will look onto the front of No.14, however, these windows are already overlooked by the road and footpath link to Angoods Way.

Mr Gowler made the point that no objections have been received from neighbours including No.14 opposite and Chatteris Town Council have supported the application. He explained that this development would provide an additional modern energy efficient small starter home within Chatteris and asked the committee to support the application.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he has visited the site and there are 16 dwellings in the road and all but three of them are new build properties or replacements. He added that the building is not in a good state of repair and it is leaning and expressed the opinion that if it is not viable to repair it due to costs, it will stay there until it falls down and there are many properties in Fenland which are falling down. Councillor Benney expressed the view that there is a positive development before the committee and there are no objections to the proposal from any consultees. He stated that 13 out of 16 dwellings are fresh dwellings and the street scene has altered which can be seen from the change in bricks. Councillor Benney stated that had the resident at 14 Chapel Lane objected to the proposal then he may have considered the application differently. He expressed the opinion that the building is in a poor state of repair and it would be better for it to be taken down before it falls down and rebuild a new dwelling which is fit for purpose and he will support the application.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that in Chapel Lane all the dwellings are houses on that side of the road and there are bungalows opposite. He added that with regards to consistency, all of the dwellings in the lane  ...  view the full minutes text for item P16/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler explained that the application is for outline approval to establish the principle of development and if approved it is planned to be a mixture of small starter homes including 2, 3 and 4-bedroom houses. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that the photo shown indicates that although the development is an extension of the existing site of 9 dwellings it still falls adjacent to the existing developed footprint of Manea as per Policy LP12 and the open area to the north is planned to be public open space with soft landscaping as required to maintain the character of the open countryside appearance from the North.

Mr Gowler stated that a biodiversity checklist was provided as part of the application and the officer had not requested a more comprehensive ecology report prior to the committee report. He added that the site has been used for material and spoil storage for the development of nine dwellings already approved and, therefore, it is unlikely to have any ecological value, however, the applicant would be happy to an additional survey carried out along with providing ecological enhancements as a condition of the approval.

Mr Gowler stated that no details of affordable housing or offsite contributions have been requested by officers during the application, however, the applicant is happy to provide the necessary affordable housing or contributions in lieu and would also be happy to agree offsite contributions, with the applicant not looking to carry out a viability assessment to reduce this. He explained that the details of affordable housing provision and contributions could be agreed as part the Section 106 Agreement.

Mr Gowler explained that the site is located is Flood Zone 1 which is low risk and a detailed drainage strategy was included with the application and, in his opinion, the development would help to meet the housing need of Manea by being a mixed development as it meets current policies of the Local Plan in particular LP12 contrary to the officer’s recommendation. He reiterated that he would be happy for the necessary conditions to be applied if the application is approved and also the approval subject to Section 106 Agreement.

Members asked Mr Gowler the following questions:

·       Councilor Mrs French stated that she is pleased that Mr Gowler has made reference to affordable homes within his presentation as the officer’s report does not detail that matter. She added that there is a housing strategy but there is nothing mentioned with regards to education or other requirements. Councillor Mrs French added that 26 dwellings would require 7 affordable homes to be included within the development and at 9.33 of the officer’s report it refers to the Council’s Local Plan and Section 106.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that at 9.35 of the officer’s report it clearly states that the applicant is unwilling to enter in a legal agreement  ...  view the full minutes text for item P17/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Lockhart, the developer, was also present to answer any questions from the committee.

Mr Edwards explained that the application for a maximum of 3 dwellings which was recently approved at committee and the dwellings have been constructed on site, however, the application is to remove the acoustic fence proposed to plot six only following recent approvals in the area for additional dwellings and also replacement buildings on the adjacent site.  He added that the original outline approval was for six dwellings and it was developed in two separate phases of three and in the outline application there were no acoustic measures required.

Mr Edwards explained there have been a further four dwellings approved to the south of 182 Wype Road which is the commercial property in question and there was no acoustic provision required for those and officers had stated on one of those applications that ‘if there was no demonstration of noise impact it would be an unreasonable condition to add as it can not be shown that it is necessary’. He stated that it also mentioned that ‘it is possible that this impact could be mitigated, however, in the absence of any demonstration or evidence of the likely observation effect of noise resulting from the agricultural operation it is not possible to determine that mitigation might be effective or how appropriate this may be particularly given the rural character of the area for example a large acoustic fence may cause additional visual harm to the rural character of the area and may therefore not be appropriate from an aesthetic point’.

Mr Edwards stated that the agricultural enterprise at 182 Wype Road has recently had 2 approvals for 2 new workshops under planning references F/YR20/0238/F and F/YR21/0872/F and on both these applications the Environmental Health Team note and accept the submitted information and have no objections to the proposed development as it is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on local air quality and noise climate. He added that both of the buildings did not require any acoustic mitigation measures.

