Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of August 15, 2018

The minutes of the meeting of the 15 August 2018 were confirmed and signed subject to the following comments.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws referred to minute number P17/18 F/YR17/0507/O. She stated that bullet point 7 of questions from members states that there is a large piece of County Council land which houses a village school. It should have actually stated that there is County Council Land available that could be used for a village school in the future.

To determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the application to members and informed them that no updates had been received.

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

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he cannot see any cracks in the wall and it looks as though it has been recently rebuilt. He made reference to the fact that a method of tree valuation called a CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) had been carried out on this tree and questioned how this type of valuation is calculated.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he feels we should be mindful where Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) are applied. He questioned if this tree needs to have a preservation order and suggested that the tree could be felled so it does not impact the neighbour, and that a replacement could be planted elsewhere in the town.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that TPO’s are essential. Without them people will carry out unprofessional work on trees. With a TPO, if a tree is subsequently unhealthy and or unsafe, it would be reasonable to fell the tree and replace. She added that trees form part of street scene and for that reason she will be supporting the application.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation. 

(Councillor Court registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a Member of March Town Council but takes no part in Planning Matters). 

To determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the application and informed members that updates had been received as per the documents circulated.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Councillor Mrs French.

Councillor Mrs French made the following comments;

The application goes against March Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan and Fenland District Council’s (FDC) Local Plan. The original Draft Local Plan in 2014 highlighted that March North had an allocation of 450 dwellings to be built over time. Due to strong planning reasons put forward by residents, it was decided that it was not sustainable to build on that scale in the area at that time.

In March 2014, FDC stated ’that the removal of the North East March allocation of 450 homes is both sound from a sustainable, prospective and from democratic choice perspective’. This site was the only site in the district that generated significant local opposition; to reintroduce into the local plan of March North site would be contrary to sustainability, appraisal evidence and contrary to the principles of localism.

The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) states windfall sites which have not been specifically identified in the local plan process, normally comprise of previously developed land which have come unexpectedly available.

The proposal would also result in a loss of agricultural land. The NPPF states that where an application conflicts with the local Neighbourhood Plan it should not normally be granted. She questioned why Officers are recommending approval when it goes against March Neighbourhood Plan which was only approved by the Council in November 2017.

The NPPF states that where practical, particularly with large scale developments, key facilities such as a primary school and local shops should be located within walking distance. This is an application for 95 dwellings with future applications for 300 more; she questioned why this application has not been subject to a Broad Concept Plan when other developments have.

County Council are carrying out a full transport study for March and until that study is complete no new developments should be approved in that area.

The development offers no benefit to the local community and there is a lack of affordable housing, with just 6 units being offered where there should be 24.

The rail crossing barriers are down for about 28 minutes in every hour and that is likely to increase due to more goods trains passing through.

Middle Level Commissioners strongly object to the application.

More schools are already required and County Council have been in discussion for over 2 years about opening a new school which is needed.

Councillor Mrs French stated that there are many flaws in this application and it should not be approved.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation from Mr Graham Moore (Middle Level Commissioners), who was speaking on behalf of Middle Level Commissioners and March  ...  view the full minutes text for item P28/18

To determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the report and update report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Nightingale, an objector to the application.

Mr Nightingale explained that the original outline planning permission was granted with conditions imposed to ensure there was no impact after development. Many of the residents have expressed their concern in their objections, about the level of changes which have been requested. They believe has fundamentally changed the original consent so a new application should be submitted.

Mr Nightingale commented that he would like to ask all the Councillors on behalf of the residents, to robustly challenge the applicant’s and the planning officer’s suggestion that the variations to the application are for the good of the town’s current and future residents, as he does not believe it is.

Mr Nightingale added that he would ask the Councillors to consider whether the report is a proper and robust report or whether areas have been missed. There are a number of questions which have been raised about the content of the report and the surveys and he would ask for Councillors to make the right decision and have confidence in the information presented to them today which is right, proper and correct.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Hodson, as an objector to the application.

Mr Hodson explained that he is a local resident of Whittlesey and the application in his opinion is wholly dependent on the case made for it by Cheffins Consultants.

Mr Hodson stated that the applicants planning report is flawed and out of date, as it states that Fenland does not have a five year land supply and that is not correct. The Consultants have also stated that the lack of land supply means ‘it is indicative of a poor housing market in the district’. This may have been the case in the past in Fenland, however that is not the case in Whittlesey, it is a boom time currently for housing and there are currently 9 housing sites which have either been completed or in the construction phase. There are lots of single plots and Whittlesey has benefited from a massive expansion in Peterborough, it has been predicted that there will be a 1000 houses constructed in Whittlesey in the next 5 years.

