Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 18 October 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the 18 October 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Connor expressed his disappointment that the applicant/agent were not present at committee to answer any questions that members may have and the update to this application does not address any concerns he had from the September committee. He knows the ownership of the road is in the hands of a separate management company and is a civil matter, not a planning issue and so no weight should be given to this. Councillor Connor referred to £6,000 being offered to the George Clare Surgery but this was based on 10 houses and this proposal is for 9 houses so there is no requirement for this to be offered and the proposal cannot be refused as it is compliant with policy.

·       Councillor Benney agreed that it is unacceptable that the applicant/agent are not present and he feels the proposal is worse by the withdrawing of the £6,000 to the George Clare Surgery. Nick Harding stated that when the application was originally submitted it was for a scheme of 10 dwellings and during the consultation the health authorities responded detailing what their ask was and the applicant at that time was happy to provide. He explained that the scheme was reduced to 9 dwellings at officer’s instigation due to design concerns and, therefore, the need for a contribution fell away in line with Council policy.

·       Councillor Benney asked if a contamination report has been submitted as the site was an old farmyard? Nick Harding responded that Environmental Health have been consulted and recommend that a condition is placed on the approval, which is Condition 7.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he accepts the £6,000 to George Clare Surgery is lost, but he would like to see a contamination report and as this is an old part of town, in the Conservation Area, he would like Cambridgeshire County Council’s Archaeology Team checking to see that no artifacts are being lost. Councillor Connor asked for clarification that a full archaeological survey is being asked for at the foundation stage? Councillor Benney confirmed this to be the case.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she supports an archaeological survey due to Chatteris’ history and she is not happy that there is no longer £6,000 being given to the doctor’s surgery. She referred to LP5, meeting housing needs, asking if any of the dwellings are proposed to be affordable? Nick Harding responded that under national and local policy there is no requirement for affordable housing to be provided on a site of 9 dwellings. He made the point that the County Council Archaeology Team have not requested an upfront assessment and recommend a condition attached to the permission. Nick Harding reiterated that Environmental Health have also not requested an upfront contamination report and recommend a condition be applied.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she takes on board officer’s professional advice with the recommendation to approve but she would like to see a condition on  ...  view the full minutes text for item P66/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson referred to committee considering the scheme in August, where members were relatively comfortable with the proposal except for issues surrounding the access and highways which they felt needed further clarification. She stated that amended drawings have been submitted and these demonstrate that appropriate visibility splays can be achieved, with there being a restrictive covenant on the land to the east which requires that the footpath remains free from obstruction.

Mrs Jackson stated that whilst the covenant does not form part of the planning remit, it is enforced by other means, and, therefore, in her view, members can take comfort in knowing that this visibility splay will remain free from obstruction. She advised that the applicant for this proposal is the person who imposed the covenant and, therefore, all things considered the likelihood of this ever being breached is very slim.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the land in question is only a small triangle which goes over the private footpath and the whole point of the footpath is to allow for people to walk along it and for it to remain free from obstruction, if not it cannot serve its purpose. She reiterated that it is unlikely that the visibility splay will be obstructed and the visibility splays are now in the red line of the application and she feels conditions could be imposed to ensure the splays remain free of obstruction, with any such conditions being duly accepted by the applicant.

Mrs Jackson made the point that Highways have raised no objection to the scheme and, in her view, there appears to be no grounds to resist the application for reasons of highway safety. She highlighted that the proposal complies with the Local Plan and the Parson Drove Neighbourhood Plan, with it also receiving support from the Parish Council and requested that planning permission be granted.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the concern of the committee in August was the visibility splays hence its deferral and Mrs Jackson has said that they can be achieved so surely if this is achievable this application should be approved.

·       Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French, it was said there was hardly any chance of that splay to the east being obstructed, which was the only thing committee deferred it on so this is the only thing that needs to be looked at. He asked if a condition can be placed on any permission? Nick Harding responded that the agent referred to that bit of the visibility splay to the east which is in third party ownership and identified that the applicant was the person who instigated the covenant in the first place but his understanding is that there is land in the west visibility splay which is also in third  ...  view the full minutes text for item P67/23

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated that this outline application for 4 dwellings was submitted in June this year and they have worked hard with both ecology and tree consultants to ensure that a comprehensive application was submitted. He expressed the view that with the existing bungalow being removed and a private drive being proposed with a turning area this cannot be described as  backland development contrary to the Parish Council’s views.

