Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes from the meeting of 17 March 2021.

The minutes of the meeting of the 17 March were agreed 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 Mr Weetman from the Chatteris Past, Present and Future Society in objection to the proposal.

Mr Weetman expressed the view that theapplicant’s HeritageConsultant, MrDonoyou, mayhave inadvertentlymisled thiscommittee in December when he told members that “the reason the ceilings are barrel vaulted is becausethey havea zincventilation shaftat thetop andhistorically thebuilding couldhave beenused forpoultry rearingor otheranimal stock”, but he is perplexed as to why such a description does not appear in Mr Donoyou’s historic buildinganalysis, written in 2018 and re-submitted in support of this application on 30th March, and he stated that the very  detailed, eleven-pagereport didn’trefer tothe building’suse asa poultryhouse or toventilation shafts. He stated that in his society’s initial response to the application, he provided copies of advertisements for thesale ofFortrey house and he added that theseclearly describethe buildingas acoach house,with stablesand atwo-storey granary. He added that thoseadverts datefrom 1894and 1946 and neithermention thebuilding’s useas a poultry shed and added that Members should be very clear that this is a Grade II Listed Coach House that   is of vital significance to the main heritage asset at 22 London Road and that noevidence has been found, thatit wasever usedas apoultry house.

Mr Weetman stated that in Mr Donoyou’s 2018 report, it refers to the barrel-vaulted ceilings as an “impressive” and“striking architectural feature” of the coach house and added that it goes on to say that a “barrel-vaultedceiling ina late19th centuryutilitarian structureis both an unusual andnotable featureof thiscurtilage building” and he questioned as to whetherMr Donoyou was wrong in2018 oris hewrong now?  He stated that the applicant has repeatedly implied that Historic England has no objections to thedemolition of the building and its opinion is a gross mischaracterisation of Historic England’s responses,which say that while the building falls outside of its prioritisation criteria for casework and he added that HistoricEngland saythat theCouncil shoulddefer tothe adviceof its Conservation Officer.

Mr Weetman stated that theCouncil’s Conservation Officer has clearly laid out important reasons as to why the application should not  be granted if the Council wishes to make a decision that is consistent with its legal obligation in accordance with the Fenland Adopted Local Plan and the National PlanningPolicy Framework,as wellas the Council’slegal dutyto protectlisted buildings. He expressed the opinion that if the Council wishes to make a decision that does not comply with the Council’s Local Plan andthe NationalPlanning PolicyFramework, councillorsare clearlyleaving theCouncil vulnerableto a judicial review by  ...  view the full minutes text for item P86/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the item to members:

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy asked for clarity over the opening hours of the premises and David Rowen stated that if members were to approve the application, then delegated authority could be given to officers to clarify the point.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, in his opinion, it is good to see an extra service coming into a village rather than being withdrawn.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he agrees that there are too many facilities being withdrawn from villages and he welcomes the proposal, which will enhance the village of Parson Drive.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the take away food premises do serve healthy food options and should there be a cause for concern in the future then steps can be taken to look into this further.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that it is important that the rural villages receive the services they need and remain viable. He added that any provisions of food and routes to school, he would like to see form part of the new Fenland Local Plan.

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

To determine the application.

Jennifer Seaman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Jane Eyeington, in objection to the application.

Ms Eyeington stated that that whilst she fully understands the need for ‘green energy’, this should not be at the expense of everything else, including the environment that has been here thousands of years. She added that she would like to raise concerns with regard to all ecological effects having been investigated in depth, including the effect on bats, and, in her view, sufficient surveys have not yet been carried out as required under the law, to avoid harm to the bats, which, is her belief, should be done before planning permission is granted.

Ms Eyeington expressed the opinion that the Anaerobic Digester (AD) plant is not in keeping with the Fenland environment and is spoiling the outlook of the countryside. She added that the original planning application, was for a larger plant and this was rejected, and questioned whether planning laws have changed and asked whether it was felt acceptable to increase the size of the current AD plant, with any increase making a bigger impact and an eyesore even worse.

Ms Eyeington added that the original AD plant was supposed to provide planting to landscape the border, providing cover and this was to be maintained, which has not been done and, therefore, not providing the screening required in the original planning consent. She added that even since raising this point, nothing has been done to rectify the problem and expressed the view that this does not bode well for installation and maintenance of the new boundary planting for the extension.

Ms Eyeington highlighted that the screening proposed must be of a mature planting, with evergreen included, otherwise the plant is fully exposed for 6 months of the year and stated that it must also ensure it is fully maintained. She stated that the lighting on the existing and new proposed extension is, in her view, excessive and whilst she understands the need for security, the plant is manned 24/7, with a multitude of CCTV cameras and questioned the need for so many lights. She added that the revised lighting plan, puts in more lights, not less, and the height is still 18 ft and the excessive lights around the plant is causing lighting pollution, having a detrimental effect on the environment and wildlife.

Ms Eyeington stated that there has been no LUX report on the intensity of the lighting, which effects all wildlife and bats, which should be undertaken before permission is granted not after. She added that she understands that the new extension to the plant will be using mainly straw and highlighted that straw is already used by the existing plant, and the waste left over from the site is dumped on the field next to her property, which she stated will only increase with the extension.

Ms Eyeington stated that the AD plant seem to take no  ...  view the full minutes text for item P88/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, from Mr Craig Brand, the Agent.

