Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of 31 May and 28 June 2023.

The minutes of the meetings of 31 May and 28 June 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Martin Robeson and Karen Crowder-James, objectors. Mr Robeson advised members that he was representing Tesco and whilst Aldi may assert that he is there to reasonably prevent competition this is not correct as he feels their scheme has severe risks to pedestrian safety and will create unacceptable traffic congestion, both having important public interest consequences. He expressed the view that a big problem is the real likelihood that the County Council MATS scheme will not come forward so in the interim there is a do nothing response, just build the store and hope that the traffic congestion and chaos is not too bad and leave the ¼ million pounds for a lesser alternative in the bank.

Mr Robeson expressed the view that this should be especially worrying to members as there is already congestion tailing back from the A141 onto Hostmoor Avenue all the way to the Tesco roundabout and Aldi’s exit solution for customer traffic magnifies the problem as they do not have enough land or initiative to design a scheme where traffic can turn right out of Aldi for the many people wanting to go west as Hostmoor Avenue is not wide enough. He stated that as shoppers will not be able to turn right out of Aldi they will have to go left and all the way around the Tesco roundabout and then go back past Aldi westwards.

Mr Robeson expressed the opinion that this is a serious problem with 35% of Aldi shoppers, their figures, will be linking their trip with Tesco and Tesco is on the opposite side of the roundabout, with many shoppers walking across the road but crossing roads at roundabouts is unsatisfactory and unsafe and introducing signal-controlled facilities is not possible as traffic would just tail back all around the roundabout. He feels that pedestrians will take their luck in identifying gaps in the traffic and with every Aldi customer car having to turn left, with the driver looking right to identify a gap in that traffic, pedestrians crossing the road immediately to the left are “sitting ducks” so, in his view, the only sensible option is to refuse the application, it is premature until it is known that the MATS solution is available and even with MATS the pedestrian crossing facilities for shoppers would fail the NPPF requirement that there must not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Ms Crowder-James stated that she represents Cambridge Property Group and her client has severe concerns about the acceptability of the application, specifically in terms of its compliance with national and local retail and transport policies together with safety and traffic capacity issues relating to the proposal. She expressed the view that the level of combined convenience retail impact is predicted to be 19.5%, which is recognised by the Council’s retail consultants  ...  view the full minutes text for item P27/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Derek Widdowson, an objector. Mr Widdowson stated that he represents all those neighbours affected which have objected unlike positive comments made by persons who are not affected by the development. He expressed the view that the application is identical to that submitted in 2016 and again in 2017, these applications being refused and dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State.

Mr Widdowson expressed the opinion that the proposed build of 4 houses is on back land and a land locked site behind existing buildings and has no street frontage, with the access being very limited and not in the best interests of Guyhirn. He made the point that Gull Road at times can be busy with heavy haulage and farm traffic and this would not be assisted by new residents and service vehicles having to turn into the narrow access road making a left turn from Gull Road causing some vehicles to use the off side of Gull Road against oncoming traffic, with the 40mph speed limit not being adhered to.

Mr Widdowson expressed the view that the access road itself is only single access in width, unlit and narrow to a gate width from the corner of his property and his neighbours, there would be no room for a passing place to be made and vehicles would have to back up. He stated that his two main bedrooms adjoin this access road which he feels would be affected by noise and light pollution from persons entering or leaving and currently they have a view of an expansive field that is shielded by a row of conifers on the western boundary, with such large and imposing houses being intrusive and blocking out his natural light.

Mr Widdowson stated that the land in question sits higher than his ground floor and with current regulations would force the builder to raise the ground floor height against the possibility of flooding this would cause his bungalow to be overlooked by all four houses, with his hedge being 7 foot high but this development would dwarf this and be intrusive to his privacy within his house and garden. He feels the possibility of up to 14 additional vehicles from dusk to dawn will mean their headlights would shine directly into his living room and rear bedroom and a further problem may be the water table as the land in question is higher and may affect their drainage and biodigester.

