Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Previous meeting of 18 July 2018

The minutes of the meeting of the 18 July 2018 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 and update report to Members.

Members received a presentation as an objector to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Sam Hoy.

Councillor Hoy explained that she is speaking as an objector as there is some background to the application which she outlined. She stated that in principle she has no objection to the development, it is in the local plan. Councillor Hoy commented that when she read the report, her main concern was and remains, how the development ties in with the Wisbech Access project and she felt the information provided was not necessarily correct as it stated that there was no date set for Wisbech Access works, when in fact the date of March 2021 had been put forward as the date of completion by Fenland District Council’s Cabinet, the Combined Authority and the County Council. Councillor Hoy commented that if Members were minded to grant permission the Developer could decide to start the access works themselves immediately and then in some 18 months’ time, the Wisbech Access Study will commence and undo the works the Developer has already undertaken. This will be a waste of money and disruptive for the local residents.

Councillor Hoy commented that she has had various conversations with the Head of Planning and the Agent and thanked them for the help they have given. The update provided today does alleviate some of her concerns; and she does appreciate that applications need to be dealt with as they are submitted. The clause with regard to the monies is really important and she is pleased to see it included. One of the issues still to receive clarification is with regard to the financial contribution for the Ramnoth Road roundabout junction as originally it was a medium strategy for the Access Study and when it went before the Combined Authority and Cabinet it got brought forward and Councillor Hoy asked whether this is because they are relying on a contribution from the Developer or because monies have been found elsewhere. Councillor Hoy commented that the clause outlines this issue and if the finances are needed for the Wisbech Access Study, the Developer’s money could then be used and if they were not reliant on it the money could go towards other aspects such as affordable housing or items for the local community.

Members asked Councillor Hoy the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked Councillor Hoy to confirm which aspect she required clarification on. Councillor Hoy stated it is clarification on who is financing the Wisbech Access Strategy. The study has three stages and in the middle stage the roundabout had been mentioned. When the Combined Authority became involved, the roundabout was moved forward. Councillor Hoy stated that the Agent has pointed out that it is not dependent on the funding.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P16/18

To Determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site 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,from Gareth Edwards (the Agent).

Mr Edwards explained that the application before Members today is for a maximum of 60 dwellings in Coates Road, Coates. There have been ongoing discussions with the Planning Officers which have been very helpful and constructive and an agreement as to where the line of development should stop. During these discussions it was also agreed that the development should be consistent with the developed lines already approved to the west with Lakeside Gardens and Halcyon Drive which are towards Eastrea and further away from the village centre, with the proposed development filling the gap between these developments and the village centre. The Applicants for the application live in the village or have an association with it. The statutory consultees have been worked with which has received a great deal of support. With regard to school numbers, contained in the report under paragraph 10.45, the County Council has provided details which have confirmed the evidence that the agents were aware of. The site falls within flood zone 1 which allows for a mixed development and will attract both young and old residents. Mr Edwards summarized that as the site is in flood zone1 which as the NPPF directs residential development in preference, the site can be served by safe and effective access and is accessible to natural green and play space and public byway, promoting health and leisure opportunities. The site is remote enough from heritage assets above ground and is suitable proximity of local services which can accessed on foot or by public transport and is of sufficient scale to incorporate affordable housing.

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

·         Councillor Murphy commented that the proposal if approved will mean it will go over the threshold for the village and asked whether this will set a precedent going forward with planning applications. David Rowen explained that thresholds are a complicated matter and the issue of thresholds in the Local Plan was never to put an absolute cap on development and the intention was to give a small element of control to local residents over what development could take place in their villages. As time has moved on, in particular with the appeal decision in Manea which identified that unless there is substantial planning harm which can be identified, the threshold issue itself is not one on which planning permission can be refused. Each application needs to be considered on its own merits and will be considered in that way going forwards.

·         Councillor Murphy commented that with regard to the open space and play area he would like it noted that Fenland District Council will not be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of these  ...  view the full minutes text for item P17/18

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.