Mr Hodson stated that the Consultants have made a statement concerning a poor housing market which has in his opinion given it a negative review in value, therefore that is why they have asked for the removal of most conditions that were present in the 2015 application. He added that he is also concerned about the reduction of the social housing contribution from 25% down to 8.5% or even 6.4%. He stated that the report does not reflect the housing market in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P29/18

To determine the Application

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (Minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr David Green in support of the application.

Mr Green explained he is a resident of the area and knows the proposed location well. His main concern is that if the area isn’t developed on, it could be used for further industrial use but he totally understands the Officer’s recommendation.

There is a good opportunity to develop and use the land as per the proposal, and if the application was granted it would safeguard the area. The hedgerows could benefit from some husbandry and the Council could impose some conditions on the developer to enforce the maintenance of the hedgerow. He feels that there is a missed opportunity here and there is a great opportunity to safeguard the area especially with industrial areas encroaching and there are residential houses to the left and right hand side of the application site. 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Peter Humphrey the applicants Agent.

Mr Humphrey stated that he agrees with the previous speaker, that there is an opportunity to carry on building large detached dwellings to enhance the area.

The Parish Council have no objections to this application and if there were concerns there would be objections. The site is in flood zone 1. Highways have no objections and there is a proposal for a footpath to link this site with the village and there is already a pedestrian crossing to cross the A141.The Planning Officers have appeared to focus on LP3 which is growth of the village and have separated Eastwood End from the village of Wimblington.

On the previous local plan, Eastwood End was always shown as part of the village and he had asked Planning Officers when the new local plan came out whether he could be provided with a copy of what they define as villages, but there is no such plan. This site, when taken in context the whole of Eastwood End, just forms a natural infill gap and is ideal for development.

Referring to 11.1 of the Officers report, it states that it fails to protect and enhance the natural environment and Mr Humphrey disagrees with this. There are numerous new houses at Eastwood End and the proposal is not a new example and it is not setting a precedent, it is helping the village. Villages have a dense concentration of houses in the middle and sporadic large houses on the fringe, and the proposal is for three large houses on the fringe to retain the form and character of the village.

Officers are concerned with regard to LP12 which is rural areas development policy; however the application is not affected by an agricultural application so that cannot be considered as a reason for  ...  view the full minutes text for item P30/18

To Determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its site inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Gaenor Parry the Agent.

Gaenor Parry stated that there have 2 previous applications on this site and both of those were significantly larger than the proposal before members today and in her opinion the refusals were clearly justified. The proposal today is for a small infill, windfall development for 3 dwellings and is a reduction in numbers, size and location from previous applications.

The houses are now sited at the western end of the site immediately opposite the existing dwellings in Gull Road. If considered together they form a cohesive development and as such do not appear as isolated dwellings in the countryside. The location has enabled a large part of the current open frontage along the B1187 to be retained free of development.

The proposal is for dedicated tree planting and landscaping along the frontage and the private gardens of the three houses behind a further hedgerow will add to the amount of open space and maintain a deep rural edge to the site effectively screening it. The paddock grazing area including trees and grassland are significant visual amenities and she cannot find any designation of this land in any Fenland District Council policy. The current application has addressed the Officer’s concerns and the Agent stated that the application in her opinion complies with LP12 (n) and LP16 (a) of the Local Plan.

She stated that she also has concerns over the Officers first reason for refusal and that Guyhirn has been identified as a village capable of some development, there are no comments within the Councils policy documents which state that new housing should be excluded from any particular part of the existing settlement. The Fenland Development Policy is set out in three parts, firstly to look at applications on their own merits, secondly it will normally be of a very limited nature and thirdly it will be normally be limited in scale, the use of normally is used twice in the policy is quite deliberate and it clearly underlines the fact that there is some flexibility in the policy to enable appropriate development. The Officers report states that the development is limited in scale and does not represent an infill opportunity. The Agent stated that she does not dispute the fact that the proposal is not infill but she does dispute that the policy itself requires more development in these identified settlements to be infill only.  The small development is not an isolated development and the officers concerns with regard to the previous development have been overcome by this proposal.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she has previously spoken with regard to previous applications on this site, but she has made  ...  view the full minutes text for item P31/18