Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 23 August 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the 23 August 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney asked whether Ellingham Gardens is due to be surfaced as it should have been several years ago? He added that he is aware that some investigation took place a few years ago by officers concerning the same issue and he was advised at that time that it was highly unlikely that the County Council would consider the adoption of the road. Councillor Benney stated that the residents of Ellingham Gardens have contacted all of their local members over a period of time and, in his opinion, this is now the only opportunity that the residents of Ellingham Gardens will be able to get their road surface finished. He stated that when he visited the site there are still raised ironworks and he made the point that if there are no guarantees that the road will be completed, he will not be supporting the application. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he is happy with the development, but he wants to see the road surface in Ellingham Gardens finished. Nick Harding explained that condition 13 of the report states that an improvement scheme is required to be submitted to officers for approval and any scheme that is approved will have to be implemented prior to the first occupation of plots 1 and 2 of the development.

·       Councillor Mrs French made reference to the point Councillor Benney made with regards to the adoption of roads and she stated that the County Council will adopt roads, however, they do need to be up to an adoptable standard and any new roads which are adopted will now have a 20mph speed limit attached to them.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he has spoken to a senior officer at the County Council Highways team, and has been advised that, in his opinion, Ellingham Gardens will never be adopted unless works are undertaken to the drains and the binder course is removed. He stated that the road is a mess, and he does have sympathies with the residents as he is also aware of other roads within the District which are also unadopted and in poor condition. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he is disappointed the Agent or Applicant are not in attendance at the meeting today in order to allow members of the committee to be able to ask questions.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he also has concerns with regards to unadopted roads and whilst he appreciates the condition affixed to the application, he still has concerns whether it will be adhered to, and he would like to hear from the agent to ascertain what assurances they can provide prior to the application being determined.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he had managed to ascertain that the actual site of Ellingham Gardens was constructed by a company called Proctors who had also applied for some additional building works to be undertaken but were refused by the Council and, therefore, the builders  ...  view the full minutes text for item P48/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Anne Dew, Head of Planning at Persimmon Homes. Ms Dew stated that the Planning Officers report is very comprehensive, and made the point that the application already has outline and reserved matters consent for 248 dwellings and the developer is currently building those homes. She explained that there is a greater demand for smaller dwellings and a lesser demand for the larger type properties and, therefore, due to that fact the application before the committee proposes a replan of the site which provides a more varied mix and a greater proportion of smaller family houses.

Ms Dew added that the current application proposes 31 dwellings, 27 of these had previously received consent and, therefore, it is only the additional four dwellings that seek determination and there are no changes proposed for the affordable dwellings. She explained that the Section 106 associated with the original consent of 248 dwellings required £2,000 per dwelling which is due to be spent on education and libraries and she confirmed that the contribution has already been paid.

Ms Dew stated that the replanned application shows the increase of 4 dwellings and in line with the Council’s Local Plan viability assessment, there will be a further £8,000 infrastructure contribution required and will be secured by the Section 106. She explained that the layout and the design principles approved as part of this application have been followed as part of the replan and through the consultation process all technical consultees have confirmed their support for the proposal and she made reference to the officer’s report which states that there is no valid reason to refuse the application given that the site benefits from consent and is currently being built out for residential purposes and, therefore, the comments from the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority do not apply, although there was a policy the site was never going to be a minerals and waste site for that reason.

Ms Dew concluded by stating that the replan application will increase the dwellings on site by 4 and will provide for a better mix of dwellings which accords with the housing demand in Chatteris and is line with national and local policy and is acceptable in planning terms.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney asked for clarification that the additional Section 106 monies would be passed to the George Clare Surgery in Chatteris? Nick Harding confirmed this was correct. Councillor Benney stated that the is very pleased to hear the money will go to the surgery as it is needed, and the money will be spent quickly and will go towards assisting the residents of Chatteris.

