Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards made the point that this application for 3 dwellings comes with the support of officers and follows 3 recently completed houses, which were all part of an original outline approval for six dwellings and the site is infilling development which is consistent with the village’s capability in LP3. He stated that he was disappointed with the late response from the Environmental Protection Team who only raised issues a couple of days before the deadline date. He explained that there were no issues raised at the outline stage and as the business adjacent to the site is currently building a new workshop, there was no mitigation required for that which was approved in 2020, and he questioned why is there now a need for the application site to have acoustic fencing installed.  

Mr Edwards highlighted that the new workshop backs on to the application site as the previous buildings did that it is replacing, with the proposed workshop having no openings towards the site and being hidden by the existing laurel hedging that runs the full length of the boundary and beyond. He explained that, in the report, it points out that 2 bungalows were approved by the Planning Committee the other side of the business and again no acoustic mitigation was required for these and it should be noted that the workshop entrance doors face these bungalows.

Mr Edwards added that the applicant is ready to start work on site on these 3 dwellings as he had expected to start towards the end of last year and is happy to accept the conditions, but would prefer to install a standard 2.1M high close boarded fence instead and retain the laurel hedging.

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

·         Councillor Meekins stated that the objections that have been received, appear to be surrounding the potential noise from the business at the back of the site and that if anybody is looking to buy a property with an agricultural engineering works in the vicinity then there must be the acceptance that there will be some noise expected. He added that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation on this application.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion that the officers have done an exceptional job with the mitigation issues on this application. He added that there is bound to be an element of noise resulting from the agricultural works and it is vital for the residents in the dwelling to have a quality of life, even though they are living next door to a business. Councillor Lynn stated that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation for this application with the conditions in place.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the officers have made the correct recommendation. He added that it appears works have already commenced to clear the site and it will look better to see the frontage of the site replaced with proper hedging and he agreed that agricultural businesses can make noise and he expressed the view that any mitigation put in place strengthens the awareness of whoever is buying it that there is going to be some noise, so it acts as a prewarning. He added that he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she concurs with Members comments and will be fully supporting this application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated he agrees with the comments made by Members and added that the agent had highlighted that the Environmental Team had only responded just before determination date which is not ideal but given the Covid situation is understandable. He added that the acoustic fence will benefit the future occupants of the house and for the business too as it will avoid complaints and could affect the businesses’ working hours or the way that it operates. He added that he does not consider that the difference in cost of an acoustic fence versus a normal fence on such a scheme would be a problem and he will also support the officer’s recommendation.

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

(Councillors Mrs Mayor and Miscandlon declared an interest in this item, by virtue of the fact that they are both members of Whittlesey Town Council Planning Committee who has commented on the application, and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item)