Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 15 November 2023

The minutes of the meeting of the 15 November 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record

To determine conditions.

Tracey Ranger presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Marks stated that the application had been discussed at the previous meeting in November and at that time members had been advised that there were no refrigerated lorries, however, it appears that has changed and the figure has now changed to 16. He added that officers have explained that there are refrigerated lorries across the road and he expressed his concern regarding the noise impact on residents residing nearby, especially during the summer months when people spend more time outside.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she also shares the same concerns as Councillor Marks, and she would like to see the application deferred in order to seek further guidance and the professional opinion of an Environmental Health Officer.

·         Nick Harding explained that the noise assessment was submitted when the application was first received, and the content of the report actually modelled sixteen refrigerated trucks operating from the site at night and with the proposed mitigation that has always been part of the proposal, with the Environmental Health Officer stating that the situation is satisfactory in respect of noise impact on the nearest noise sensitive premises. He added that the noise assessment would have taken into consideration the existing background noise generated from existing activities and it would have been those activities prior to the development taking place with this proposal adding onto it. Nick Harding stated that committee should be assured that the applicant’s consultant has looked at this appropriately, but he does appreciate that the committee may wish to question the Environment Health Officer and defer the application.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that he does not see any reason to refuse the application and whilst it could be deferred to discuss the proposal with the applicant, the application, in his opinion, is policy compliant. He added that the officer’s report states that the noise levels are acceptable and whilst he would support a deferral, in his opinion, if the proposal is brought back to committee he anticipates that the same conclusion will be reached. Councillor Benney acknowledged that it would be nice to receive some assurance from Environmental Health on whether there could be acoustic fencing installed to see if it would mitigate the noise prior to the application being determined.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the noise assessment has been carried out to the satisfaction of Environmental Health. He added that he has spoken to the nearest resident to the site which is at least 300 to 400 metres away and at the present time, the application site is not causing the residents any problems at all, however, this may alter once refrigerated units are brought onto the site. Councillor Gerstner explained that it is an industrial site and he concurred with the comments made by Councillor Benney that at the current time there are very few reasons to refuse the application.

·         Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P76/23

To determine the applications.

Tracy Ranger presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rakesh Ganger, an objector to the application. Mr Ganger stated that he is a direct neighbour, and expressed the opinion  that the five dwellings at the rear of the building, which were originally the dancefloor, are overdevelopment with poor internal amenity space for future residents, assuming that there will be families with children in cramped living conditions with no private communal outdoor space. He added that the developer has not provided measurements which could be assessed against technical housing standards and national prescribed space standard to see if they meet the minimum requirement for internal living space and no detail of the roof height for the three two–bedroomed dwellings and he questioned how the development improves the economic and social development and the well-being of Wisbech and the residents.

Mr Ganger questioned the idea of toilets being approved to work as a buffer for noise which has been suggested in the proposal for new residents as, in his opinion, the toilets in a nightclub can often have cases of screaming, shouting, singing, crying and vomiting. He referred to the 1973 document which shows the change of use for the restaurant, club and offices but has no mention of a nightclub and he explained that when he received notification of the application, he was advised that there was no subsequent supporting evidence with the application in 1973. He was advised that neighbours have direct contact with the Planning Officer and there has been no mention of the other paperwork being available.

Mr Ganger stated that Mendi’s has previously been a member only club due to its location within a Conservation Area and the previous owners have stated that the premises was not a nightclub and was a dance floor with bar and restaurant which they had owned since 1976. He added that the officer’s report fails to mention the address on the 1973 document is incorrect as it shows part of his address which he feels raises questions over General Data Protection Regulations and he questioned its validity.

Mr Ganger explained that there are two addresses on the report, one of which is his address with the other address belonging to the proposed applicant and he made the point that it is important for the Council to be aware of how the buildings are situated in order to understand the severity of the nightclub next door. He added that having spoken to some elected members, they seem to be under the impression that because he has lived next to Mendis for the last 21 years, the planning application would have little impact on him and his family.

Mr Ganger stated that the dance area is currently situated at the back of the building in Exchange Square which is detached from his home with a private car park in between and, therefore, music noise has never been a problem for him, although the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P77/23

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, a supporter. Mr Hall stated that the applicant has asked him to speak in support of the application and he has read the officers report and visited the application site. He made the point that there is only one reason for the recommendation of refusal which is a concern highlighted by the Conservation Officer regarding a perceived harm to the Listed Building, however, the application site is 25 metres away from the listed building and maintains all the trees and extends the existing driveway.