Alison Callaby presented the report and update to Members.

Members received a presentation in objection of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Parish Councillor Alexandra Patrick.

Councillor Patrick explained that she is speaking on behalf of Wisbech St Mary Parish Council, who object to the application on the grounds that the design is inappropriate for the village. Whilst they are not opposed to development, they do not feel blocks of flats are suitable for a village. The village currently has a mix of bungalows and houses and the design proposal will encompass some overlooking. Members of the Parish have questioned the absence of a Section 106 Agreement and are concerned that for such a large scale development there would need to be some type of management in terms of the open space area as it would place an added strain onto the Parish Council if they had to be responsible for it.

Members received a presentation in objection of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Councillor Gavin Booth.

Councillor Booth gave apologies on behalf of Councillor Sarah Bligh who had also wished to speak on this application.

Councillor Booth stated his strong objection to the application and stated that with regard to point 10.1 in the Officers report it states the proposal is for 26 units where it is actually 76 units and this is a large development on the perimeter of Wisbech St Mary. The 76 properties exceed the development threshold on its own for Wisbech St Mary. Developments of this size in villages cannot be seen to be modest particularly when the local plan states should happen for the growth of villages. Councillor Booth commented that in 10.2 of the Officers report where it refers to sustainability, the previous application was on balance agreed on the basis of Section 106 contributions, however, this application cannot provide that and it is actually increasing the intensity of buildings on this site in the open countryside and if the previous application was on balance how can this application in front of committee today without a Section 106 be put forward. Councillor Booth stated that under 10.5 of the Officers report it refers to a Community Consultation exercise and on an application of this size it would be expected that a consultation would have taken place and this has not happened and Councillor Booth would like to know why. Councillor Booth stated that he believes the Developer has taken the decision that they would not get community support for this application due to the size and the objections raised at the previous application. Councillor Booth commented that with regard to the petition that was mentioned, many of the villagers that he has spoken to in the village have signed it believing it covers the subject of flooding  ...  view the full minutes text for item P18/18

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 Sutton asked for clarification as to whether there is a policy which states that there needs to be a garage built with all houses as he does not recall one.

·         The Chairman agreed with Councillor Sutton, in that it states car parking.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented with regard to the turning circle and also agreed with Councillor Sutton as she cannot recall seeing a policy which states you have to have a garage built with a house, providing you have a car parking space that is in accordance with adopted standards.

·         David Rowen clarified that the turning circle has not altered.

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

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 to Members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Christopher Harrison.

Mr Harrison advised the Committee that he is speaking on behalf of a number of Manea residents who strongly support the view that the TPO by the Planning Office should be upheld. Mr Harrison advised the Committee that Manea pit was awarded a country wildlife status in 2003 and it was stressed that Manea Pit should be treated as a nature reserve and be protected. In 2015, the status was withdrawn as the result of a lot of unauthorised work being carried out. Manea Pit and the surrounding woodland had been managed by the Pit Committee and the committee included people with knowledge of conservation and habitat management, however that committee was abolished in 2017 by the Chairman of the Parish Council. The Management Plan that the Tree Officer referred to was drawn up by the Pit Committee and those committee members are no longer involved with the Parish Council. Mr Harrison stated that the Manea Parish Council submitted plan has nobody to maintain it any longer, which is, in his opinion, makes the tree preservation, vital. The habitat of Manea Pit is vast with birds, deer, foxes, rabbits, hedgehogs, hares and badgers and it is a community asset for families, school children, dog walkers, fishermen, photographers and artists and it needs to be protected. Mr Harrison stated that the only way to protect the pit and its surrounding area and  to uphold the tree preservation order. One of the conditions was not to use mechanical equipment to implant the otter fence which was totally ignored and heavy machinery was used to put the fence posts in. Mr Harrison drew the Committees attention to the Parish Councils objection which states’ there is no need or justification for this TPO and such an approach is not an expedient course of action by the local planning authority’.

