Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 20 March 2024 and 3 April 2024.

The minutes of the meetings of the 20 March and 3 April 2024 were confirmed and signed.

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to condition five in the officer’s report and expressed concern over how the discharge of water will be dealt with as over the last 2 to 3 months that area has suffered from major episodes of flooding causing issues for those residents living in the vicinity and also flooding onto the highway. He made the point that due to the episodes of flooding it necessitated in the removal of large volumes of water being taken away by tankers and asked officers what guarantees they could provide with regards to having a robust enough drainage plan for the site? Gavin Taylor explained that the proposal for the drainage strategy is to rely on the underground storage crates to the south of the dwellings to attenuate the surface water and then through percolation to discharge the water as the site does currently. He made the point that, under Building Regulations Part H, it would need to be demonstrated that the site is conducive to percolation. Gavin Taylor stated if the application reaches the Building Regulation stage and it transpires that the proposal is not conducive to the strategy in terms of surface water then the condition in the officer’s report states that the development must accord with the proposed plans and, therefore, the applicant would need to bring a revised strategy back to the officers for consideration. He explained that, when considering foul drainage, the proposal is to discharge into existing foul sewers and the Internal Drainage Board have made a comment previously which states that it leads to their system and, therefore, there would need to be a consent built in there. Gavin Taylor added that, when considering the foul water, it would be down to Building Regulations to be satisfied whether the foul drainage aspect is achievable and if they are not satisfied then a revised strategy would need to be submitted. He explained that in regard to the latest Environment Agency map the site is shown to be in a low flood risk area from rivers and seas and also at a low flood risk area from surface water and there is no technical evidence to demonstrate that this would lead to any sort of additional significant flooding, however, the applicant would need to satisfy Building Regulations of that drainage strategy but the proposal is not dissimilar to what has been agreed on other schemes so there would be nothing from a planning point of view to indicate that it could not be accepted at the current time. Councillor Marks stated that he still has concerns that the properties built over the last 2 to 3 years have also gone through the same process of submitting plans but there has still been flooding issues and he asked whether there is any process before the foundations are commenced where a proper robust drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item P126/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the application is for two dwellings and is submitted in outline form with matters committed in respect of access only. She explained that the site is located on the approach into Tydd St Giles, and it presents an excellent opportunity to provide high quality dwellings positioned on the entrance to the village setting the scene from the southern approach.

Mrs Jackson explained that Church Lane is the main route into Tydd St Giles from the south with Kirkgate being the main route into the village from the east and the proposal will result in development on either side of Church Lane which would reflect the character of Kirkgate which also has housing on either side of the road and as a result both main routes into the village would be characterised by high quality residential development on both sides. She stated that a footpath extension is proposed to the east of the site which will link the dwellings to the village centre to the site by foot and will also benefit the housing opposite.

Mrs Jackson made reference to 5.3 of the officer’s report which states that the Highway Authority has deemed that the application is acceptable and whilst the application would not strictly meet the definition of infill as set out in Policy LP3, it would reinforce the cluster of development in this particular location and as such the proposal would be in line with what infill development seeks to achieve. She explained that since the previous refusal on site a barn conversion has been approved to the south and this has resulted in a change in character making this part of Church Lane more likened to a residential location than to open countryside and it is for this reason that it can be argued that there is no conflict with Policies LP3 or LP12 of the Local Plan.

Mrs Jackson stated that a sequential test has been undertaken on site which has demonstrated that there are no alternative sites available for development within the village and the reason for refusal states that the area of search should be the whole of the district but, in her view, it is not possible to pass a sequential test if the whole of the district should be searched for a site at a lower risk of flooding and if this stance was to be applied across the board then there would be a fair chance that there would be no new housing outside of the land allocations in villages such as Tydd St Giles which in turn would cause a lack of growth and turn villages stale, meaning a failure by the local authority in their requirement to provide new housing. She stated that it has been demonstrated that the site is technically  ...  view the full minutes text for item P127/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tania Hudson, an objector to the proposal. Ms Hudson stated that she lives at 63 Elwyn Road which is the property that is next door to the proposed garage, and she made reference to the presentation screen which details the concerns of both her and other neighbours who have also raised concerns over the proposal. She stated that some of the reasons which have been put forward in objection to the proposal are that the proposal is excessive and has only been reduced slightly in height, it distorts the spacious and traditional character of the street, and it has a negative impact on the street scene of Elwyn Road.

Ms Hudson added that further comments have been made stating that most properties on Elwyn Road either have low walls or shrubs and trees with no buildings close to the boundaries with the footpaths and highway, with the proposal setting a precedent for using house frontage for buildings. She stated that the neighbour opposite currently has a hedge in front, but this could be removed or reduced in height and then the garage would be in full sight and the neighbours opposite have also stated that the property benefitted from an integrated garage before and has already undergone a change of use to become part of the house and it did already have a double garage at the application site.

