Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of 5 July 23 and 26 July 23.

The minutes of the meetings of the 5 and 26 July 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney stated that it is his understanding that if a public house is currently trading and wishes to be converted then there is the requirement for it to be marketed in a certain way and over a period of time, so that it can be demonstrated that there is no use for it and that there is no loss of a community asset. David Rowen confirmed that this is the correct course of action. Councillor Benney asked whether those steps have been taken? David Rowen explained that when the application was submitted, the public house had been marketed as such and evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the marketing exercise had not been successful and, therefore, there was the justification for the conversion to a residential dwelling. He added that since then the premises has been sold and is now operating as a public house.

·       Councillor Booth stated that it is his understanding that the policy states that if it is no longer economically viable to run as a business then the owner has to provide a business case and from the officer’s report he notes that it has not been provided as part of the application process. David Rowen confirmed that is correct.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked how long the marketing timeframe is and Councillor Mrs French explained that it is a two-year period.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that, in his opinion, the officer’s recommendation is correct. He added that he does not believe that the premises has been marketed correctly and there should not be the loss of a community asset.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the points highlighted by Councillor Benney, and she added that the public house should remain as they are few and far between in Whittlesey and facilities such as these should be preserved.

·       Councillor Booth expressed the opinion that he does not believe that any action has been taken to demonstrate that the premises is not unviable and as such the community asset should be protected. He added that there are too many public houses which are closing across the country at an alarming rate and, in his view, the officer’s recommendation is appropriate.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he agrees with the comments made by other members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Gerstner declared that he was a member of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee when this application was considered, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Hodgson, the agent. Mr Hodgson stated that he is delighted that the officer has recommended the application for approval, and referred to the objection raised by March Town Council, which they have tried to address with them outside the meeting, one of which was overdevelopment but this is an allocated site for viable housing and the proposal has been planned at a scale which he feels is appropriate and will be subject to a review at the detailed stage of the reserved matters part of the application should permission be granted. He stated that March Town Council has also raised the issue of access, however, that has already been approved through the scheme for nine units on the adjacent site which the Highway Authority has already signed off.

Mr Hodgson explained that the site already has an established boundary and, in his opinion, it made sense to plan the proposal in a way that has already been developed and for it not to be part of the wider Broad Concept Plan (BCP) area, but for it to have its own access point and there will be two pedestrian and cycle links only through to the other Persimmon site. He added that those links will flow through to the proposed new school when it is built, and a decision was made not to have any vehicular access as it would have caused a rat run through to the Persimmon estate.

Mr Hodgson stated that with regards to the 25% affordable housing allocation, the applicants Cannon Kirk, are also responsible for the 9 units on the adjacent site and cumulatively the 25% makes up the total amount of affordable units to be provided across both sites.

Members asked Mr Hodgson the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that she is delighted to see that the applicant is offering 25% of affordable housing, given the fact that they did only have to offer 20% and she congratulated the applicant.

·       Councillor Gerstner asked whether the affordable housing mix will be distributed evenly across the site? Mr Hodgson explained that the reserved matters layout will be very similar to that which is shown on the indicative site plan, which shows two areas for the affordable housing.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that, in her opinion, she has never seen a condition 21 which has been applied to this proposal, which refers to removing permitted development rights on an outline planning application. She stated that she does not agree with the condition as it is unfair and precludes residents from adding a greenhouse or shed and would mean that there would be the need for a resident to have to apply for planning permission and she feels it is an unreasonable condition. Councillor Mrs French asked for an explanation as to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P40/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen explained to members that the County Council has previously refused an application involving the processing of waste on this site and further correspondence had been received from the County Council earlier today which stated that activity involving waste may still be taking place and this is being investigated by the Environment Agency and also the County Council. He explained that the application in front of members has the potential to allow for activity at the site which could be construed as waste related and, therefore, there is a significant question mark over whether the application should be determined at a District Council level and in order for this to be established it is recommended to members that the application be deferred.

Councillor Mrs French stated that it is her understanding that members should look at what is in front of them today and not what might or might not be.

Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, stated that, in his view, it is more to do with good practice and procedure rather than the merits or demerit of this application as there does seem to be elements of potential waste disposal, which the County Council are investigating and given that the scope of the application is quite broad and might well include dealing with waste he agrees with officers that the sensible way to proceed is to find out exactly what is going on at the moment and what the County’s view is and defer the application and deal with the application when the facts are known.

Councillor Benney expressed the view that he cannot see what bearing the waste application has, they are two separate applications, it has been heard at County and was refused, but this application is for a builder’s yard and he feels that the committee should determine it today. Stephen Turnbull stated there is no legal reason why committee cannot determine the application today, the view that he and officers took is it is good practice to defer it because members will know more of the factual background and the view of the County as waste disposal authority. Councillor Benney stated that this application is for a builder’s yard and if there is illegal activity on that site this will be dealt with by County, this application is live, has been submitted since 2022 and he feels it should be determined today as this is looking at land usage and is this site suitable for a builder’s yard.