Mr Harrison asked the Committee to enforce the TPO as it is needed.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that within the Officers report it states that the Parish Council have stated that they have no intention, of undertaking or causing, cutting down, topping, lopping, pruning or damaging the trees around the pit area and, therefore, why do they object to a TPO.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell commented that she has received quite a few phone calls regarding this issue and although Councillor Newell has not given her opinion she has listened to what they have said. The information she has been given is that most of the local residents of Manea are against having the TPO removed, and after listening to Mr Harrison the information must be correct. The fence that has been installed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P20/18

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.

Alison Callaby presented the report and update report to Members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, by Phillip Parker.

Mr Parker stated that he has been the Manager of Kings Dyke Nature reserve for 25 years. The nature reserve is located to the north and the west of the proposed Westhaven Nursery development site and is a very important site for wildlife. There are 3000 species of wildlife having been recorded including an internationally important population of great crested newts and other vertebrate populations, a significant proportion of which occur next to the boundary of the proposed development site. The importance of the site has been recognised through gaining a number of national and international conservation awards and recently it was one of the 50 sites visited by Chris Packham. With 1139 species recorded in the course of 24 hours this was the most diverse site that he visited anywhere in the country. The nature reserve is visited by an excess of 5000 people per year and is used by many schools for educational activities. The trail used by the schools is very close to the development boundary. The reserve’s importance has been recognised by a group of councils seeking to link the nature reserve to the important archaeological finds at Must Farm. Mr Parker stated that a Fenland District Councillor had quoted in a newspaper article earlier in the year that Kingsdyke Nature Reserve is a much loved reserve already enjoyed by residents and visitors alike’

Mr Parker stated that throughout the outline planning and reserved matters process concerns have been raised including a lack of an appropriate buffer to the nature reserve to protect it, and an appropriate buffer would be a minimum of 20 metres which is normally to be expected. In the Development Plans, there was a 10metre buffer to the northern boundary and no buffer to the west despite this being the most visible aspect to users of the nature reserve. Mr Parker commented that it is pleasing to see that the developers have amended the design so there is now an 8 metre buffer along the west of the boundary including the retention of the conifer screen and would welcome this screening to be protected by a TPO. Mr Parker added that whilst they still feel that the buffer is inadequate it is an improvement. Mr Parker stated they would also like to see an appropriate boundary fence to prevent unauthorised public and cat incursions into the nature reserve. There are potential impacts on the water regime within the nature reserve remain the one aspect where no improvements have been made and despite the observations made by the developers engineers the ground water locally is close to the surface and this has been confirmed by many years  ...  view the full minutes text for item P21/18

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) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to Members

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

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he has attended meetings at Wisbech Grammar School as there had been an issue with parking at the Hudson Leisure Centre and as Councillor Tanfield had a child who attended the Grammar School, it was felt that it was not appropriate for her to attend that meeting and he had substituted for her at two or three different meetings. At those meetings, various options concerning the car park at the Grammar School were discussed and this proposal before the Committee today is much needed.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarification as to whether the car park was going to be gated as it states it will be open from 7am to 7pm and who will be responsible for it. Councillor Mrs Laws added that as there is an elderly person’s complex adjacent to the car park this would need to be considered, hence the query as to whether the car park will be gated and locked.

·         David Rowen clarified that there is a gate which is on the site plan and condition 5 indicates that the gate shall not be open outside the hours of 7am to 7pm on any day and the car park shall only be used within those hours.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented that the trees on site do not look well maintained and queried whether there are any TPO’s. David Rowen stated that he was unaware of any TPO’s on them and the Tree Officer has looked at them as part of the application and the condition in the update report states that any works to the car park does not damage the tree roots.

·         Councillor Mrs Law asked whether the trees need to be protected and Mr Rowen stated that there has been no indication from the Tree Officer that the trees would need a tree preservation order.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Clark and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation. 