Mr Widdowson stated that at present the water pressure is very poor, which causes most of the residents in Gull Road to complain and, in his view, additional houses in this part of Gull Road would be a further drain on the water pressure. He stated that he has no problem with the expansion of housing, currently supporting other applications that are going to front onto Gull Road and as he understands it previous applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item P28/23

To determine the applications.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Helen Morris, on behalf of the applicant. Ms Morris informed members that she is a Chartered Town Planner with RCA Regeneration and thanked the Case Officer for her well-considered and detailed recommendation as well as her assistance in getting the applications to this stage. She stated that 6 North Brink is a Grade II* Listed Building situated within the Wisbech Conservation Area, it is one of a row of Georgian recency period properties which stand on the north side of the river and considered to be one of the finest pieces of Georgian street architecture in the country, with the building comprising a former 4-storey town house with Georgian origins that has later additions to its upper stories and a modern rear extension .

Ms Morris stated that the existing uses within the property comprise a chiropractic surgery and beauty treatment rooms with 2 existing flats on the upper floor and the proposal before committee is to convert the building into 7 flats and replace the existing single-storey rear extension in order to regularise the previous unauthorised works and ensure the viable continued use of this historic building for many years to come. She advised that other than the replacement single-storey rear extension the only external change proposed to the building is the reinstatement of the former sash window at the eastern end of the basement and during the application process revisions have been made to address consultee comments and ensure the proposal meets the requirements of all local and national planning policies. She added that prior to revisions being made a programme of historic building recording and analysis was undertaken to Historic England Level 2 specification to gain a full understanding of the historic fabric and layout of the existing building, with the resultant report being used to form a redesign of the scheme and support the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment both of which were submitted in support of the applications.

Ms Morris advised that one of the key changes that has been included as part of the revised proposals is to remove the modern staircase previously installed into the south-east corner of the building, which has enabled reinstatement of the ground and first-floor rooms and will greatly enhance the significance of the Listed Building. She stated that other key amendments made to the scheme include retention of the original basement door and sash windows to its west, boxing in of the staircases to the basement to ensure their preservation, reinstatement of the central staircase so it flows its full length from ground to third floor, retention of the wood panelled room at the south-west of the ground floor and the addition of a wall and doorway to the lobby area on the first floor.

Ms Morris stated that in terms of the number of units proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P29/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is made on behalf of Jason Jolley, there was a previous application for 3 dwellings but this has been changed following comments of the Parish Council down to 2 detached barn style dwellings together with a new access. He made the point that the application is now supported by the Parish Council and this was taken on board after their comments on the previous refusal, with Highways and Environmental Health having no objections, 7 letters of support from Doddington residents, 1 from a Chatteris family who farm opposite and the site is also in Flood Zone 1.

Mr Humphrey expressed the opinion that the application sits between 4 existing dwellings so it is not in isolation and quoted the comments in the officer’s report at 2.2, with to the rear of the site and further out of the village there have been approvals for 20 caravan pitches, 4 glamping pods, toilet block, a further application for 18 caravan pitches plus 30 caravan pitches, toilet block, 2 log cabins, car park, treatment plant, 8 log cabins plus a 4-bed house, which hardly demonstrates, in his view, open countryside, with all of them being further away from the village. He stated that the Planning Officer also acknowledges in 9.2 that there is a better build to plot ratio as larger garden spaces are provided and 10.12 states the proposal would harm the open character of the area and conflict with policies, which he finds interesting when there are all the other applications that have been supported and approved by committee. He requested on balance that this application sits nicely between the existing 4 dwellings and in front of the developments mentioned and requested members’ support.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the caravans and log cabins that Mr Humphrey mentioned and asked if this was in the open countryside as well? Mr Humphrey confirmed this to be the case.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is further out of Doddington than another application that was refused but that was also refused by a different committee to the one present today. He made the point that this application is supported by Doddington Parish Council, who does voice its concerns when they do not want something to go ahead so as much as it is building in the open countryside Doddington Parish Council seems to want this development, they are a serious consultee within the planning process and members should listen to what they say and they must see some merit in this application speculating that as it has buildings either side they might class it as infill and, in his view, this road will one day be filled in with houses.