Mr Hall stated that there are no other reasons for refusal in terms of flood risk damage, overlooking, overshadowing, over development or amenity. He added that some of the objectors have raised concern with regards to access, however, the access is existing and there have been no concerns raised by the highways department and there is adequate parking and turning on site.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the key point with the application is that there are numerous other sites in Fenland where planning approval has been allowed by officers and members in the grounds of Grade 2 Listed Building within the centre of settlements. He provided examples including Chatteris House, High Street, Chatteris which is a Grade 2* Listed Building and had a lot of land at rear which has all been built on, which was approved as part of listed building consent.

Mr Hall explained that Park House, Gorefield Road, Leverington was approved by the committee in 2021, which was for a builder’s yard with various buildings and sheds adjacent to a Grade 2 Listed Building, approved by members even though it had four reasons for refusal. He referred to 133 High Street in Chatteris which is also a Grade 2 Listed Building was also approved by members for a number of properties along with Minstrels Nightclub in March which is a Grade 2 Listed Building, and a large amount of development has been permitted at the rear as part of a consent under the current Local Plan.

Mr Hall expressed the view that there are no technical objections to the current application, which would allow three small scale units to add a variety of housing in Doddington which do not obstruct the façade of the Listed Building and respect the trees and hedgerows on the site.

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

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is not enamoured with the proposal but there are no technical reasons why it should not be approved. He added that it is a piece of pastureland, and the exit comes out onto Ingles Lane, which is very narrow, and the Bevills Place development will be built out going forwards. Councillor Connor made the point that there is not a path in place on Ingles Lane and the majority of the children attending the school will use Ingles Lane which  ...  view the full minutes text for item P78/23

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn.

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedurem from Councillor Bob Wicks, a Whittlesey Town Councillor who spoke in objection to the proposal. Councillor Wicks explained that he is a long-standing resident of Coates and that his prime concern relates to the comments which were made by the Police Officer with regards to anti-social activities. He made the point that the Police Officer failed to mention the issue of speeding in the village, which, in his view, is the biggest anti-social behaviour problem the village has and has been a problem for many years.

Councillor Wicks expressed the view that the problem is so severe Whittlesey Town Council have purchased 12 motor vehicle recording systems to monitor the speeds initially within Coates and Eastrea, with some of the statistics that have been gathered are quite extreme with one recorded speed of 107 being captured on the entrance to Coates. He added that the speed of that vehicle was captured in the vicinity of this proposed development and his concern is also for the village school whose entrance is virtually opposite the proposal site, with there having been a number of incidents on the level crossing which may have been very serious.

Councillor Wicks stated that there is also the potential that the community asset of the village post office may also be affected by the proposed development which could have serious implications for those elderly residents who live in the village. He stated that the actual fence to the south of the site is missing and has been for a period of time, which has never been reinstated and he is also aware that there is a retrospective planning application for the industrial unit next door which will include extra access to be required on the whole site. 

Members asked Councillor Wicks the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification concerning what has not been re-erected? Councillor Wicks confirmed that it was a fence.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Whittlesey Town Council recommends the refusal of the proposal as it is a detrimental impact of the surrounding area and concerns regarding speeding. She made the point that speeding is a matter for the Police, and it is not a material planning consideration, and, in her opinion, she would have thought that the store would be a welcome addition to the village for the people who live there, and she asked Councillor Wicks to explain why the proposal will be detrimental to the village post office. Councillor Wicks explained that at the present time the village shop contains the Post Office which is part and parcel of the business and there is the possibility of the income for that business decreasing because of this development.

Members received a presentation,  in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Wilkinson, the applicant. Mr Wilkinson explained that he is the Capital Projects Manager for Lincolnshire Cooperative. He made the point that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P80/23

To determine the application.

This application was withdrawn.

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 stated that the proposal is in outline form and is for three dwellings on a site in Christchurch village and is positioned in a gap between the existing dwellings at 52 Church Road and number 3 Shrubbery Close and, therefore, the proposal would represent infill development which is supported in principle under Policy LP3 of the Local Plan. She added that the indicative drawings show that there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate the three dwellings, including appropriate amenities, parking and turning.

Mrs Jackson explained that the existing site access will be upgraded and used to serve plot one and a new access has been proposed to be to the immediate north east of this which will serve plots 2 and 3 and the existing dwelling at number 52, which have all been agreed by the Highways Team. She added that she has noted the comments made by the Parish Council and she explained that she has an in-principal approval from the Middle Level Commissioners for the necessary works.

Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is compliant with the policies of the development plan as set out in the committee report. She requested that planning permission is granted.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification with regards to the distance for the Middle Level maintenance access? Mrs Jackson confirmed that the distance is 9 metres.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen which showed a hatched area but it appears that one of the porches was within the 9 metres. Mrs Jackson clarified that it is an outline application and, therefore, the design can be tweaked in order to move the porch slightly or remove it in order to keep the 9-metre access strip.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he can see nothing wrong with the application and the extra houses will add to the sustainability of the village. He added that the officer’s recommendation is to approve, and he cannot see anything wrong with the outline application. Councillor Benney stated that the access strip issue will be resolved at the reserved matters stage.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he also agrees with the views of Councillor Benney, and he added that as long as the 9-metre access strip is protected he cannot see any issue with the proposal.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per officers’ recommendation.

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation is correct as the proposal will change the street scene, it will have a detriment impact on and not blend into the area and the application should be refused.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned whether the previous application F/YR21/0496 went to appeal? Nick Harding confirmed that it did not. Councillor Mrs French asked what was different with that application which was refused and the application before the committee today? Nick Harding explained that the flood risk issue has been resolved now but otherwise it is the same scheme.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he refused the application previously under his powers of delegation as he thought it was disjointed at that time. He added that he has no reason to change his mind this time and thinks it should be refused again.

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

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Donald Smithers, an objector. Mr Smithers stated that he opposes the application on two factors which are both connected to a 30-metre stretch of unadopted road that runs from Ingham Hall Gardens to the farmland at the rear. He added that the applicant seeks to join up the road to service the nine dwellings and he explained that the section of road according to Land Registry is registered to Mr Boston who was the developer of the Ingham Hall site and three months ago he offered to give that stretch of road to the Ingham Hall Residents Association, which would have been gratefully received, however, when the process commenced for the change of ownership, it was discovered that Mr Boston was not in fact the owner and it was owned by the Crown under the watchful eye of the Crown Agents.

Mr Smithers stated that he lives at 22 and along with the residents of numbers 39 and 41 Ingham Hall they have an obligation to maintain that stretch of road along with a further obligation to allow unrestricted access to farm traffic which will also include the applicant, because the applicant owns farmland at the rear. He has been advised by his legal adviser that the applicant cannot allow others to use that same right of access and, therefore, if there were people residing in the nine dwellings they would not have access to that piece of road.

Mr Smithers expressed the view that it may seem childish to deny those residents access to that piece of road but the issue which arises is that if the parish line is breached which is what would happen the number of properties on the site could significantly increase and the piece of road would become very difficult to maintain.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that there have been previous applications for housing on the site and she has worked very hard to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. She added that the most significant piece of work which has been carried out includes a community consultation exercise which was undertaken to meet the requirements of the Parson Drove Neighbourhood Plan.

Mrs Jackson explained that she is aware that the Parish Council do not support the scheme, however, as a result of the exhibition and completed forms, 68.7% of those that responded were in favour of a development for nine dwellings which shows that there is a community desire for the dwellings, despite the Parish Council documents. She made the point that the site has been recommended for housing under the emerging Local Plan under Policy LP57.01 and whilst she recognises that only limited weight can be given to the plan, it highlights the direction of travel in terms of spatial planning for the area, which is a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P84/23

To advise members of the current situation in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Granary Barn, Main Road in Elm.

Nick Harding presented the report to members, which they had been provided with an updated copy of prior to the commencement of the meeting. He explained that the report seeks to set out clearly the issues in relation to this application, including looking at the reasons why the objector does support the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Report being confirmed.

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

·         Councillor Hicks asked that if the tree is felled could it be insisted that two or more new trees are planted? Nick Harding explained that if the Tree Preservation Order is confirmed  and subsequently for whatever reason, such as disease in a few years, the tree has to be removed then it can be required that a replacement tree is planted.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the age of the tree is known, and Nick Harding explained that did not form part of the assessment undertaken. Councillor Mrs French stated that the point she was trying to make was whether the tree was there before the residents purchased the property and if it needs maintenance then they can apply to have the works undertaken properly rather than not have a TPO placed on it. Nick Harding explained that the application that was received was for complete removal rather than for any tree works and members can see from the  photographs that they have been provided, the nature of the species of the tree is such that there is not always a lot to cut back.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the tree looks quite scrawny and if somebody undertakes works to it again there will be little of the tree left. He added that the neighbouring tree gives the shadow and he questioned whether the residents can still maintain it if they choose to do so. Nick Harding stated that the residents need to apply to the Council should they wish to undertake any tree works. He added if the tree is seen to be dead, dying or dangerous then there are emergency provisions available.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Tree Officer went and looked at the tree and has advised that the tree must be kept. He added should the condition change then it can be reviewed  again, however, the expert opinion of the Tree Officer should be considered, and he feels that the TPO should be approved.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Connor.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the Tree Officer’s expert knowledge and opinion must be considered.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the Tree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED.