Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 7 November, 2018.

The minutes of the meeting of 7 November were confirmed and signed.

David Rowen read out a statement in relation to minute item P42/18, which relates to F/YR16/1168/F, Land North East of 53 The Chase, Leverington. One of the questions raised by Councillor Sutton at that meeting related to the open space contribution and information provided at the time from members of the audience confirmed that the open space in Burcroft Road was within the Leverington Parish area, however, further clarification has shown that the open space is actually located just outside of the parish boundary.

David Rowen confirmed that the open space in Burcroft Road is the nearest to the application site and, therefore, remains the most appropriate location for the use of the financial Section 106 contribution arising from the development.

Councillor Sutton added that it is important that the Parish Council for the area should be able to decide where the financial contributions can be put to best use within their Parish.  He added that whilst he appreciates that the open space in question is the nearest to the development, it excludes any input from the local Parish Council and he would still like to see the funding for the open space be placed under the control of the Parish Council.

Nick Harding clarified with Members that it is not the intention for any monies to be handed to the Parish Council directly. The proposed Section 106 contributions would be received by the District Council who in turn will install a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) on the open space at Burcroft Road.  He added that if a MUGA cannot be added to that site then alternative play and recreation facilities will be included or the monies will be utilised within the Parish of Leverington.

Councillor Sutton added that whilst he welcomes Nick Harding’s comments, it does not give the Parish Council any input into the Section 106 and, in his opinion, he feels that it should.

David Rowen stated that the National Planning Practice Guidance states that any obligations should be as closely associated to the development as possible. The Chairman added that the distance of Burcroft Road open space to the development site is approximately half a mile, whereas the area in Leverington is actually 1.62 miles.

Following a request to the Chairman from Councillor Sutton to allow members of the Parish Council to have some input into the discussion, the Chairman consulted with the Legal Officer.  The Chairman stated that following legal advice, the planning application has been determined and the intervention from the Parish Council would not be beneficial.  He added that the Section 106 is yet to be signed off and conditions can be added to the financial agreement where the Parish Council can have an input.

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 accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Parish Councillor Graham Stokes in objection to the application.

Councillor Stokes stated that he is aware that Fenland District Council now has the necessary 5% in the ‘land bank’ and the Parish Council now hope that planning applications will be dealt with in line with Section 12 of the Local Plan.  He stated the village of Elm is classed as a village of limited growth and is over 200% in excess of the target threshold, with this application having no community support and the Parish Council has consistently raised objections to applications on the proposed site.

Councillor Stokes referred to the original 2003 Section 106 Agreement, where one acre of land was gifted to the community, and a quarter of that land has now been taken by the developer, with there being no offer of compensation and whilst the Parish Council is aware of the legal position in relation to the community land, local residents will not be aware of the background history.  He expressed the view that there is no community facility for the residents of Elm, since the closure of the village hall 10 years ago and, therefore, proposed that if the committee grant approval for the application the developer may wish to consider a contribution towards a community centre.

Members asked Councillor Stokes the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarification in that the Parish Council want the application to be refused, however, they would also wish for the developer to gift a community facility.  Councillor Stokes stated that ideally they would like the application to be refused, but if Members were minded to grant the proposal then they would request a condition be added that the developer kindly donates a sum towards a community centre as a gesture of goodwill.

·         Councillor Connor asked Councillor Stokes whether any dialogue had taken place between Elm Parish Council and the developer concerning the parcel of land.  Councillor Stokes confirmed that there had been no conversation.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from James Griffiths, the Agent.

Mr Griffiths explained that Kier has owned the land concerned with this application site for a number of years. He stated that, in order to make better use of the land, and to take into consideration the housing market, smaller dwellings, without garages, are proposed in order to be able to house an additional 7 dwellings, to incorporate a 9 metre easement which was requested by the Internal Drainage Board and provide a larger open space.

Mr Griffiths explained, with regard to access, consideration has been given to the existing residents and, therefore, this has been included in the original development’s Section 106 Contributions, which shows an access turning  ...  view the full minutes text for item P48/18

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 accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Robert Jays, the Applicants Agent.

Mr Jays explained that this is the third application for this site, taking the opportunity of providing members with an update on the progress made to date; Natural England have now provided licences for the badgers and newts enabling mitigation and measures to ensure no harm for both protected species.  He explained that the development is for 18 additional market sale dwellings on the western side of the development and the complete development will see 58 out of the 84 units being affordable homes, which equates to 69% of the total dwellings being affordable.