(Councillor Sutton advised the committee that, he attended a meeting with the Sports and Leisure Officer and the Bursar from Wisbech Grammar School on two occasions regarding this matter, but this does not affect his decision today.)

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.

Alison Callaby presented the report to Members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Rachel Newling and Jonathan Blunt, the applicants.

Rachel Newling explained how she has grown up in the area and wishes to continue living in the area and continue with the family fruit farm business. Rachel Newling stated that she is aware that the proposal is for a bigger home than the original, but she would like to be able to make it a future family home. Mr Blunt commented that the existing farmhouse is a lovely old building, however, time has taken its toll on it and it is no longer safe to live in. The farmhouse is not listed and no historical background, but has a sentimental history to the family, hence the wish to rebuild it. The old house will be taken down brick by brick so that they can be used again and will have the same recessed windows and the same slate roof, using reclaimed slate from the old house and the same two chimneys. Mr Blunt stated that with regard to LP12, Part 12, e) under permitted development they would have been allowed an 8 metre extension on the original northview site, but the area they are requesting approval for is another 6 metres. This part would not be visible to the neighbours opposite and will not be an intrusion.

Members asked Rachel Newling and Jonathan Blunt the following question:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification as to whether the current property is subject to any agricultural restriction. It was confirmed that it does not.

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

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification whether the frontage is exactly the same and it was confirmed that it was. Councillor Sutton stated that personally he has no objection to the new application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, in his opinion, in this case we should go against the officer’s recommendation, the proposal is on a huge plot and it will not look out of place.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated she does not like going against Officers recommendation and asked for clarification concerning permitted development.

·         Alison Callaby clarified that permitted development would allow an 8 metre single storey extension as a larger home extension and in terms of a 2 storey extension, you could extend 3 metres and explained that there was a condition restricting permitted development on the original application and with the proposal before committee today a certain amount of permitted development would be allowed, however, the proposal exceeds this.

·         Mr Harding stated that if committee were minded to approve the application there is the option to remove permitted development rights going forward.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she has listened to the presentation and if the frontage has not  ...  view the full minutes text for item P23/18

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.

Alison Callaby presented the report to Members.

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

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether the insulation is fire compliant in light of the Grenfell Towers incident. Alison Callaby responded by saying that would be covered under building regulations.

·         Councillor Sutton stated he has no problem with this proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated she is also quite happy with the proposal and it is worth noting that the applicant came forward at the pre application stage and through discussions with Officers has submitted a more innovative design, which shows that the pre application procedure is worthwhile.

·         The Chairman commented that a pre app on all applications is very beneficial to both the applicant and to Officers.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that she is in favour of approving the application as it is an improvement on how the building looks at the present time.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and decided that the application be APPROVED 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 update to Members.

Members received a presentation in support of the Application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Alexandra Patrick, the agent.

Alexandra Patrick addressed Members and highlighted that there is some controversy in the Officer’s report surrounding mature hedging in the eastern and western boundaries; however, later in the report it states there are none. The report states that the site is in a predominantly tourism area and this is not the case. Surrounding the site there is a mix of residential and commercial elements and the road is used by commercial and agricultural traffic and there are already industrial units in the vicinity. These are existing businesses which were approved by the Council. The proposal is not going to be a development in the middle of nowhere as there are already other established premises.  Planning Officers are bound by policy and although the proposal is on the edge of a village it is already surrounded by development. The land is not of any use, it is not protected by trees, it is not large enough to farm and there have been many instances of fly tipping. The proposal will infill the piece of land and makes a positive use of it to help local businesses and the community.

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

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he has mixed feelings about this application. He has been an advocate in the past of having small business units in villages to help with sustainability, however he has concerns as to whether this proposal is in the right place and he questions whether it is too far outside of the village.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated she also supports small businesses and units, however on this occasion she does not feel that this is suitable for the area and having looked at other businesses in the locality, but she thinks she needs to agree with Officers.

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