·       Councillor Marks asked how quickly it will take to draw down those monies as it is obvious the money is needed? Nick Harding stated that the conversation with Persimmon Homes is still to take place with regards to the payment of the £8,000.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P49/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that this proposal was debated by Whittlesey Town Council, but he was not present at that meeting when it was discussed. He stated that he visited the site and, in his opinion, the officer’s recommendation is correct, however, Turves is a very small community and has little or no infrastructure in place with a small struggling Public House, no shop and no bus service. He added that when you approach the site from March there is a right-angled corner and there is limited space between the entrance to the proposed properties that could cause concern. Councillor Gerstner added that there could be additional development to the proposed three dwellings and the site is in Flood Zone 3 and he reiterated that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Marks stated that most Fenland villages on the outskirts of towns are a road in and a road out with houses built either side. He added that across the road from the proposed site there are modern houses and he added that he is sure that the same objections would have been given previously when those dwellings were developed. Councillor Marks made the point that Turves is a very small village and whilst it has no bus route, most people will have cars and whilst it is on a blind corner it is a Fenland village, and he knows that you have to take the bend at a slow speed.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Marks and added that the houses opposite are at the same distance from the junction as the proposal and they were approved. He added that he recalls how there have been more dwellings built in Turves over recent years and whilst it is in Flood Zone 3, so is the whole of Turves and if no development takes place, then there will be no services introduced into the village to benefit the community. Councillor Benney stated that the railway line runs behind it and provides a natural boundary and, in his opinion, it is not open countryside.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that he does not know what else the plot of land could be used for as it is too small to farm. He added that he can see how the proposal would benefit that particular area and added that the committee had also approved another dwelling which is similar as it is also at the end.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the recommendation of Whittlesey Town Council with regards to the application and also the officers’ reasons for their recommendation of refusal. He expressed the view that it is an open field and whilst it may not be farmed at present it is classed as open land. He added that whilst a precedent has been set, development should be avoided on agricultural land if at all possible and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation for  ...  view the full minutes text for item P50/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 the officer’s report appears to sum up the proposal very well and it appears to be a fair report. He added that there are no objections from the County Council, Highways or Environmental Health and the site is in Flood Zone 1 in the middle of March.

Mr Hall stated that at 10.5 of the officer’s report it states that the overall width of the proposal is of a similar proportion to other properties in the road which maintains the uniformity that currently exists, and it is considered to be of a good quality design and utilises appropriate material ensuring it is sympathetic to the host dwelling. Mr Hall added that the officer’s report also states that there is no impact on the host property or recently constructed property, which was approved by the Planning Committee, to the rear by way of loss of light or privacy, with the report also stating that there is sufficient private amenity space for both dwellings and the Highways Authority have no objections. He added that at the end of the officer’s report it states that the officer recommendation for the proposal is one of refusal.

Mr Hall stated that what has not come out in the report is that the Planning Officer has been pro-active and worked with them on this application and after the application had been in a few weeks he e-mailed the planning officer and on 22 June he responded by e-mail to say that he had reviewed the application and he supports the scheme, there were 10 objections so the application would have to go to Planning Committee for a decision, with the earliest committee date being August and he would send the conditions for agreement and an extension of time closer to date, which they agreed to.  He advised that he did e-mail back the Planning Officer on 23 June and received in writing that the officer would be recommending approval, which he conveyed to the applicant, who is a local carpenter/builder, and he was very happy to receive this information and nothing further was heard for 6-7 weeks. He stated that he had these e-mails if committee wished to view them.

Mr Hall stated that on 12 September they received the committee notification with the recommendation of refusal and they had received no correspondence or warning that the recommendation had changed, with the applicant rightly contacting him asking what was going on and he did not know as there had been no warning at all, with the officer’s report being very fair and quite complementary. He questioned why it had changed as he does not know and reiterated that it has the support from March Town Council, Highways, Environmental Health and is located in Flood Zone 1 in the middle of March.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item P51/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Shanna Jackson, the Agent. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is for up to 6 dwellings and is submitted in outline with all matters reserved. She stated that members may recall a previous application which was for up to 9 dwellings and at that time members had raised concerns with regards to flooding and ecology and as a result of that concern, the Middle Level Commissioners have been contacted and have confirmed that they are not aware of any flooding on the site, and this has been the case for over 20 years.

Mrs Jackson explained that an ecology report was also commissioned, given the drains at the front of the site and the Ecology Officer has raised no objection to the proposal, with ecological mitigation measures suggesting a condition which has ben accepted by the applicant. She stated that she understands that there were previous concerns with regards to highways safety and, therefore, the site access has been revised to a single point which the Highway Authority is happy with, and this is also an approach which was supported by officers.

Mrs Jackson explained that the current proposal is for 6 new dwellings in March and Policy LP3 states that March is a primary market town and should, therefore, be a focus for new development. She added that the proposal will provide additional housing which is supported by Policy LP3.

Mrs Jackson stated that the very nature of growth, it is inevitable that development will extend the town into the open land beyond the exiting footprint. She made the point that on the land there can be 6 large detached high quality designed dwellings which set the scene on the approach into March and the first reason for refusal can be overcome.