Ms Hudson added that Elwyn Road is a delightful street with older style properties with garages at the side and back of the properties and she made the point that to construct a garage of that size in the front garden would look inconsistent with the other surrounding properties. She expressed the view that when you look at the Ordnance Survey map it is demonstrated that all properties have their garages either at the side or the back of their dwellings as is hers and they are not as big as the proposed garage.

Ms Hudson stated that the Planning Officer has referred to number 36 having a garage in their front garden, however, that property is located on the corner of Elwyn Court and sits on a much larger plot and the garage is not 1 metre off the boundary, it is 3 metres. She added that the garage at number 36 does not run for 9 metres along the boundary which differs from the application and there are no windows affecting the neighbouring property along the boundary.

Ms Hudson stated that she agrees with all the objections of her neighbours, and she made the point that she also has a further objection with regards to the right to light and the reduction to her family’s quality of life that the garage will inflict due to blocking three windows to her kitchen, diner and family room. She made the point that when she received the letter from the Planning Officer advising  ...  view the full minutes text for item P128/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there have been 12 dwellings approved in this immediate area in the last 4 years and made reference to the presentation screen which displayed a map and highlighted to the committee the application site outlined in red. He added that there were five dwellings approved in Stocking Drove, 2 dwellings in facing Ferry Farm either side, another at The Grange right next to the application site and on the opposite side there are three plots which he has been involved with, with the development having commenced, making the point that once all the sites are built out there will be 26 dwellings at that location without including the proposal before the committee.

Mr Hall referred to Policy LP3 and stated that there are 14 properties at the moment in the area of Chatteris and 12 further planning approvals which have all been given by the Planning Committee. He expressed the opinion that the current proposal is part of Chatteris under LP3 and not in an elsewhere location as there are existing established dwellings in the location all of which are occupied, with there being an existing footpath along the frontage of the site and all along London Road and to the best of his knowledge the footpath has been there quite a while.

Mr Hall stated that the site is adjacent to a cluster of existing homes and Policy LP16(d) states that development should make a positive contribution to the character of the area, with the indicative layout demonstrating four family style executive dwellings on large plots with open frontages and large gardens which will make a positive contribution to the area. He explained that the land is paddock land and not agricultural land, and the application has the full support of Chatteris Town Council.

Mr Hall made the point that a concern has been raised by the neighbour of The Grange which is to the west of the site and is located 42ft away from where an indicative dwelling has been shown on the plan, but explained that the dwelling could be changed to a bungalow and it could also be moved further away if that should help when the technical details are submitted. He added that the site is all located in Flood Zone 1 and the proposal is for a linear development which is similar to all adjacent dwellings in that part of Chatteris and, in his view, the principle of development has been established by those applications which have been approved previously.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Hall whether he would consider the location to be an elsewhere location and if not why? Mr Hall stated that there are 14 dwellings located in the area at the moment, referring to the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item P129/23

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application is located in Flood Zone 1 and, in his opinion, the application is an infill proposal which is set between existing established residential two storey dwellings which have been in existence for over 50 years, referring to the officer’s report at 9.12 where it states that the Local Plan defines infilling as development between existing buildings which is what the application proposes. He explained that along the High Road, it is linear frontage development which is also what is being applied for to match in with the street scene and on the indicative layout he has highlighted three dwellings as well as maintaining all of the trees and all of the riparian ditches will also be kept.

Mr Hall added that had a single dwelling been shown, in his opinion, then it would have been an inefficient use of the land and that has been listed as another reason for refusal on another application which was in Doddington and that is why three dwellings have been shown. He referred to Policy LP12 and explained that the site is not agricultural land and has not been used as such for over 40 years, it is used as a wood chip yard and has been owned by the family for at least 30 years and it is clear from the map that there are residential dwellings on either side of the application site and the site, in his opinion, forms part of Tholomas Drove.

Mr Hall stated that to the north of the site there is the Chequers Pub as well as the village pond and, therefore, he considers the site to form part of Tholomas Drove between dwellings. He made the point that Policy LP16(d) states that the development should make a positive contribution to the character of the area and on the indicative layout submitted he has shown family executive style houses on large plots with open frontages and large gardens which will make a positive contribution to the area in his view.

Mr Hall stated that there has been a lot of support for the proposal with 16 letters of support coming from Tholomas Drove and he added that there have been no letters of objection received or from any of the consultees. He made the point that the local public house is a key village asset and explained that one of his colleagues attended the Parish Council meeting at Thorney Toll and in the officers report at 5.1 it states that the Parish Council have stated that a development in this location would enhance the area and the Parish Council fully support the proposal, noting the community support and the site being in flood zone 1.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the speed limit outside of the development site is 60mph and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P130/23