Agenda and minutes

Izzi Hurst requested a nomination for Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Municipal Year.  It was proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Sutton and resolved that Councillor Miscandlon be elected as Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Municipal Year.

It was proposed by Councillor Miscandlon, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and resolved that Councillor Sam Clark be elected as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Municipal Year.

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 25 April 2018.

The minutes of the meeting of 25 April 2018 were confirmed and signed.

To seek approval in principle for a Broad Concept Plan for East Wisbech.

Members considered the East Wisbech Strategic Allocation - Broad Concept Plan report presented by David Rowen. He explained that a full public consultation was undertaken with over two-hundred people attending the consultation event at Walsoken Village Hall. He informed Members that the results of this are summarised in the report along with responses from the consultations with Statutory Bodies.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from John Maxey.

John Maxey made the Committee aware that the report has the endorsement of both Councils and Landowners too. He said the purpose of the East Wisbech Broad Concept Plan (BCP) is to aid delivery and he is working on delivery of the scheme with a Developer and has the support of Landowners on this. He highlighted the importance of the report and explained that approving it will allow a framework to be put in place prior to planning applications being submitted. He explained that delivery of all the areas in the report will be challenging in regards to viability as additional infrastructure will be required, however there is outside funding available for this. He said he fully endorses the report and reiterated that it is fully supported by the Landowners and asked the Committee to approve the plan today.

Members asked John Maxey the following questions;

·         Councillor Sutton agreed with John Maxey’s comments and asked if the provisional drawings will be submitted to the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter Group as, even though there is a cost, their comments could be invaluable. John Maxey agreed to pass this request on. 

·         Councillor Connor asked John Maxey if provisions were in place for additional Doctor and Dentist Surgeries within the plan. John Maxey confirmed that discussions had taken place with the NHS regarding this and confirmed that the NHS had no plans to seek to provide additional Doctor Surgeries in Wisbech. He explained that they had tried to engage with the NHS and made it clear to them that there was scope to provide space for these within the plan however as Doctor Practices are private businesses that need the support and funding of the NHS, we cannot dictate that these are provided. He said that as a resident of Wisbech he is aware of the difficulties in obtaining doctor appointments however the NHS have said they will consider reinforcing services in existing practices as oppose to opening new ones. He reiterated that the provisions and space are available within the plan, if there is demand from the NHS.

·         Councillor Laws thanked John Maxey for his comments regarding the NHS practices and said she hoped that the NHS would not suddenly ask for the provisions later on in the development process. She asked if John Maxey could provide assurance that he will continue to engage with the NHS throughout the process to avoid this happening. John Maxey said this would be difficult but when an outline application is submitted for the scheme, the NHS will be a formal consultee and this  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/4/18

To determine the application.

The Committee had regards 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 and update to Members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Roger Wilkin and Stuart Potts.

Roger Wilkin confirmed that he is joint owner of 140-142 Eldernell Lane which is the approximately 120 years old, the same age as the barns on the proposed development. He made members aware that the original application had received 13 letters of objection and the amended application, 11 letters. He highlighted that Whittlesey Town Council had also objected to the application and raised concern that the supporting documents submitted with the application infers that the proposed dwellings could be used as holiday lets. He explained that any conversion will affect the natural habitat and the area is ecologically sensitive. He highlighted the suggestion of adding a Wildlife Tower to accommodate the Barn Owls on site however indicated there was no evidence to suggest these owls would relocate to the tower once their nests are destroyed. He suggested that construction noise would be a disturbance to the Wildlife Tower, would offer no benefits and be a blot on the landscape. He questioned the Highways suggestion in the report point 5.1 of traffic being accommodated on Eldernell Lane and said the proposed extension linking the barns is contrary to the principle of development. He concluded that the barns are located in an area of special scientific interest and a conservation area.

Stuart Potts explained that Eldernell Lane is a single track lane with no provision for passing vehicles and is already congested with agricultural and industrial traffic. He said the application highlights parking for 6 vehicles however this could be substantially higher depending on the residents of the proposed dwellings. He explained that residents of the lane already suffer from very low water pressure which will only deteriorate further once new residents move in to the proposed site. He said the area was one of natural beauty and the large pond area near the proposed site will be negatively impacted by the development. He does not believe the Wildlife Tower will negate the damage caused by the development and raised concern that there is no waste management plan in place which is required due to the lane not benefitting from mains sewage. He concluded that the impact of the site on Eldernell Lane and its surroundings will be horrific and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Members had no questions for Roger Wilkin or Stuart Potts.

Members received a presentation in support of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Andrew Middleditch (The Agent).

Andrew Middleditch explained that he is acting for the trustees of the estate who also own approximately 1500 acres of farmland within the area. He said the Applicants are aware of the sensitivity of the surrounding  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/5/18

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.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws said the Highways and Infrastructure report covers all the issues relating to the access and said the site does not have an appropriate access point for development.

·         Councillor Connor agreed and said the access is far too narrow to use as an entrance.

·         Councillor Sutton said it was a shame as the site could support a nice development however the access is not acceptable. He suggested the applicant should try and approach neighbouring properties to find a solution to the access issue.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Connor and decided that the application be:

REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.

To determine the application.

The Chairman confirmed that this item had been withdrawn from Committee.

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.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Matthew Hall (the Applicant’s Agent)

Matthew Hall clarified that pre-application advice was sought on this application and showed members a slide showing the original site plan submitted at pre-application and the site plan submitted with the application being considered today. He highlighted that the plans are almost identical to one another. He explained that Highways were in favour of the application and pre-application advice was received from Fenland District Council in October 2017 stating that officers favoured the application subject to consideration of the points raised. Discussions continued between officers and the Applicant and following this, changes were made to the garden areas, the driveway and clarification given regarding windows on the existing dwelling. He added that concerns had been raised regarding the provision for refuse collection and following correspondence, officers suggested indemnity insurance would need to be provided in relation to site entry, which was agreed by the Applicants. He highlighted that the concerns officers had during the pre-application stage had been addressed and all statutory consultees (including Highways) support the application.

