Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Truswell, an objector. Mr Truswell stated that his objection is largely due to the proximity to his property next door, he lives adjacent at 251 showing on the plan displayed on the screen where his property was, and the negative impact the proposal will have on available daylight and the associated noise pollution. He believes there is a more suitable location away from his boundary but still on land believed to be owned by the applicants, with there being a large expanse of unused land to the north, north-west and north-east, land which is already served by an adequate point of access from the main road.

Mr Truswell stated that there have already been several planning applications for this small piece of land which have been refused and this application in its current form affects 2 households, 6 people, 2 families but if it was to be moved to elsewhere on that land it would not impact any households. He feels the proposed holiday village will have an adverse impact on his quality of life in its current proposed location.

Members asked questions of Mr Truswell as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon asked for clarification on how the proposal affects his property apart from noise pollution. Mr Truswell responded that as they are semi-detached the ground floor light comes in through 4 windows so down the side of the house consists of 75% of their light, the applicant is already growing bushes that are up to 12 feet high which is already affecting his light and he did submit in his objection a side aspect showing, using a telegraph pole at the top of road as a reference point, where the highest point of the static caravan next to his property would impact. He feels it would impact with available light and noise. Councillor Imafidon questioned that he stated that there is already a 12-foot hedge. Mr Truswell responded that it was 10-feet 3 months ago and it is now 12-foot and will be 14-foot imminently. Councillor Imafidon asked if that hedge is already there how will the caravans impact, will they be taller than the hedge? Mr Truswell responded that this is a conversation he plans to have with the applicants as he feels the hedge is now getting too high and affecting their available light.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if he had spoken to his neighbours about the hedge as there is legislation on overgrown hedges and the owners have a statutory duty to keep them under control. Mr Truswell responded that the applicants have been really good up until recently keeping them maintained and he does not think it is noticeable from their aspect but there has been a surge in growth this past few months. Councillor Mrs French asked again if he had tried to speak to the neighbours. Mr Truswell responded not as yet but to be fair he feels slightly aggrieved that the planning application has been applied for and he found out after it had been submitted and he does not feel they are on a friendly chat over the fence footing anymore.

·       Councillor Hicks referred to there being a gap between the building and his house so it is not right on his border? Mr Truswell responded that looking from the street scene view it does look closer but he believes there is going to be hot tubs on the ends of these caravans. Councillor Hicks asked how do he know this? Mr Truswell stated that it is in the planning application text and there would be extra noise when there is a massive amount of land over to the north which has no households near it demonstrating this point on an aerial plan of the area shown on the presentation screen.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked what the workshop on his property is used for? Mr Truswell responded that it keeps his Land Rover Defender away from the rain and he does odd jobs within it as he is a lorry driver by trade.

Members received presentations, in accordance with the public participation, from Beverley Wakefield, the applicant, and a written representation from Alexandra Patrick, the agent. Mrs Wakefield stated that she has lived along North Brink for 20 years and her neighbours at 255 previously provided holiday accommodation for many years but due to their retirement and moving the business has now ceased and people often enquire whether they could use their land for holidays due to its location to the town and declining numbers of hotels available in Wisbech. She expressed the opinion that the sunset and sunrises are amazing which are easily viewed from her property and will also be of benefit to the occupants of the proposed holiday accommodation.

Mrs Wakefield provided details of a particular request they had received and since then they have toyed with the idea of providing hotel accommodation on the land and decided last November to formally submit an application. She stated that they will be available to personally manage the holiday lets and answer any questions or issues that may arise as they have a vested interest in running it peacefully and with the littlest amount of disruption to all concerned.

Mrs Wakefield stated that they also propose to retain as many of the pear trees as possible and will site the holiday lets among them providing fruit for the benefit of the occupants when they are in season, additionally there are blackcurrants, raspberries, gooseberries and rhubarb which will also be freely available for the proposed occupants to help themselves to experience the localised fruit during there stay and enhance their enjoyment of staying in the Fens. She added that they also proposed to put nest boxes around the trees to encourage more wildlife, which she has great pleasure in observing daily and hopes that she can count on members support for her proposal.

