Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 16 October 2024.

The minutes of the 16 October 2024 were signed and agreed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Victor Joyce, an objector. Mr Joyce stated that he was representing the residents of Blackmill Road and Fairview Gardens and made the point that the revisions to the application, included a revised certificate C, which he believes is a type of ownership certificate, but the applicant does not own any part of the drove. He explained that as stated in previous applications the applicant has tried to claim ownership and failed and recently the applicant has employed local contractors to undertake unauthorised works on the drove and also to the drainage ditch to the left which borders the properties on Millfield Close.

Mr Joyce explained that the Highways Enforcement Team insisted that the applicant cease the removal of any more trees and hedgerows from the ditch which then resulted in a fine of £4,400. He added that the applicant’s recent works have resulted in the drainage ditch bordering Millfield Close to partially collapse and block the drainage outfall pipe which was installed by the Highway Authority in order to alleviate the flooding issues.

Mr Joyce made the point that it was suggested that the reason for the Certificate C was to enable the applicant to fill in the ditch and try to widen the width of the drove to enable the ability of two cars to pass. He stated that the traffic that the development will incur has increased to 20 or more cars, an increase since the previous application.

Mr Joyce made the point that two of the objections are from properties at the end of Millfield Close that face directly towards the new proposed development and the illegal removal of the trees and hedgerows has already reduced the privacy to those properties and the residents fear that they will lose even more if the development is approved. He explained that the drove is 2 to 3 feet higher than the bordering properties where on the left-hand side Millfield Close is located and Fairview Gardens to the right-hand side, with residents concerned that if any attempt is made to fill in the ditches or widen the drove could mean the potential to cause further flooding issues.

Mr Joyce made the point that the drove is a byway with a one car width of approximately 3.2 metres at its widest point and it is used by many pedestrians, families, joggers, dog walkers and horse riders and at the end of the byway there is the pocket park owned by the Council which is well used and has increased the footfall along the drove. He stated that the width of the drove is a restricted width and has no footpaths or street lighting and, therefore, the increase in traffic could make the drove unsafe for pedestrians to use.

Mr Joyce explained that the residents in the vicinity of the application site have found it necessary to keep raising objections to the applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item P58/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, on behalf of the agent Ian Gowler as a Planning Consultant. Mrs Jackson explained that the application is for the conversion of an existing agricultural building to form two dwellings and the application has been recommended for refusal due to the location of the site being within the countryside and because the building is not considered to be of an architectural or historic merit. She expressed the view that the building is not isolated or in a countryside location as there are other dwellings physically adjoining the site which leads up to the continuous built-up frontage of Creek Road, adding that when taking that point into consideration the development will be in acceptable in accordance with Policy LP3.

Mrs Jackson stated that the barn is capable of conversion under permitted development procedure Class Q, however, the proposal was submitted under Class Q in order that a higher quality development could be achieved and by submitting the proposal under a full application, it has meant that the upgrade of the external wall materials to brick and cladding has been possible in order to meet the Planning Officer’s request. She added that more energy efficient features have been incorporated within the structure which include upgrades to the fabric of the building plus the addition of a formal garden area.

Mrs Jackson referred to case law from the Court of Appeal with regards to Mansell versus Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council stating that development under Class Q is a fall back position which means that it is a material planning consideration for planning applications and that permitted development rights under Class Q can be exercised. She stated that in order for a fallback position to be realised, the development must be a real prospect, and it was confirmed within the Mansell case that Class Q permitted development rights do comprise a real prospect on whether there is a prior approval in place or not.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the fact that the barn can be converted in Class Q should be given substantial weight in the decision-making process and the principle of converting to residential use can accordingly be considered as established. She made the point that the application has the support of March Town Council, and the officer’s report confirms that it is technically acceptable in terms of highways impacts, residential amenity biodiversity and flood risk.

Mrs Jackson stated that she hoped that the committee are able to see the planning merits of the case and that it complies with both Policy LP3 and the relevant case law.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has noted from the officer’s report that on the 19 May last year the proposal was refused and asked what is different between that application and the one before the committee now and why did the previous application  ...  view the full minutes text for item P59/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application site is very similar to three sites across the road which have received planning approval in the last 4 years, including one application receiving approval in October. He added that the site abuts existing development in Eastrea and in accordance with Policy LP12 along this section of Wype Road, the form of development is linear which is what has been proposed with the application before the committee.

Mr Hall stated that scale of development proposed is bungalows which is in keeping with the adjacent property and also bungalows all approved in the last four years directly opposite the site. He explained that under Policy LP16, which was mentioned in the officer’s report, that retaining natural features by the side of the bungalow which was shown in the officer’s presentation are all being kept along with the majority of the hedge at the front if the site is to be maintained.