Members asked Robert Jays the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor commented that he sees no provision for a cycle way and questioned whether any consideration had been given to one.  Mr Jays stated that there have been no concerns regarding a cycleway  raised during the planning application process, a detailed viability assessment was submitted as part of the bigger part of the scheme, which highlighted that the Section 106 Contributions were difficult to achieve and the introduction of a cycle way would involve a fairly significant sum impacting on the delivery of the affordable housing.

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether it would be possible for the development to include some bird boxes to try and attract swifts which are on the decline?  Mr Jays stated that as part of the planning application submission a great deal of ecological survey information had to be provided and as far as he is aware the site is not currently used by swifts, however, as part of the ecological mitigation bat and bird boxes are included on the site.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented that she congratulates the agent and developer for the obstacles that they have had to overcome which have been challenging.

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

·         Councillor Sutton asked whether as an informative on the application that bird boxes be included on the development?  Nick Harding stated that as part of the report there is a condition to cover ecological mitigation, which states that 50% of the new dwellings will have bird and bat boxes included.

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

(Councillors Miscandlon and Mrs Laws stated that they are members of Whittlesey Town Council, but take no part in planning matters and registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had both been lobbied on this 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 Gareth Edwards, the Applicants Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the application before members follows another application being approved for the adjacent site, with the proposed site being behind a high hedge, is in the extended garden of Dove Cottage and become overgrown.   He expressed the view that there have been a number of developments in Gull Road over recent years mostly on the other side of the road and some of them have been for 8 or 9 dwellings.

Mr Edwards stated that the proposal has the support of the majority of standard consultees, which includes the Parish Council and the Environment Agency and if approved contact will be made with the North Level Internal Drainage Board to address their concerns.  He expressed the opinion that additional housing in Guyhirn would bring additional children to the village school and by having dwellings on both sides of the road would lead to improved highway safety, hopefully reducing the speed in the village from 40mph to 30mph. 

Mr Edwards stated that the proposed dwellings will be raised to be consistent with the road level of Gull Road, however, the gardens will be at a lower level, with five of the dwellings being in flood zone 1 and the other 2 in flood zone 3. He made the point that there is a proposed footpath linking to the access and the village of Guyhirn is a sustainable location serviced by bus links.

Mr Edwards noted the requirement of the Parish Council requesting a contribution for village amenities and stated that as this is an outline application he would be happy to accept this as a condition of the Section 106 Agreement.

Members asked Gareth Edwards the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh, referred to the suggestion of reducing the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph within the village, expressing the view that the Police will not approve a speed reduction as there are no reduction measures in place and a Section 106 could assist with the funding of chicaning along the road.  Mr Edwards confirmed he would be prepared to attend the Parish Council to discuss this further.

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

·         Councillor Connor mentioned that there had been no sequential test carried out, there is only one dwelling less than the previous application and questioned what else was different?  David Rowen stated that Councillor Connor was correct and the only difference was that there was one house less than in the previous submission.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh expressed the opinion that the proposal is in a perfect location, brings growth to the village, it has pavements, is on the X1 bus link and any improvements  ...  view the full minutes text for item P50/18

This item has been withdrawn.

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 accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mrs Theobald in objection to the application

Mrs Theobald explained that she has resided at the property next door to the application site for the past 34 years and the proposal if approved will have a huge detrimental effect on her life and outlook.  She stated that, in her opinion, the proposal is gross overdevelopment, is far too close to her property extending to almost the complete length of the garden reducing the amount of sunlight, be overbearing, have an impact on privacy and will also be an issue with regard to noise disturbance.

Mrs Theobald added that any construction work, especially piling could damage her property and foundations.  She added that the frontage of Langley Lodge will be impaired following the demolition of the annexe and the proposed extension will not be in keeping with the existing house and neighbouring properties.

Mrs Theobald stated that parts of the lawn are due to be removed to provide parking spaces, which will mean that the area will become a car park resulting in a business property in a residential area which, in her view, will be totally out of character.  She added that cars are regularly parked on the highway in front of her property and with the increase of visitors to Langley Lodge it will increase the congestion on the road.

