Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and advised them that the officer’s recommendation had altered since the agenda and associated paperwork had been published with it, now being to grant planning permission. David Rowen explained the reason for the change in recommendation which related to the impact of the development on the windows and rooms of the adjacent building.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall stated that all the statutory consultees for the application have no objections to the proposal with the exception of Whittlesey Town Council. He added that at 10.6 of the officer’s report it states that there are no policies which oppose this type of development and the Conservation Officer has confirmed that they also support the proposal.

Mr Hall advised that the applicant has provided a written confirmation that he has received from a housing association for all of the 9 units and the commercial unit for an as built development and is therefore keen to commence the build. He stated that the site is in Whittlesey with a car park opposite the proposed site and is an area containing both residential and commercial usage.

Mr Hall stated that to the rear of the site there are examples of other building taking place in close proximity to other buildings as it is a town centre location and added that Unit B is 2.3 metres away from Grosvenor House.

He expressed the opinion that there is information that has been omitted from the officer’s report and explained that an initial pre application was submitted in 2018, along with associated plans and drawings with officers raising. concerns, because a three storey building was proposed which was flush with Grosvenor House. Following a meeting at Fenland Hall with the applicant and officers, discussions took place to step the buildings back and there were no concerns raised at this stage with regard to the windows of Grosvenor House.

Mr Hall stated that in 2019, the application was submitted and following another meeting with officers, they took suggestions on board with regard to the reduction in height and stepping back of the building with an email being received in May 2020, from officers advising that the proposal would be recommended for approval and would need to be determined by the Planning Committee. He added that he received an email on 2 July from the Development Manager, which stated that following discussions with the Head of Planning, the recommendation was now for refusal.

Mr Hall stated that the process has taken 22 months since the pre-application process commenced. He added that the officer’s report is positive, as is the Development Managers presentation with the alteration in recommendation now being to recommend approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked Mr Hall to clarify that on the site plan drawing the outline in red takes in the front part of Grosvenor Road and asked why this is, and whether the land is owned by Fenland District Council?  Mr Hall stated that when a red line is drawn on a planning application it has to adjoin an adoptable road, which is why the red line has been extended onto High Causeway and a notice was served to Fenland District Council to reflect this. Councillor Miscandlon clarified that the road was in fact Grosvenor Road.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the Highways Authority have raised queries over the drainage from the intended road having to run away from the highway and asked how this was going to be addressed? Mr Hall stated that a consultant has carried out a surface water drainage design which was submitted to the Lead Local Flood Authority and approval has been received. He added that written approval from Anglia Water has also been received to take all the surface water as well as the foul water from this site and the road.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification with regard to larger deliveries referring to 10.30 of the report as he has concerns over the amount of room there is for larger vehicles. He also questioned the arrangements for refuse collection. Mr Hall added that on the plan for unit 8, there is a bin collection point for both commercial and domestic uses. Councillor Marks added what size are the largest delivery vehicles that can access the rear? Mr Hall stated that it will be a small delivery vehicle at the most a 3.5 tonne vehicle. Councillor Marks added that if a larger vehicle requires access, it would have to unload on the highway, where there are double yellow lines. Mr Hall confirmed that this would be the case.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he also has concerns over the rear access for vehicles. He expressed the view that he would hope that there is adequate provision for both domestic and commercial refuse.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that at 10.28 of the report it states that there is a shortfall of parking spaces. He added that he can see 6 spaces on the plan, but the report states that there is a requirement for 17. He questioned whether the residents will be required to park in the public car park, which is opposite the development? Mr Hall stated that a survey was carried out during the application process over the period of a week and different times of the day to ascertain how busy the car park would be adding that the proposal is in a town centre location where the Local Plan states parking standards can be relaxed.

·         Councillor Miscandlon added that the road that goes to the rear of the site is very restricted and to unload on the road is not permitted which  is one of the concerns of Whittlesey Town Council. Mr Hall added that he agrees that there will be issues for any larger vehicles and whilst he appreciates that vehicles should not unload and load on double yellow lines, there are instances where this does take place.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the data contained within the parking survey has not covered the majority of the day, which in his opinion, may not give a true picture of the parking requirements for the residents. Mr Hall stated that the parking survey timings were agreed with the Planning Officer at their meeting.  

·         Councillor Meekins stated that if any parking takes place on the double yellow lines that will be down to the Police to deal with. He expressed the view that with regard to car parking and possible charges for parking, that is an issue for the tenants and the landlord to discuss. He added tha, in his opinion, it is a very good proposal and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he did not receive an update report for this application. David Rowen apologized to members and added that the change of consideration was taken at the last minute, which did not afford the time to prepare a formal update report.

·         Councillor Cornwell referred to 11.4 of the officer’s report and asked for clarification as to whether Grosvenor Road is an adopted road? David Rowen stated that it is not uncommon for Fenland District Council to own a road that has not been formally adopted but it is still a public road. He added that he is unsure whether the access from Grosvenor Road into the site, the private road known as Montague Way, falls under the control of the Council. Councillor Cornwell stated that he only has concerns over the parking and the turning area elements of the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon confirmed that Montague Way is a private road, which is in a very poor state.

·         Councillor Marks added that he still has concerns over the deliveries which may take place on the road side and asked whether it can be conditioned so that the deliveries cannot take place via the side of the road? David Rowen stated that this is not possible as it would duplicate the controls of traffic regulations and it cannot be conditioned as part of the planning process.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that deliveries can take place on double yellow lines, and that it is legal for the purposes of unloading and loading.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that he cannot see any reason for refusal and will be supporting the application.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Benney and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Miscandlon registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is the Chairman of the Planning Committee at Whittlesey Town Council and he has taken part in the discussion and voting on this item, but he reserves the right to change his mind should evidence and information be brought forward to alter his decision).