Mr Hall stated that an ecology report has been undertaken and if the application is approved, then there will be biodiversity net gain, with site all being located in Flood Zone 1 as are the bungalows on the opposite side of the road and the application also includes the proposal to increase and link the adoptable footpath all the way across the front of the site to link with the adjacent adoptable footpath and Cambridgeshire County Council have not raised any concerns concerning this. He referred to the presentation screen and indicated to members of the committee the location of the application site and pointed out the three applications directly opposite the application site highlighting the fist one approved by the committee in 2019 against the officer’s recommendation for two large bungalows which have been built out.

Mr Hall explained that the next application was for 2 bungalows which were approved in 2023 and one of which is currently being built out, with the blue area on the slide approved against the officer’s recommendation for a further 2 bungalows in October. He referred to the photos on the presentation screen and pointed out the view that can be seen from the application site which are of the bungalows which have been approved previously.

Mr Hall stated that Whittlesey Town Council support the application and there have been no local objections to the proposal. He expressed the view that it is an ideal site for single storey dwellings and abuts existing development as well as being opposite recently approved built out development and is all located in Flood Zone 1 with no technical objections submitted either.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to section 3 of the officer’s report and asked for clarity with regards to the footpath as it is not clear where the path is extending to. She made the point that there is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P60/24

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Sean Saxby, the applicant. Mr Saxby expressed the view that the proposed dog park aligns with community needs and meets multiple planning policy objectives, with the demand for dog parks in this region being substantial given the fact that 33% of households own dogs. He added that existing parks are frequently oversubscribed reflecting a clear need for additional well managed facilities and the proposal aims to provide a safe, clean and professionally operated space for pet owners and will offer a safe environment for dogs and people who like to enjoy the outdoors, with this proposal meeting a crucial need especially given the 22% increase in dog related incidents this year highlighting the need for controlled spaces and socialisation.

Mr Saxby stated that the site is accessible and can be reached by footpath for those residents living in both March and Wimblington who wish to walk to the park and there is a bus stop adjacent to the site providing easy access for those wishing to use public transport if they do not have access to a private car. He made the point that this also supports sustainability goals by reducing reliance on car travel and promoting more healthier active lifestyles for residents who walk or take the bus to the facility.

Mr Saxby referred to biodiversity and enhancement and explained that whilst the current site is just an agricultural field, the proposed dog park incorporates extensive hedging and landscaping which will significantly enhance the biodiversity and create a thriving habitat for wildlife, which aligns with Policy LP16e as it directly supports and enriches the biodiversity. He added that the landscaping will also create natural buffers to include screening, fencing and other park features to maintain the rural character of the area, with the visual impact on the park being minimal and thoughtfully mitigated.

Mr Saxby explained that the design features, fencing and structures will be effectively screened by newly planted hedgerows which will mirror traditional field boundaries common throughout the Fenland countryside, with there being natural topography along with existing mature trees on the southern boundary which limit the visibility from public viewpoints particularly from the south and west. He explained that as a result this will ensure that the project aligns with Policy LP16(c) and (d) which will preserve the character of the landscape and avoiding any adverse impact on the rural scene.

Mr Saxby explained that with regards to the precedence of existing development there are several other leisure and commercial developments nearby including the driving range and golf course which is opposite the proposed site and a petrol station to the west and the facilities already include built features and flood lighting into the area which are visually more prominent than the dog parks proposed facilities. He stated that recent permission for an office building  ...  view the full minutes text for item P61/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rob Parsons, the applicant. Mr Parsons stated that he represents Parco Developments who are the applicants for the proposed development and they are a small construction company, with the development representing a considerable investment for his company. He added that he is aware of a number of objections to the application and most of them appear to be around the subject of access and overlooking, with the application being before the committee due to the number of objections.

Mr Parsons stated that, with regards to access, a number of the adjacent properties’ rear gardens back onto the application site and the owners of those properties have given themselves access into the land, with the land having also been used previously as a short cut through and prior to the purchase of the land, checks were undertaken with his solicitor to check who had access rights and what the access rights were. He explained that the searches revealed that none of the properties that back onto or who are adjacent have any access rights other than for maintenance and repair and he added that it is not a public right of way or byway, with the fact that it has always been open, and people have chosen to walk through and give themselves access being one of the main reasons which has formed part of the submitted objections.

Mr Parsons explained that the land has now been fenced off which has removed the access for people, however, that access was not permitted in the first place. He expressed the view that he did have concerns with regards to people fly tipping and as the landowner he is now responsible for anybody who accessed land, adding that should somebody access the land and have an accident then he would be responsible for any injuries and, therefore, by fencing off his land it will look to address the risk of fly tipping and also unauthorised access.

Mr Parsons added that when considering the objections concerning loss of light and overlooking, he took into consideration the advice and guidance from the Planning Officer and the scheme was reduced to include single storey dwellings even though there are two storey properties adjacent to the application site. He explained that the scheme was also reduced from four units down to two even through the four units met the planning criteria and made the point that he has considered the advice given by officers and have been considerate to the neighbouring properties and he hoped the committee would look to approve the application.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she understands that people have chosen to use the land for different reasons, and she is familiar with the area and is aware that children have used the site as a playground. She added that is it hard to re-educate children and she asked what  ...  view the full minutes text for item P62/24