Mrs Jackson referred to the second reason for refusal and stated that the proposed single access was included as a result of the feedback provided from the previous application submission, however, access is not committed, and should members require multiple single points of access this can be worked through with officers and highways at the reserved matters stage until an agreeable outcome is reached. She stated that the officer’s report states that there are no technical objections to the application and the objection from the Town Council is overcome by the comments receive by the Middle Level Commissioners and the County Council Highways.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application is in outline form and is for up to 6 units and the number of dwellings along with the layout and scale can be discussed at a later stage if there are any concerns of over development. She stated that the proposal represents a technical acceptable form of development which will provide housing and, therefore, supports growth in a primary market town, and she asked the committee to consider approval of the proposal.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item P52/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the Agent. Mr Walford stated that the site has extant planning permission for up to 6 dwellings which was approved by the Planning Committee and the subsequent reserved matters application was originally for 6, 2 storey dwellings which was refused, with the application being converted to a full application because the pond to the rear of the site was outside of the red line and, therefore, that could not be controlled by a condition so it was converted to a full application in order that the red line could encompass the pond. He explained that the general view from members of the committee previously was that bungalows would be preferable on the site and would eliminate overlooking issues and be in more keeping with the local area and the character.

Mr Walford stated that the current application takes into consideration the comments of the committee and now proposes bungalows and is now reduced to 4 dwellings which is more in keeping with the bungalows at the front of the site. He stated that the application is a full application with the pond being situated outside of the outlined red line and that was due to the fact that it was depicted in the original outline ecology report, and it was approved in that report but due to a planning technicality it cannot be secured.

Mr Walford stated that with regards to the drainage and flooding concerns which were raised previously, the application has been accompanied by a specialist drainage report which proposes a wildlife pond and all surface water from the development will discharge into the pond. He added that the pond is designed to allow adequate flow and holding for the 100 year plus 40% runoff and water held into the pond will slowly discharge to the existing boundary drain on the left and it’s restricted flow to greenfield run off which essentially means it cannot leave the pond at any quicker rate than it would’ve done had the pond not been there. 

Mr Walford stated that he has been advised by the drainage designer that because of the drain there is not the requirement to obtain consent according to the drain and, in his opinion, there is no doubt that there will not be any issue with the drainage or flooding. He referred to the Town Council objection to the proposal and stated that they had originally supported the outline application for 6 dwellings and also the reserved matters application for six 2 storey dwellings, however, they are refusing the proposal for 4 bungalows, with efforts being made to contact the Town Clerk to ascertain whether they had made an error, however, he is still waiting for a further response.

Members asked Mr Walford the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the reason the committee at March Town Council recommended the proposal for refusal is due  ...  view the full minutes text for item P53/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Victor Aveling, a supporter of the application. Mr Aveling stated that he owns the two plots as well as 90 acres of land adjacent to the proposal site and has lived in Badgeney End since 1966 and his family have owned land there since well before the Second World War. He explained that Badgeney End was originally part of Silt Road until all of the residents were concerned that an unmanned railway crossing was being used by people visiting them and a request was submitted for that section of road to be renamed Badgeney End.

Mr Aveling stated that Railtrack regard the unmanned gates as an occupational crossing and there has been no objection from the County Council and, therefore, there is a proposal to close them for public use and Badgeney End will become a cul de sac at the end of Badgeney Road. He explained that there are currently 6 dwellings with three of the dwellings being occupied by elderly residents and the addition of younger residents would be a welcome addition to the small community.

Mr Aveling stated that it appears that several people are worried that the proposal is the first step to the creation of a housing estate, and stated that nobody wants the area to become a housing estate. He explained that when he moved to area in 1966 it was all arable land with only 2 or 3 trees and since then he has tried to improve the natural environment by planting 700 trees and allowing the area around the pond and alongside the river to grow naturally, which is appreciated by many people who use the footpath along the River Nene and explained that this is mowed every week and he has never had to litter pick at all as the walkers take it upon themselves to do this.

Mr Aveling expressed the view that there appears to be a shortage of plots in March where people can build their own homes to their own design, and added that he was advised by the two gentlemen that they have been searching for some time for somewhere to build their own houses. He stated that he has read the comments with regards to the risk of flooding and to the best of his knowledge there has been no flooding at the site, and it was safe at the time of the Great Flood in 1947 and was not capable of being flooded after the steam driven Engine was installed in the mid-19^th Century.

Mr Aveling expressed the view that he is also puzzled when hearing about flash flood risks and the Environment Agency class the whole of the Fens as a flood plain and measure the flood risk as though there are no drainage works. He expressed the opinion that the only danger to the drainage system is if developments cause so  ...  view the full minutes text for item P54/23