Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 30 January, 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of 30 January 2019 were confirmed and signed.

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.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Tim Slater, acting on behalf of the Agent in support of the application.

Mr Slater stated that there is an error contained within the report at 9.3 where it states that no community consultation had taken place, this is incorrect as one took place on 16 November 2017. He added that the layout is indicative only and all matters except access will be subject to reserved matters.

Mr Slater stated that the application is for a sustainable development, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and in his view, it is a sustainable and accessible location and is policy compliant.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she is very interested in the Section 106 contributions and added that in her opinion suitable housing association accommodation is important and required. She added that it is a very healthy proposition of £1.65 million and she would hope that the relevant parties involved with the application adhere to the delivery of their promise.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated in her opinion that the site is well placed and the improvements that are planned to the Peas Hill roundabout in her opinion will be welcomed. She feels the proposal in its outline form meets policy, however she worries that the Section 106 Obligations will not come to fruition with a later viability study, adding that whilst Fenland and the town of March need houses there also needs to be contributions towards education and health.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that the development would enhance the area and she will be supporting approval of this application.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that 12 statutory consultees have raised no objections to this application and, therefore, he cannot see any reason for it to be refused.

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification with a couple of anomalies within the report.  At point 5.9 of the report it mentions that the proposal is for 33 homes for affordable rent and shared ownership, but at 9.46, it states 30 units and he asked for clarity. David Rowen confirmed that the correct figure is 30.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that at 5.19 in the officer’s report where it mentions the provision of GP surgery needs, it mentions Mercheford House Surgery, and at 9.54, it quotes the Riverside Practice and asked for clarification of whether it is both surgeries or if it is just one. David Rowen agreed that there is a discrepancy, however the main issue for members to consider is that £42,435 will be secured towards GP provision in the vicinity, however, clarification will be sought from the NHS.

·         Councillor Sutton commented on the Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item P65/18

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.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Lee Bevens, the Agent.

Mr Bevens explained that the application may appear straight forward for determination however the current application is a culmination of 2 years work where the applicant has been trying to resolve the issues at the site. He stated that the applicant had previously applied for a certificate of lawfulness on 2 separate occasions with one being refused, which  was to establish a permanent dwelling for a mobile home, which would be used by his daughter and family and despite numerous letters of support to confirm that she has lived there for more than ten years it has proved problematic to obtain specific utility bills to prove it was a separate dwelling.

Mr Bevens stated that it was therefore, felt that given the length of time the applicant’s daughter and her family had lived at the address, an application for a permanent dwelling would be a more acceptable approach. He explained that if approved, the current mobile home behind the bungalow will be removed and this will improve the visual character.

Mr Bevens made the point that whilst it is accepted that the site falls outside of the settlement of Chatteris, it is not practical to offer justification for an elsewhere location as the proposal has nothing to do with agriculture, forestry or horticulture. He added that mitigation has been offered in proposing a bungalow at the address to remove the long standing mobile home and in respect of policy LP12d, an explanation has been provided to explain why the bungalow should be supported and be treated differently to a typical dwelling in the open countryside.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that he proposed dwelling is in a sustainable location and will mean that the family can all live in the vicinity to provide a support network due to the issues of ill health. He commented that the National Planning Policy Framework has sustainability at its core and the proposal before the committee meets the social objective of sustainable growth, by providing a new home with the dwelling not being an isolated home in the countryside by virtue of it being similar to others in the vicinity and the land will be used effectively ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

Mr Bevens stated that whilst there has been no request to update the visibility splays, the comments of the Highways Officer can be taken on board and the extra distances can be achieved. He concluded by stating that the proposal has overwhelming local support, and there have been no letters of objection to the scheme, there will be no negative impact on the area and it will  ...  view the full minutes text for item P66/18

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.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the application is for 2 bungalows off Prospect Road in March and has worked closely with the Planning Officer throughout the planning application process. The site is the extended garden of the applicants dwelling, which is 327 Norwood Road, and he advised that the host property will still have adequate amenity space, should the application be approved.

Mr Edwards added that a pre-application on the site has taken place, which received a positive response and has led to the application before the committee today. He stated that the proposal will be for single storey dwellings, will not impact on the neighbouring properties and following the planning officer’s comments, both bungalows will be moved further back to increase the distance between the proposal and the existing bungalows on the opposite side of Prospect Road.

Mr Edwards stated that as part of the proposal, a turning area has also been provided for the use of all residents on Prospect Road, which will mean that no vehicle will need to exit the road in reverse. 

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that there are no reasons why this application should not be approved. The Agent and the Applicant have worked with the Planning Officers in order to overcome any issues and everything is now in order.

·         Councillor Bligh agreed with Councillor Sutton’s comments that the Agent has worked well with officers and she will fully support this application.

·         Councillor Hay asked whether any amended Highway plans had been submitted following a comment received from Cambridgeshire County Council Highways where they state that Prospect Road does not allow 2 way vehicle flow at the access and stated that it could result in vehicles being stationary on Wisbech Road. David Rowen stated that no amended plans were requested in respect of that comment, as it was considered that Prospect Road is of a limited width and the addition of 2 properties, although intensifying the use of the access, would not cause any problematic issue. In addition where Prospect Road meets Wisbech Road, there is quite a wide footway and parking area which was considered to provide a refuge if required.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that there have been a number of letters of support received, the Agent has worked with the planning officers and the proposal will enhance the area.

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