·       Councillor Gerstner agreed that Doddington Parish Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item P30/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update that had been circulated. She made members aware that a further objection has been received from a local resident, with reasons for objection being over-development, out of keeping with the area along with concerns over traffic and highway safety particularly in respect of intensification of the use of the single access onto Leverington Road and whilst the resident considers that the proposed frontage development appears appropriate in the street scene, the possibility of including a further number of properties to the rear would be excessive. A query was also raised in respect of landscaping and the possible replacement of a TPO tree that was recently removed.  

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Woodhead, an objector. Mr Woodhead stated that he lives at 153B Leverington Road, next door to the proposed development and, in his view, this is over-development of the site, with up to 8 houses with one or more vehicles per household would be akin to living next door to a car park in comparison to the quiet environment that he currently enjoys. He feels almost constant vehicle movements, potentially daily deliveries to the properties and more noise pollution from regular slamming of vehicle doors is above levels of acceptable noise for the quiet enjoyment of his home.

Mr Woodhead expressed the view that the amount of noise, dirt and dust throughout the demolition and construction process of up to 8 houses is detrimental to his general health and well-being, with the long working hours of the overall process resulting in almost permanent noise and disruption to his daily life for the duration of the works. He expressed the opinion that the loss of privacy due to the removal of the existing boundary tree line and foliage between the two properties provides him with a great degree of privacy and also a sound barrier and if the existing tree line and foliage is removed questioned what will it be replaced with if anything.

Mr Woodhead stated that the two-storey properties at the front of the development closest to Leverington Road would also be able to have a direct line of sight to his property should the tree line be removed and not replaced. He feels that site traffic would increase congestion on an already extremely busy Leverington Road, which in turn he believes would create a potential road safety issue for both motorists and pedestrians.

Mr Woodhead expressed the view that the proposed development places an increased demand however small on already overstretched local infrastructure and services. He stated that he would not object to the proposed 4 semi-detached properties at the top end of the development closest to Leverington Road itself but reiterated that a garden grab, which he views this as, of up to 8 properties would potentially be anti-social and totally unacceptable to him.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P31/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a written presentation, read out by Member Services, from Christina Ross, an objector. Ms Ross stated that Broad Drove East is a narrow country road with no pavements, street lighting or main drains, with the properties being mainly farm, equestrian and small holdings. She feels the size, type and layout of this development is completely out of character with the area, with the highway being very narrow and cars can only pass with care and lorries not at all.

Ms Ross expressed the opinion that the client it not buying the access road, which appears to belong to the landowner so the development shown will not own the access to the highway and questioned whether this road will be of suitable standard for safe access by the public and large lorries and what would happen if consent is withdrawn. She expressed the view that the plans are short on details and measurements, with there being none shown for the car park or turning area and there are not enough parking places shown for 3 shops, their staff and the flat above, with no areas shown for mobility scooters, shopping trolleys, etc and there are no areas shown for the safe storage of food, oils and other flammables.

Ms Ross stated that there are dykes to two sides of the site and these must be considered a real health hazard to nearby properties from vermin attracted by the smells from the takeaway and inevitable litter that arises. She expressed the view that the site will have to be lit from dusk to dawn to accommodate the ATM and this, along with car starting up, doors slamming and lorries reversing, will create a great deal of noise and pollution from early morning until late at night disturbing people and wildlife in a quiet and peaceful area.

Ms Ross expressed the opinion that the site will be sure to attract anti-social behaviour, with the community centre having to spend thousands of pounds to gate, fence and install CCTV to prevent anti-social behaviour that blighted and spread through the village and this is a real concern for all residents, with the takeaway attracting late night traffic. She feels there is very little landscaping and the trees planted to screen Sapphire Close will be hidden and fenced off, with it being unclear who will be responsible for maintaining the dyke.