Members agreed to determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report.

Members received a written representation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Debbie Fryett, in support of the application, read out by Member Services. Mrs Fryett stated that following her initialletter ofsupport she remains verystrongly in favour of this planningapplication, with the applicantsbeing nativeto thevillage ofMurrow ratherthan someonefrom outside the local area  ...  view the full minutes text for item P41/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jodie Chittock, a supporter, read out by Member Services. Mrs Chittock stated that she is the direct neighbour and only neighbour to 84b, living at 84a, and understands that planning permission keeps getting denied for her neighbours but feels that the impact this is having on her family is not being understood as she suffers from extreme anxiety and panic attacks, with her property being perfect for her as it is out of the way. She explained that her anxiety has been worst this last year and she feels unsettled in her home because if Mr and Mrs Steer are not granted approval they will sell the land and it will come with no planning permission so, in her view, the person who buys it will probably use it as a dumping ground or scrap yard or something undesirable.

Mrs Chittock expressed the view that whoever buys the site will almost certainly not be respectful to her family and will keep going up and down at great speed to get to their land putting her children who play at risk, which is a massive worry to her and her husband, and whoever buys the land is most certainly to use it for their own pleasure and not have any cares for the surrounding properties. She expressed the opinion that it is a lovely family that currently own the land who just want to settle there and have a place to call home, who are respectful and typically park on the road so there is rarely any cars driven past her property so her children can be out the gate playing on their bikes.

Mrs Chittock expressed the view that she cannot ask for better people to be her neighbours, with her children and their children playing together and have become really good friends. She does not think what they are asking for is at all unreasonable so asked that the decision takes her family into consideration because it is affecting them also, with her fully supporting the application as a direct neighbour.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nat Green, the agent. Mr Green made the point that the committee is here to decide the matter on planning issues only and this application is for the siting of a mobile home for residential use and the siting of an ancillary day room. He referred to the application being recommended for refusal, however, the officer’s report in its recommendation has, in his view, deep flaws, firstly being the dismissal of his clients gypsy status and despite a comprehensive family history and personal circumstances being provided the Local Planning Authority claims that a Barrister’s opinion was sought and it concluded that they were not gypsies, asking where is this Barrister’s opinion as at the very least it should have been released to his clients as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P42/23

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 presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the application has the support of all the standard consultees including Highways and the Parish Council, with the Parish Council having an approved Neighbourhood Plan which this proposal is consistent with which has led to the support of the Parish Council. He advised that the drawings have been revised to show the required visibility splays that have been set out by the Highway Authority and the access road proposed is to be controlled by a management company which will enter into an agreement with the Council’s refuse collection service to allow access to all properties so it is consistent with the requirements of Recap.

Mr Edwards stated that they have provided a full turning head for both refuse vehicles and fire appliance vehicles which will allow all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. He expressed the view that the form and character is consistent with this part of the village and there are a number of in depth developments on this side of Main Road, such as Springfield Gardens, Ingham Hall Gardens, Brewery Close, John Bends Way, Lakeside and Newlands Road, all being off Main Road and on the proposals side of the road, with there being further comprehensive developments after Silvers Lane on this side of the road heading out of the village, such as Patricks Way and John Pecks Close.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that this shows the development will not undermine the prevailing form of development in the village but is consistent with it and this can also be seen with the adjacent property known as The Silverings, 114 Main Road, which as his site plan shows sits further back than the new properties that have been built on Main Road either side of it. He made the point that Parson Drove is a limited growth village under LP3 where a small amount of development and new service provision will be encouraged and permitted in order to support their continued sustainability but less than what would normally be in a growth village, with such development being appropriate as a small village extension and he would argue that this is exactly what this site will be and in an email from the former planning officer in March 2023 it was stated that they were overall happy with the scheme subject to the additional requirements that were set out by Highways so this was forwarded to the applicant so when it was not going to be a delegated approval but coming to committee with a recommendation of refusal they were somewhat shocked.

Mr Edwards stated that this is an outline application with only access reserved, with the indicative layout showing a single point of access which will allow two vehicles to pass along its  ...  view the full minutes text for item P43/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 for Permission in Principle (PIP) for nine dwellings on a former pig farm, he has had numerous meetings with his clients’ representative which is Ed Tabner from Chefins who is acting on behalf of the Risely family and he has made enquiries independently to relet the buildings and the Risely family contacted him so he had a meeting with them, Mr Tabner and an accountant and he suggested that a residential use would be better than reletting it so they left him to make the planning application. He stated that the site is currently covered with old pig sheds and the principle of development in depth or where there has been agricultural has already been set on the site.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that the application is supported by most of those living next to the site, referring to the smells in the height of Summer from pigs, which are not particularly pleasant, although he appreciates that this is not a reason for approval. He expressed the opinion that the site is at a crossroads, it can be developed for residential or it can go back to its former use and since Mr Risely senior died the site has been unused but it clearly needs something doing with it.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the Parish Council agree in principle with the proposal, Environmental Health support the application having no objection, the Environment Agency ask for a Flood Risk Assessment at the technical stage submission but in principle it has no objection and Highways have no objections, with the development being in walking distance to Manea train station and all facilities in the village. He stated that Manea is a growth village where development in the existing urban area or as a small village extension of limited scale as appropriate is supported.