Mr Bevens stated that various options have been looked at for the site based on different densities and it was felt that 4 dwellings would not constitute overdevelopment and whilst only an outline application they were also conscious that they wanted to minimise any potential for overlooking or privacy issues with the residents of Woodside Close to the south as well as respecting the mature trees on the site and the ecology constraints that exist. He stated that a detailed ecology assessment has been carried out and confirmed that the proposed solution does not cause any harm to the existing wildlife and with the removal of the poor quality outbuildings it is likely that biodiversity will be enhanced by the development with new landscaping being proposed as part of a future Reserved Matters application.

Mr Bevens noted that whilst in outline form the application for 4 dwellings is located on a section of road used by parents for Lionel Walden School, some 230 metres away, and appropriate measures would be dealt with in any future Reserved Matters application to ensure that construction deliveries to the site are carried out outside of peak public traffic hours to reduce congestion and nuisance and an appropriate construction environment management plan would be produced. He made the point that they have worked closely with the Planning Officer over the past 5 months to ensure that all concerns have been addressed leading to a recommendation of approval and agree with the officer that the proposal creates a development which responds to the opportunities and constraints of the site and to relevant planning policies.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and meets the guidance from Highways and flood risk to provide a good quality development. He asked that members support the officer recommendation and grant approval with conditions outlined in the report.

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that it is good to hear with a school being local that the applicant is prepared to put time limits on deliveries and asked if there could also be an assurance that there would be no work vehicles left outside on the public highway during the day as at school times that is already backed up with people trying to park. Mr Bevens responded that the Council has a template for construction environment management plans and they would follow the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P68/23

To determine the application.

Tracy Ranger presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Hodgson, the agent. Mr Hodgson stated the officer has raised the previous outline permission which was for a B8 distribution unit on the site but due to the climate, build costs rising and demand in that location it was not possible to deliver. He advised that it is the same applicant for this and the previous outline application and they have had to look at alternative uses with the crucial thing about this scheme is that it is primarily to serve Chiltern Distribution who are the business opposite the site to the north.

Mr Hodgson expressed the opinion that if this site had not been found there was a good chance that they would have relocated to a site in Peterborough taking away those jobs from Whittlesey. He stated that normally if he was advising a client he would not advise them to undertake any works on site prior to planning permission but the reason the works were undertaken on site is because Chiltern had an immediate and very urgent requirement to store some of their newer lorry fleet.

Mr Hodgson stated that the only works that have been carried out are site clearance and there has been some levelling works, with the type 1 material that has been laid coming from an Environment Agency licensed waste management company, it is all inert waste and there has been no excavation or digging into the ground on site just levelling out where there has been some dips on the site, with planings put on top. He reiterated that the site will be used by Chiltern Distribution to store their lorries, with them being a big distribution company which have freezer lorries but it is not intended that there will be lorries on the site with their freezer units running overnight.

Mr Hodgson made the point that there is a residential unit on the site but it is not habitable at the moment so there are no issues with noise impacting on this property and it is in the ownership of the applicant, it needs a full refurbishment which will be subject to a wider application in due course. He expressed the view that the only time the units will be running is likely to be during the day if there is a full load on the lorry and they are waiting to swap over lorry drivers, the full refrigeration units will not be left overnight as it is not safe and they will be kept in their main yard opposite.

Mr Hodgson stated that it is hoped that Chiltern will take on most of the site going forward and in the future it might be possible to erect buildings on the site to enhance their business and to stay in Whittlesey. He stated that at this moment they have taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item P69/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Bob Harrington, the agent. Mr Harrington stated that he would use his presentation to address the recommended reason for refusal and made the point that the site being considered is one that has previously been developed with about 40 garages that served the surrounding houses, all accessed from Grounds Avenue. He added that it also includes a parcel of undeveloped land that has access onto Hurst Avenue and this undeveloped part is not under contention so his presentation will concentrate on the larger garage site.

Mr Harrington made the point that the garages were demolished some time ago so the land now sits in a derelict state surrounded by housing that is all occupied and the site is in desperate need of some attention to bring it back into use and to improve the environment of the people living close by and in this part of the town so a residential scheme is appropriate. He stated that the outline application was submitted to the Council some time ago and since then they have worked with the Planning Officer to overcome the concerns identified by the various statutory consultees to demonstrate that the site is capable of redevelopment with a residential use and can make a positive contribution to this area, going some way to working to overcome the current housing shortage.

Mr Harrington referred to the single reason for refusal being the contention that the layout of the site and design of development are not acceptable and as such demonstrates the site cannot be redeveloped with 6 dwellings but he reminded members that the application is an outline one for up to 6 dwellings and that all matters relating to design are reserved except the question of access which has been resolved so the terms of the application are satisfied. He made the point the questions of design, siting and materials would all be dealt with in a Reserved Matters application subsequent to an outline approval.

Mr Harrington stated that the application was supported by a layout showing how 6 dwellings could be accommodated but the plan was purely indicative, no details of any dwellings were submitted and the question of design has not been part of any negotiations with the Planning Officer and there are no designs for the houses. He suggests that the grounds for refusal are erroneous to not relate to the terms of the outline application as submitted which seeks approval only for the principle of development of up to 6 dwellings and this seems a reasonable position considering the site is within the existing residential part of the town and the site was previously developed.

Mr Harrington expressed the view that the site is about 0.55 acres so 6 dwellings would equate to a density of about 11 dwellings per acre consistent with the surrounding  ...  view the full minutes text for item P70/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jane Watson, a supporter. Mrs Watson stated that she lives at No.10 Wimblington Road being an immediate neighbour and she does not consider it to be an overdevelopment of the plot as it still leaves significant garden area. She expressed the view that every house on Wimblington Road on this stretch is different, with the house at No.10 being incredibly near to the top of the road and given the opportunity they would move it back.

Mrs Watson expressed the opinion that it is a huge plot and given the size it should not be of bearing to anybody that it is dropped back a little bit further from the road. She feels the applicants have been extremely kind and considerate in involving neighbours with their plans including No.14, and also considering the wildlife as it is a big plot and is overrun with wildlife that use this bit of land and the applicants are prepared to take care of the wildlife.

Mrs Watson stated that she has no concerns or issues and hopefully permission can be given for this proposal to be a lovely family home on a nice plot in Doddington.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler made the point that the existing cottage on site is not fit for habitation anymore and he believes there is nothing against the principle of demolishing it within the officer’s report. He indicated on the slide on the presentation screen in relation to the overdevelopment concern the site as existing and the highlighted area of outbuildings, which shows there is quite a large area of those outbuildings although they are not as comparable on the site to what is being proposed there is still established buildings in the area where the dwelling is proposed.

Mr Gowler stated the existing footprint area of the buildings on the site is currently approximately 440 square metres and the new dwelling is 468 square metres plus the garage, so the actual dwelling is only a modest increase in footprint. He showed a picture with the new dwelling superimposed on the site, with the development only equating to around 11% of the overall plot, with the new dwelling proposed right at the top near the road and the whole garden stretches along way back.

Mr Gowler referred to the officer report at 10.12 where it is acknowledged that there is no uniformity in terms of building footprints, many neighbouring properties do appear as modest forms of development with simple footprints and sit comfortably within their boundaries and made the point that most of the neighbouring properties along this road though do not have such extensive plots and gardens as this proposed development. He made the point that Mrs Watson from the neighbouring property is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P71/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rashid Khan, the applicant. Mr Khan stated that he purchased the property some time ago and ran it as a function centre, but business declined and he had to close it down. He added the building has deteriorated and the building is in much worse state than the photos in the presentation portray, it has been subject to arson and a third of the building has been burnt down.

Mr Khan advised that he has tried to undertake other commercial activities on the site and has tried to sell it, which has all amounted to nothing so he was frustrated and did not know what to do with the property and thought the best way forward was to go for residential planning. He stated that he ideally wanted about 6 units to give opportunities for 6 families to live here as the site is big enough and has a large car park but he was advised by his architect that having 6 small units would not be acceptable and there would be more of a chance with one dwelling so with limited options he decided to go ahead.

Mr Khan stated that the proposal is for one four-bedroomed detached house with a double garage and it is consistent with the next door neighbours property duplicating what is on their land. He made the point that as the site is commercial the Council are not prepared to allow him residential but the neighbours knocked down their house and replaced it with another dwelling.