Ms Ross expressed the view that the whole development has been poorly thought out, is in the wrong place and it is doubtful that such a small village could support one shop never mind three. She made the point that she is not against development but feels strongly that this is in the wrong place.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Simon Lemmon, the agent. Mr Lemmon referred to the reasons for refusal and whilst the opinion of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P32/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there are no technical objections to this application and they consider that this site is compliant with Policy LP3 where development within the urban area or a small extension would be acceptable in Coates. He referred to 11.1 of the officer’s report which confirms that the principle of development at this site is acceptable but parts of the site the officer considers to extend into the open countryside and looking at the location plan on the presentation screen the backline of development has been followed up to Feldale Lane, with Feldale Lane being a stop point, and, in his view, this rounds off the development as there could be no further development to the north-east.

Mr Hall stated that the site plan he has submitted is indicative but, in his opinion, nearly half of the site is covered by soft landscaping, the dwelling shown are indicative but they are 4-bedroomed properties with garages that comply with the Local Plan and the site is 0.63 hectares for 9 dwellings, which he does not consider to be over-development. He made the point that the whole site is located in Flood Zone 1 and they have not only submitted a drainage strategy but also carried out on-site percolation testing that was agreed with the Lead Local Flood Authority and carried out further trial holes on site that confirms that sand and gravels are present to over 2 metres which is also confirmed on the geological survey sheet, all being agreed and approved by the Lead Local Flood Authority. He stated that the applicants are aware that if approval is given on this outline application that there will be a condition in relation to detailed drainage design, with the applicants confirming this site has been in the Dale family ownership for over 60 years and no flooding has occurred, with one of the applicants being on the Drainage Board.

Mr Hall referred to a photo shown on the presentation screen which is taken from the back garden of Plot 1 and the rear of Plot 1 would merely overlook Blackthorn Court road and the second photo was taken when standing in the north-east part of the site where there are number of rear gardens and the other large executive houses on Feldale Lane are 40 metres away. He referred to the mention of the access, 8 of the properties would access The Fold which has been approved by Highways and the reason why one of the properties is accessed off Feldale Lane is because one of the applicants is a farmer, his land and shed is all to the north-west of the site abutting this site so this would allow easy access to shed and land.

Mr Hall reiterated that the site is in Flood Zone 1, is not over-development, there are no objections from the Lead  ...  view the full minutes text for item P33/23

To determine the application.

This item had been withdrawn.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens hoped members would have seen the PDF presentation that he had e-mailed to them and was being shown on the presentation screen. He stated that the application was submitted in January having spent over 4 months evaluating the site and working with consultants to overcome the numerous constraints with the trees, existing house and the access.

Mr Bevens advised that they have tried throughout the process to actively engage with officers, the first of which left a few months ago without any feedback. He stated that the PowerPoint presentation focuses on the access, which is one of the grounds for refusal, he has tried to engage with the Highway Engineer and Planning Officer on this, with their currently being 9 dwellings served by this driveway from Creek Road, which is not deemed a classified road, and the proposal would see a further 2 dwellings served given that Nene House would be demolished, which is an 18% increase in dwellings and not 33% as suggested on Page 10 of the officer’s report.

Mr Bevens made the point that there is an existing passing place down the driveway and they are proposing a turning head at the end of driveway to not only improve the situation for the proposed 3 dwellings but to make it easier for all existing dwellings with refuse collection, deliveries, emergency vehicles and visitors. He referred to planning approval granted by the Council in November 1999 which granted permission for a new dwelling to the south of 161 Creek Road and condition 7 stated that the access road must be maintained at 4.5 metres wide, this is not the case and subsequent approvals down this driveway have not made any mention of access width.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that there are numerous examples of developments in March where there are more than 5 dwellings served from a reduced access width and this scheme would see a very limited intensification of the access whilst offering mitigation with the turning head. He expressed the opinion that he has worked hard with the tree consultant to ensure all dwellings respect the root protection areas of the protected trees and have good levels of private amenity and he has tried on numerous occasions to engage with the officer but to no avail and he has only seen the issues raised when the officer’s report was published.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that Plot 1 does have suitable private amenity space and its garden is larger than the two adjacent dwellings recently built, having a rear garden area of 312 square metres, Plot 2 does have a good level of outlook with the nearest bedroom, bedroom 3, being a minimum of 4 metres away from the current tree canopy and the other two bedrooms facing the rear having an average 8 metres and as part of tree  ...  view the full minutes text for item P35/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillors Hoy and Tierney, District Councillors. Councillor Hoy asked members to refuse this application as it is, in her view, contrary to LP16 which states that extensions will only be allowed where it does not adversely impact neighbouring residents and she believes this proposal does. She referred to 10.16 of the officer’s report where is states the rear elevation of 24 and front elevation of Langley Lodge overlap and queried how this cannot be an impact.