Mr Edwards stated that as far as he is aware there have been no instances of noise complaints against the business at 182 Wype Road and as they have not had to provide mitigation, in his view, it seems unfair that his client should have to and if there was an issue there should have been an allowance for insulation in the walls and the roof of the proposed new buildings.  He referred to the presentation screen and advised members that the applicant has retained the existing hedging and installed a 2 metre high close boarded fence along the boundary of number 182 which provides adequate screening as the adjacent buildings cannot be seen from the rear garden of plot 6 or the ground floor of the house.

Mr Edwards asked the committee to support  ...  view the full minutes text for item P18/22

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater expressed the view that the issues involved have been previously addressed and are well rehearsed. He explained that there are no technical or amenity objections to the proposal and the single reason for refusal relates to the officer’s interpretation of the strategic settlement hierarchy Policy LP3.

Mr Slater stated that both the application submission and indeed the officer’s report address this matter, and both also address the issue of the precedent of recent residential development established through the recent grant of permissions in the vicinity where there have been 7 plots approved in the vicinity since 2013 and most importantly for 4 dwellings approved immediately adjacent to the site since 2019. He added that it is the most recent approvals that are most relevant as they have been approved pursuant to the current Local Plan and more recent editions of the NPPF.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is clear, having looked at the planning history in relation to development on the current application site, that the committee has consistently taken a different view to officers in respect to the interpretation of LP3 and the definition of an ‘elsewhere location’ and following the committee consideration of all of the recent developments on the adjacent sites the resultant decision notice notes that the committee in the consideration of the scheme concluded that the application site was not considered to be in an elsewhere location under the terms of LP3 and he added that with the committee taking this consistent position it is clear that the members consider that the principle of the development is in accordance with LP3. He added that the recent planning decisions by this committee in 2019, 2020 and 2021 have all been made under the currently adopted Local Plan having complete regard to the wording of and meaning of LP3 and he added that he would, therefore, request that in the interests of good planning and consistent decision making that the committee takes the same approach to the current application, and that planning permission is granted for the development.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·       Councillor Murphy asked whether the development is going to be a dwelling for a family member and Mr Slater confirmed that it is his understanding that it will be. Councillor Murphy stated that the dwelling will be in very close proximity to the adjacent dwelling which is why he asked the question.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he recalls other development in the vicinity from previous planning meetings and he explained that when taking into consideration of LP3 of the Local Plan, he has stated before that the Chatteris sign is a mile further out of the town where it says Fenland begins and Chatteris begins. He added that the committee has consistently passed the other  ...  view the full minutes text for item P19/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that with the new Local Plan emerging and having been to Cabinet in May the content of and wording of planning policies is a significant issue for the Council at this time. He added that members will be aware that there are essentially 2 types of policy, strategic and what can go where along with impact and what will the impact of a development have.

Mr Slater made the point that the strategic objections to the application before them from the officer are based on a reinterpretation of the application submission to suppose it is a separate new dwelling and added that this is not the case as the application is made explicitly for an annex accommodation and garage and pool room incidental to the existing dwelling on site. He expressed the view that officers have reinterpreted the application as one for a new dwelling and in doing so have applied the strategic policies in terms of location and flood risk which are not appropriate for the development applied for.

Mr Slater stated that with the application description of development as submitted, Policy LP3 is not relevant to annex accommodation, as by definition it must be related to the existing residential unit as an annex cannot be on land outside of the host dwellings curtilage and as such reason1 falls away. He added that for domestic annex accommodation a flood risk sequential test is not necessary as it by definition forms part of the established residential unit and, therefore, it is also considered that reason 3 for refusal falls away.

Mr Slater expressed the view that is, therefore, contended that the key reason for refusal must be one of impact, rather than principle as set out in reason 2. He explained that the pool is already in situ and the proposal simply seeks to put a building around it and this form of development would normally be built as permitted development under class E as it is less than 4m in height and incidental to the residential use, with the garaging itself if it were part of a single storey building would also be permitted development (less than 4m height under class E).

Mr Slater stated that the officer’s report at paragraph 9.5 confirms that the external appearance of the annex is considered acceptable in its own right, which, in his opinion, seems to contradict the policies quoted in relation to design within reason for refusal 2 as both LP16d and the NPPF references, which are appearance-based policies. He added that the site lies within a well screened area with surrounding agricultural and residential properties such that the proposal will have very little visual impact outside of the immediate site.

Mr Slater stated that the Council does not have an adopted policy or indeed supplementary planning guidance in relation to the definition of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P20/22

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 Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Cornwell 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)

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 Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Cornwell 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)