Mrs Theobald stated that when the change of use from private house to a rest home was originally granted conditions were added to ensure the interest of other users of land in the vicinity be safeguarded, to ensure that visually the development accords with the general character of the neighbouring area and to park clear of the public highway.  She expressed the view that all of the conditions are being ignored and that there are at least 12 other neighbours who are very worried having also voiced their objections against the proposed development, which will only provide an additional 6 bedrooms.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, by Councillor Steve Tierney in objection to the application.

Councillor Tierney explained that the residents of Kingsley Avenue and Queens Road are not unreasonable people and do understand the need for a rest home for elderly people, however, the problem with the proposal is that it is overdevelopment and the walls will be far too close to the residents properties. He asked Members to consider the objection from Wisbech Town Council on the grounds of overdevelopment. 

Councillor Tierney referred to the Officer’s report, where it mentions that additional vehicles will be able to park in Somers Road Car Park, making the point that parking in this car park often proves to be very difficult and, therefore, there will be an increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item P52/18

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 accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Mr Gareth Edwards, the Applicants Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the proposal is for 4 infill dwellings in Mill Lane, Newton, with the site being between two properties in this small village complying with Policy LP3 of the Local Plan.   He made the point that there have been recent planning approvals for 2 dwellings on land opposite which, in his view, shows that Mill Lane is capable of development and the Highways Authority and Environment Agency have no objection, with the application being supported by a number of local residents and there being no other plots for sale in Newton.

Mr Edwards stated that the comments from Cambridgeshire Archaeology have been seen and noted and he will be happy to accept the condition required.  He expressed the opinion that the village of Newton has limited community facilities; however, the neighbouring villages of Tydd St Giles, Gorefield and Leverington have facilities which can be utilised.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws expressed concern that the applicant has failed to pass the sequential test and exceptions test and whilst she accepts it is a small village development and may come forward again in the next Local Plan, she agrees with Officers that the application is against Policies LP12 and LP14.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay mentioned that the Highways Authority have stated that 4 dwellings would generate enough pedestrian trips to justify having a footpath installed, but question if one could be installed due to whether the development can be considered as sustainable and policy compliant and for those reasons alone she will support the Officers recommendation.

·         Councillor Connor stated that there is no sequential test, the site lies in flood zone 3 with no footpaths and partly in the open countryside, and he will be refusing the application.

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

(Councillor Clark registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on planning matters, that she had been lobbied on this 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 from Parish Councillor Ruth Hufton from Doddington Parish Council in objection to the application.

Councillor Hufton explained that Doddington Parish Council object to this application for a number of reasons; the applicant has already completed the building associated with the application and are already conducting a business from the premises; the area is a residential area close to the church and is a quiet lane where many people walk; the premises are very close to the conservation area and the business will have a detrimental impact on the feel of that particular part of the village, and the premises are situated on a sharp corner where Church Lane becomes Eastmoor Lane and any cars parked in the area could constitute a hazard.

Councillor Hufton stated that the application applies for a change of use from residential to residential and importation, breeding and selling of tropical fish, which is called a hobby business, but, in the view, of the Parish Council it should be classed as a business. She made the point that the applicants supporting statement, which is on the Fenland District Council website, declares that the business started as a hobby, which, in the Parish Council’s view, confirms that it is no longer a hobby but is actually a business.

Councillor Hufton added that the Parish Council have no wish to stop new businesses opening in the village, however, the area which is being used is unsuitable for any business as it will disturb the peace and quiet, with there being more suitable locations within Doddington and Manea which have small business units already built.  She commented that the Parish Council also have concerns over the flushing of the fish tanks on a regular basis, whilst they are aware that the application states that soakaways will be used, the area on the corner of Church Lane and Eastmoor Lane adjacent to the property is already known to flood when there is heavy rainfall and properties on Eastmoor Lane have already been known to have suffered water damage in the past, and should the application be granted the Parish Council would ask that adequate drainage be installed to alleviate this problem.

Members asked Councillor Hufton the following questions;

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked, with regard to the flooding of Eastmoor Lane, whether the flooding incidents have been reported or recorded with Anglian Water or the Environment Agency?  Councillor Hufton stated that they have been reported and a certain amount of works have been carried out, however, in times of heavy rainfall the road slopes towards 2 properties who have suffered flooding.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Snowdon in objection to the application.

Mr Snowdon explained that since January a property has been transformed into an  ...  view the full minutes text for item P54/18