Member Services read out the written representation from Alexandra Patrick. Ms Patrick stated that in accordance with the officer recommendation of approval for this application she would naturally like the committee to agree with this recommendation. She expressed the view that within this village and the surrounding villages are a number of holiday let sites, all thriving and bringing business and tourism to the local area and the site fits well within the character of the area with a natural boundary to the front and surrounding perimeter of the site.

Ms Patrick expressed the opinion that foraging the extant fruit trees and an abundance of nature walks supports this development’s location and amenities, but the location is not too far away to miss out on the local tourism the Georgian town of Wisbech can provide; Peckover House, Elgoods Brewery and Octavia Hill’s Birthplace to name a few. She feels the mobile homes are typical to those in this Fenland locality as seen at Tall Trees caravan and camping park in Guyhirn and mobile homes at Manor Lodges, Seadyke Bank, Murrow, with the natural screening to the front and position of the holiday lets not being detrimental to the neighbouring properties, no overlooking or overshadowing of any kind given they are single-storey developments.

Ms Patrick made the point that there are 6 letters of support for this application and only 2 negative letters. She acknowledges that the flood zone is a high one in this locality but stated that the site will have evacuation plans and a roof escape window should the committee deem this acceptable and given the recent approval of a bungalow and full-time living accommodation for mobile homes further west along North Brink, a development such as this for tourism and restricted to 10 months of the year seems, in her view, acceptable.

Ms Patrick stated that the holiday accommodation will be managed by the owners of 241 North Brink, given the very few numbers of mobile homes proposed, which should not take away the aesthetics of North Brink.

Members asked questions of Mrs Wakefield as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of Mr Truswell and asked Mrs Wakefield to tell her about the height of the hedge as she has obviously got a duty to keep it under control and she cannot see anywhere in the report where it says about hot tubs. Mrs Wakefield responded that they always trim the hedges in January/February before the birds nest and whenever they are starting work, especially on that boundary, they send a text message to the neighbours to inform them and they always work on their side so all the rubbish comes their way. She stated that the fence that is there is 1.8 metres so they usually work to this height and they did cut them in February but the new growth is incredible and they will be cut again in October, always undertaking the work twice a year. Mrs Wakefield stated that there are no plans for any hot tubs.

·       Councillor Imafidon appreciates that due to the nesting season that the hedges cannot be cut regularly but referred to the mention that they were cut in February. Mrs Wakefield reiterated that they were cut in February before the birds nested and they were cut right back and Mr Truswell was quite happy with the height. She made the point that Mr and Mrs Truswell have lived next door for 7 years and they have never had a problem or a query regarding the hedges until today.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to officer’s being satisfied that there will be no overlooking and asked if this is correct, as it is contrary to what the objector is saying. David Rowen responded that the report in a couple of places addresses the relationship between the development and the adjacent property and concludes in planning terms that this is acceptable.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that whether the height of the hedge is 8 foot or 15 foot does not make any difference to a planning application as there is a mechanism in place to deal with high hedges, talking to your neighbour being the first thing. He feels that whether it is wanted or elsewhere it is in front of members today and he can see no evidence to say that there is anything contrary to what policy says and cannot see no material planning reasons to refuse this, with every application that is approved being next to someone who may not want it but that is not a reason to refuse, although he acknowledges the concerns of the objector.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that being from Wisbech and knowing that developments are needed in Wisbech for tourism he supports this application. He acknowledges the comments from the objector but Mrs Wakefield has informed members that noise will be minimal and she will continue to maintain the hedges.

·       Councillor Hicks referred to noise and queried what age groups would be expected in these caravans? Councillor Marks reminded him that members were now in debate and the question should have been asked earlier.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked if it is officer’s responsibility to put a condition on noise control? David Rowen responded that no noise conditions are recommended to the committee but if the development occurs and there are noise issues there are controls through the Environmental Health legislation to address those.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarification that if there are noise complaints Environmental Health could get involved and it could be like on other sites that conditions could be applied such as no vehicle movements after 11pm. David Rowen responded that what would happen if the development was to take place and was to generate a level of noise complaints could be made to the Environmental Health team by local residents, those would be investigated and if it was demonstrated that there was a statutory nuisance created then there are controls which can be applied to address those.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that members are looking at a planning application in front of them today and members cannot pre-empt what might happen, with mechanism being in place to deal with possible future issues.

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