Mr Humphrey referred to Paragraph 120 of the NPPF 2021, which states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable Brownfield land and whilst the site is not Brownfield in the true term as it is agricultural a planning application could be made to convert the barns to residential and then they could apply to have it redeveloped as a Brownfield site. He feels the development would contribute towards the sustainability of the settlement and not harm the wide open character of the countryside as it is already developed.

Mr Humphrey confirmed that if approved there will be wheel washing facilities and reading the letters of support for the application he suggested the community benefit of not having smells and associated problems with a pig farm outweigh those of the site being in Flood Zone 3, with there being mitigation measures for this. He stated that the application has been a long time coming and the Parish Council and others have said  ...  view the full minutes text for item P44/23

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 presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jack Hinson, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Hinson stated that he is at committee on behalf of his grandfather who is the applicant and resident at 66 Wimblington Road, it being a family project with them all living in the area. He feels there are two elements to the proposal, proximity and a low roof height, and made the point that the original application was at the height of the host property but comments were received regarding overbearing so naturally as an applicant they thought they would reduce this to alleviate concerns, however, this application has now had the feedback of being too reduced so there must be a balance to be had between the two proposals.

Mr Hinson expressed the view that they have tried to be proactive by providing the solution and the committee was given a last minute update yesterday but they did offer to adjust the roof height two months ago on the 15 June, which is not new information and they were surprised when it was never accepted. He stated that they believe this fundamentally addresses the refusal by giving a balanced roof height entirely consistent with the neighbour at No.68 and asked that this be given consideration as a balanced and positive outcome, with the refusal saying it is contrived and significantly lower but this roof height is level with No.68 so he feels this resolves these comments.

Mr Hinson expressed the opinion that in terms of proximity it is a subjective concept but there are ways to measurably show that a site is suitable for a dwelling, typically garden space and parking are unachievable when buildings are too close but both have been demonstrated in this instance and as can be seen by highway and planning officer comments there are large garden spaces provided, with it being an ideal opportunity to facilitate effective use of land. He expressed the view that there is mixed development along Wimblington Road, bungalows, chalets and two-storey properties in a varied pattern and it is not a new estate where you have got house types repeated and he believes the proposal positively reflects the character and street plan as per LP16d.

Mr Hinson stated to be proactive they have made many reductions since the original application to specifically promote separation and accommodate previous concerns, the dwelling is now single-storey with no chalet element, the roof height and building bulk have been reduced, the roof is hipped sympathetically away from neighbouring properties, the internal footprint has been reduced, separation between dwellings has been increased and there are also features such as flush eves and staggered elevations to enhance that feeling of separation. He showed on a slide on the presentation screen the reductions that had been made on this proposal as opposed to the original application.

Mr Hinson  ...  view the full minutes text for item P45/23

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 presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the application has the support of most of the standard consultees and a number of businesses from the village. He expressed the view that the proposal will provide for 5 individual plots which are likely to be purchased by self-builders or small developers which do not have the financial capacity to purchase the larger sections of development land in the District, with these parcels being massively important for Fenland to provide a diverse housing mix.

Mr Edwards stated that Gorefield is a small village under LP3 where development will be considered on its merits but will normally be of a very limited nature and limited to a scale of residential infilling or a small business opportunity but he would argue that as the site is the continuation of the constant built form on this side of the road of High Road and the natural boundary to the village built form is that of Hassock Hill Drove, which is to the west of the site, this is infilling from the existing built form to the natural end of the village. He made the point that there are further properties and businesses down Hassock Hill Drove but he would suggest that these are in open countryside whereas this development is a continuation of the built form and will provide a natural break between the village and the open countryside beyond.

Mr Edwards referred to in the description of LP3 the mention of “normally” a couple of times and questioned what is normal arguing that the site is similar to many that have been approved in the District and within the village itself especially the frontage plots that were approved on High Road at the other end of the village where there was a dyke seen as the end of the village for new development, with works taking place on the dwellings on this development. He stated that this is an outline application with all matters reserved, with the indicative layout showing how the site could easily accommodate 5 large dwellings but should committee feel that a single point of access should be provided they are happy to accept this as a condition of the approval.

Mr Edwards stated that the points made by North Level are noted and any development will look to put surface water from the site into the North Level main drain which is the other side of High Road and the relevant applications will be made to both North Level and Cambridgeshire County Council. He expressed the opinion that the site has not been maintained for a number of years other than for a bit of grazing and any proposal would look to clean out the dykes to improve the drainage for the site and surrounding properties and the land  ...  view the full minutes text for item P46/23