Members asked Matthew Hall the following questions;

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for the date in which pre-application advice was sought. Matthew Hall confirmed this was 19 October 2017 with the full application being submitted in January 2018.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Hay highlighted that Clare Street has issues with on-street parking and raised concern that the access is not suitable for entry to the development. She suggested access be considered from Haighs Close, Chatteris instead and suggested the Applicant explore this option.

·         Councillor Connor agreed and said he had serious concerns about the access and therefore does not support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws highlighted that the pre-application advice indicated there was no concern with the development however this conflicts with the officer’s recommendation today. David Rowen said the pre-application advice did mention the issue of the relationship between the access and existing properties and said this still needs to be addressed in order for the application to be supported by officers.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws said that the Agent had indicated that nothing had changed between the pre-application advice received and submitting the full application, that would suggest the application be refused. She highlighted that the Agent had made the appropriate changes as per the pre-application advice given.

     The Chairman allowed Matthew Hall to comment. Matthew Hall explained that during the pre-application stage, the issue regarding neighbourhood amenity related to concern over the orientation of Plot 3 which has been amended accordingly. The pre-application advice also stated that the impact from the road on the amenity to 13 Clare Street, Chatteris needed to be addressed and Matthew Hall  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/8/18

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 and update to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Shanna Jackson (the Applicant’s Agent).

Shanna Jackson said the scheme was for four-dwellings located on a built up frontage of High Road, Guyhirn and highlighted that there were existing dwellings to the north of the site and garages that serve these too. She said in relation to concerns about the character of the area, the site is located in a built-up residential area and development would bridge the gap between existing buildings creating continuous development along the road. She explained that Policy LP3 allows infill development in Guyhirn and this application represents this as it is positioned within the existing build form. She said members had previously agreed an application at Mole End, Guyhirn and had noted the sustainability of the village and excellent transport links. She added that there is a continuous footpath across the road from this site which would serve as access to the village centre, local school and public transport. Although the site lies within Flood Zone 3, it is clearly in the building limits of Guyhirn and no objections have been received from the Environment Agency. She concluded that this is a logical, infill plot between existing dwellings and will support the continuous sustainability of the village and asked members to grant planning permission.

Members had no questions for Shanna Jackson.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked if any comments had been received from North Level Internal Drainage Board. David Rowen confirmed they had and they had no objections to the principle of the scheme.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws said she was concerned regarding the flood risk to the site as it is located in Flood Zone 3.

·         Councillor Connor said due to the risk of flooding, he agrees with Councillor Mrs Laws and officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Sutton agreed and said if this site was located in Flood Zone 1, he would have a different view and encouraged officer’s to consider applications in locations such as this one, in order to fulfil the demand in the district’s villages.

Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Mrs Laws and decided that the application be: REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

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 and informed members that all three dwellings are now built on the site.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application and highlighted that gravel will assist with surface water drainage on the site.

·         The Chairman agreed and said gravel also provides additional security for residents as approaching vehicles can be heard.

·         Councillor Sutton disagreed with March Town Council’s reasoning for recommending refusal of the application and said their point had no relevance to planning consideration.

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

(Councillor Court abstained from voting on this item)

(Councillor Court stated that he is a Member of March Town Council but takes no part in any Planning decisions)

The Chairman explained that this Item had been added to the agenda as an urgent item by Nick Harding. The Chairman stated that he has known the owners of the land in question for many years and left the room for the duration of the item. He took no part in the discussion or voting. In his absence, Vice-Chairman Councillor Sam Clark chaired this item)

Nick Harding informed the Committee that following the recent approval of planning permission at Land South East of Mole End, Gull Road, Guyhirn (F/YR16/0194/F Minute P/73/17) it was necessary to bring this item back to the Committee for further approval of a condition attached to the planning permission. He made members aware that Cambridgeshire County Council had requested an archaeological trial-trench condition be added to the planning permission as nearby evidence had shown this was an area of archaeological interest. He proposed that members consider this and decide whether that condition can be added.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she believed the condition should be added as Cambridgeshire County Council have requested this based on evidence of nearby activity.

·         Councillor Sutton reminded members that when the planning permission was granted, it was agreed that himself and Councillor Sam Clark decided the conditions. He considered other applications granted nearby and felt it was unreasonable to add this condition to the planning permission as no other applications had been subject to this. He believed it was unfair to the developer to have this condition attached as the areas of interest were located a distance away from the site and trenching could be costly. He confirmed that no discussions had taken place between himself, the Applicant or Agent.

·         Councillor Connor asked officers an estimated cost of the proposed trial-trench work and said if the cost was high it may prevent the site being developed. Nick Harding confirmed that he has no knowledge of this area and therefore cannot estimate the cost.

·         Councillor Connor agreed that applying a condition to this site is unfair to the developer as other applications have not had to carry out this work.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws disagreed and said the fact that Cambridgeshire County Council had requested this suggests it should be applied to the planning permission and is necessary. As we do not know the costs involved we are unaware if this will affect the development or not.

·         Nick Harding highlighted that Cambridgeshire County Council’s comments were noted in the report members received when considering the original planning application and a draft set of conditions were proposed based on the consultee’s comments.

·         Councillor Sutton said from past experience the cost of trenching can be high and highlighted that money may need to be spent rectifying the site after the dig has taken place. Whilst he said the cost is not members concern, he believes the condition should not be added as it has not been applied to other local sites and is not  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/11/18