Mr Brand stated that the outline application seeks permission in principle to develop the site, with details of the necessary access improvements only committed and the submitted indicative site layout plans and house designs are for illustrative purposes only. He added that the applicant is happy to reduce the proposed maximum number of dwellings to 2, to match the existing semi-detached houses in the vicinity.

Mr Brand explained that the site is 1 of 4 potential development sites adjacent to the playing field surface road and garden land development has already been approved at the rear of 30 and 32 Russell Avenue and he highlighted on the presentation slide to the committee where the development fronts onto West Close. He stated that committtes approval led to 7 and 8 West Close gaining permission for their gardens and this was demonstrated in slide 2.

Mr Brand added that the committee report concentrates on the terrace proposal even though a semi-detached illustrative design was also submitted and he stated that the officer’s report highlights what it deems to be the failings of the terrace scheme by being only separated by 10m from the existing dwellings whereas the semi-detached proposal has a 15m separation between dwellings as shown in Slide 3.  He explained that in 9.2 of the officers report, the Inspector of the 2015 appeal found there would be no harm from the semi-detached proposal to the living conditions of neighbouring properties and the reason for dismissing the appeal was the perceived harm the development would cause to the character of the post war estate and the playing field.

Mr Brand stated that March Town Council recommend approval of the application with the improvements to the access road shown and they are happy that the development would comply with Policy H2 of their Neighbourhood Plan and would be in keeping with the settlement pattern and character of the estate. He added that the dwellings, surrounded by the playing field which are bounded by high hedges and close border fencing, along with outbuildings in their gardens, have little or no views of the open space and, therefore, views of the new houses would be negligible from the surrounding properties and there would be no harm to them as they are a distance away.

Mr Brand stated that in general playing fields in March and public open spaces have housing in closer proximity and he used Southwell Close as an example. He expressed the view that the proposal would cause no harm to the playing field, but would provide a strong presence that the existing surrounding housing would deter anti-social behaviour.

Mr Brand referred members to slide 4 which shows a layout introducing landscaping to the playing field boundary, which, in his view, will significantly reduce the harm perceived by the Inspector to the playing field and houses that surround  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/20

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Emily Warner, the agent.

Ms Warner stated that the UK High Street has witnessed significant changes in the past decade, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has only served to exacerbate this. She added that the National Planning Policy is clear that planning decisions should support town centres by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation and she added that town centres should be allowed to diversify in a way that can respond to rapid changes.

Ms Warner explained that the current property at 10 High Street is too large to successfully operate as a newsagents given the national decline in newspaper sales, which means that the current floorspace is much underused and the application responds to the changing needs of Aspinall’s to enable the longstanding business to continue trading from this established location, but in a size much more suited to their needs and the proposal will also enable a hot food takeaway provision to provide some diversification and contribute to the provision of a dynamic town centre, as sought by the Local Plan. She explained that the resulting mix of uses will support both the daytime and night-time economies, will bring additional employment opportunities and will serve to enhance the vitality and viability of the High Street.

Ms Warner referred to the officer’s report, where in September 2020 the Government introduced new legislation to amalgamate some of the current use classes including shops, financial and professional services, offices, restaurants and cafes into a single new Class E, therefore, deregulating changes of use between them, with the overarching aim being to support High Street revival and economic recovery. She added that the property could potentially change in its entirety, without any planning permission, to another non-retail use or for example, a pizza restaurant, and the limitations of the Local Plan in terms of protecting and limiting the uses in the Primary Shopping Frontage are, therefore, superseded and notwithstanding this, this proposal would result in the retention of a retail use and this part of the High Street would remain predominantly in retail use.

Ms Warner explained that the proposals include sympathetic external alterations to the façade of the unlisted building to facilitate the sub-division and stated that a separate advertisement consent for the new signage has already been approved by the authority. She stated that the Council’s Conservation Officer has raised no objection to the proposed alterations, subject to a condition, and confirmed there would be only a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and no impact on the setting or significance of the adjacent listed buildings.

Ms Warner stated that the application has also been submitted with full details of the flue system for the extraction and dispersal of odorous smells and this will be installed before the use commences and following the submission of a noise assessment which is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P90/20

To consider the appeals report

David Rowen presented the appeal report to members.

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

F/YR20/0232/F

·         Councillor Connor asked whether there were any associated costs involved with this application? David Rowen confirmed that no cost claim was submitted as part of this particular appeal.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he finds it disappointing that somebody out of the area can overrule the decision made.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that the site is in her ward and there is an issue with regard to highway safety. She added that initially that area and the outbuildings were in the ownership of one person and they had one car and used that entrance. She added that now people are parking in the gateway and cars are overhanging the footpath and there is now an issue being caused. David Rowen stated that officers were of the view that the application should be refused and that was the decision that was taken. He added that it is a judgement that was made by that particular inspector in this particular case and sometimes that judgement goes against the Council and officers are also very disappointed.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he is also very disappointed that the inspector did not take into consideration the flats at 44 to 46. He agrees with Councillor Mrs Mayor with regard to the cars overhanging the pavement and that issue has also been reported to the Police. He added that the parking outside is also time limited, however, this is not being adhered to.

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether there is the opportunity for representation to be made to the Inspector to address the fact that the committee are very disappointed about the decision. Nick Harding stated that a letter could be written to the Inspectorate to request that the decision is reviewed.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated the property was in one family’s ownership and they resided above the shop and the area above the shop is now going to be flats of which there is no parking for them.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and it was AGREED that the Head of Planning write to the Inspectorate to raise the concerns highlighted by the committee.

(Councillor Mrs French had left the meeting prior to the commencement of this item)