Councillor Hoy stated that the plan now includes external steps which are close to the boundary and she feels this will create additional noise by people going up and down them and it is not known what time as it is a care home it could be late into the night so how could this not be an impact, with the steps being an addition to the previous proposal. She referred to 10.26 of the officer’s report where it is admitted that the extension will overshadow No.24’s garden and queried how is this not an impact and she believes this clearly shows there is an impact and the proposal should be refused under LP16.

Councillor Hoy added that 22 parking spaces are required as per the Local Plan but as the development only provides 11 due to being near the Town Centre this reduction is acceptable, however, in Appendix A of the Local Plan says a reduction can be agreed by negotiation, who had this negotiation presuming it to be Planning Officers and the developer but she does not believe as a local member that this negotiation is acceptable. She acknowledges that Somers Road Car Park is nearby but this is already full.

Councillor Tierney expressed the view that there are significant differences to this proposal to the one in 2018, he did oppose the previous application and was disgusted when committee approved it as attention is always given to proposals where lots of people are involved or protest and one persons right to enjoy their property is just as important as a lot of people’s right to enjoy their property. He advised when he came last time, he came with the lady and her husband, since then with the shadow of this hanging over them he has passed away and she has become unwell and is not able to be here today and it is her home and she loves it, phoning him frightened about this effect on her property.

Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that it clearly overshadows her property and officers admit that in the report but are saying it does not matter as it only overshadowing a bit of the garden, but she has the right to enjoy all her garden and he feels that none of this is fair and it is not right because this could have been built  ...  view the full minutes text for item P36/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Stewart Newman, an objector. Mr Newman advised that he lives at 25 Linden Drive adjacent to this proposal and he spent his working life in the architectural and design profession, with one-third of that time spent on housing so he has a vast experience and knowledge in this field. He expressed the view that he spent a long time sitting down with the original developer of 27 agreeing the bungalow’s position and the open green spaces to the front and side, which gave him and his wife what they had before and having agreed these conditions he backed the development because the majority of the people living in Linden Drive wanted the bungalow rather than a road going through to serve the land at 16 London Road.

Mr Newman expressed the view that he is more than surprised that the planner has ignored all of his and other residents comments as for him and his wife it will be devastating and devalue his property, it is on record that the same planning department have refused other developments as they did not have enough green space and now the same department is deleting green areas from a development which already exists. He stated from his experience the planners have not worked to the Government’s guidelines for planning relating to neighbours, Fenland Planning and Chatteris Planning Committee have a responsibility for due care to neighbours adjoining any new developments and in this case he feels they have failed.

Mr Newman stated it is clear to him and others that the planners have totally disregarded the impact it will have in Linden Drive and the neighbours surrounding No.27. He stated that when he moved to Linden Drive he had an open green area in front of him which was originally classified as a common space, if the proposal is allowed for car parking it will destroy his enjoyment and retirement of his bungalow and its location.

Mr Newman assumes that members have all looked in detail at the information sent to the planners so they will see how cars will come and park right up to his front door and bay window thus losing his privacy and it could be that when he opens his front door the back of a large 4x4 is just in front of him and he does not think anyone would want that. He stated that a big question that most people in Linden Drive are asking is why does this property want more parking as it has more parking than most people in Chatteris, do they want it for business reasons or do they just not want cars standing in the front of their bungalow and want to bring them round the side in front of his property.

Mr Newman expressed the opinion that he has great concerns about Chatteris Town Planning Committee, he cannot find any minutes  ...  view the full minutes text for item P37/23