Mr Khan stated that he has undertaken an ecology report with the result being that there is no danger to wildlife and the Environment Agency are happy stating that there is no objection to the planning application as long as it is taken into account that it lies in Flood Zone 3 and allowances are made for this, such as mezzanine floors. He expressed the view that there is no detrimental effect on air quality, no parking issues with the plot being large enough for off-road parking and having a turning circle and room for loading and off-loading and he would provide washing facilities to make sure the roads are not muddy and comply with all the conditions that would be necessary to build this property.

Mr Khan expressed the view that he is not offending any neighbours and the proposal should not affect anyone else, having been an unused site for 11 years and feels it makes sense to get rid of the eyesore and it be replaced with something decent, being in line with the rest of the street and trees and he feels he is improving the situation rather than making it worse. He hoped that members would look at the situation compassionately and grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Khan as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to it being partially burnt down and asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item P72/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that proposal is for the construction of a building to serve as three one-bedroomed flats and the application is before committee as Wisbech Town Council are in support of the proposal which is contrary to the officer’s recommendation. She expressed the view that the scheme is as a result of market demand, with the applicant being a local landlord and developer who is approached continually for 1-bed accommodation within Wisbech and he has advised that there are currently no such properties on the market and he would be able to sell these flats immediately once built.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the site is arguably in one of the most sustainable locations within the District as it is within the built up area of a primary market town, with local residents having the opportunity to either walk or cycle to a range of facilities including employment, education, health and retail. She feels it has been sensitively designed to resemble a dwelling house rather than a block of flats and, therefore, the language of the building is reflective of the surrounding area.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that there is an example of tandem development on the land to the rear of 1-5 Tinkers Drove, which was a scheme won on appeal where the Inspector did not consider that the development to the rear of the frontage housing was harmful and, therefore, approved the development in a tandem location. She would argue that concerns of backland development cannot be sustained.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the proposal is of sufficient distance from the neighbouring properties, being over 16½ metres from the rear boundaries of the dwellings along Ollard Avenue and over 26 metres from their windows and with existing garages in between. She feels that as it is at an obscure angle to those along Tinkers Drove there is no harmful or measurable overlooking or overshadowing.

Mrs Jackson made the point that no objections have been received from any of the neighbours and there are no technical issues with the scheme and the application is before committee with support from the Town Council. She would argue that the reasons for refusal are subjective and that the benefits gained in terms of providing 3 residential units within a sustainable location which could be built and occupied straight away should weigh heavily in support of this application.

Mrs Jackson referred to a previous application discussed at committee today in March where it was said that there is a need for small units such as this proposal within the District, they provide small units for couples to get on the property ladder and within a residential area. She requested that planning permission is granted.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon questioned that there are no 1-bedroomed units available in Wisbech? Mrs  ...  view the full minutes text for item P73/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that this scheme seeks outline planning permission for the construction of up to 6 dwellings with only details of access committed and feels members will recall the application for 3 dwellings which was approved to the immediate south-east of the site where during their considerations members stated that they would be supportive of the whole of the site frontage land coming forward hence this application. She expressed the view that the proposal would form an extension to a market town which is supported by Policy LP3 of the Local Plan and there is a natural stop formed by the building to the north and, therefore, the scheme effectively infills the road frontage in this area.

Mrs Jackson argued that it does not constitute ribbon development or sprawl and instead promotes sustainable growth. She feels there is opportunity to provide 6 high quality dwellings which contribute to the character and visual amenity of this part of Doddington Road.

Mrs Jackson stated that the concerns previously raised by Highways have been overcome and the application now represents a form of development which is technically acceptable and has 8 letters of local support. She expressed the view that the scheme meets the policies of the Development Plan especially in relation to Policy LP3 which seeks to support extensions to market towns and requested that the application be granted.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if it is the same applicant as for the 3 dwellings previously approved? Mrs Jackson responded that she believes so.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that the photographs showed there are already for sale boards along there but if you look where those for sale boards are they seem to be further out than what was previously approved as from his memory the site did not quite run level with the outside property and asked if this is correct? Mrs Jackson asked to look at the photograph being referred to and said she cannot comment on this as the photo is from Google and she does not know how old this is and she can only comment on the site plan that she has submitted.

Nick Harding made the point that there is the earlier refusal of planning consent on this same site, F/YR22/1236, and this is the most recent decision that is relevant to this site. He stated that this was a proposal that refused the principle of development in this location so this should be at the forefront of members’ minds in the determination of this application in terms of what change of circumstances could there possibly be to now approve this application.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that this proposal is just following on  ...  view the full minutes text for item P74/23