Agenda item

To determine the application.

The Committee had regards 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 objection to the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Roger Wilkin and Stuart Potts.

Roger Wilkin confirmed that he is joint owner of 140-142 Eldernell Lane which is the approximately 120 years old, the same age as the barns on the proposed development. He made members aware that the original application had received 13 letters of objection and the amended application, 11 letters. He highlighted that Whittlesey Town Council had also objected to the application and raised concern that the supporting documents submitted with the application infers that the proposed dwellings could be used as holiday lets. He explained that any conversion will affect the natural habitat and the area is ecologically sensitive. He highlighted the suggestion of adding a Wildlife Tower to accommodate the Barn Owls on site however indicated there was no evidence to suggest these owls would relocate to the tower once their nests are destroyed. He suggested that construction noise would be a disturbance to the Wildlife Tower, would offer no benefits and be a blot on the landscape. He questioned the Highways suggestion in the report point 5.1 of traffic being accommodated on Eldernell Lane and said the proposed extension linking the barns is contrary to the principle of development. He concluded that the barns are located in an area of special scientific interest and a conservation area.

Stuart Potts explained that Eldernell Lane is a single track lane with no provision for passing vehicles and is already congested with agricultural and industrial traffic. He said the application highlights parking for 6 vehicles however this could be substantially higher depending on the residents of the proposed dwellings. He explained that residents of the lane already suffer from very low water pressure which will only deteriorate further once new residents move in to the proposed site. He said the area was one of natural beauty and the large pond area near the proposed site will be negatively impacted by the development. He does not believe the Wildlife Tower will negate the damage caused by the development and raised concern that there is no waste management plan in place which is required due to the lane not benefitting from mains sewage. He concluded that the impact of the site on Eldernell Lane and its surroundings will be horrific and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Members had no questions for Roger Wilkin or Stuart Potts.

Members received a presentation in support of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Andrew Middleditch (The Agent).

Andrew Middleditch explained that he is acting for the trustees of the estate who also own approximately 1500 acres of farmland within the area. He said the Applicants are aware of the sensitivity of the surrounding area and acknowledges the sites own interest in respect of conservation and are happy for this to be considered. He asked that the Committee take into account previous planning applications on the site which had approved the principle of conversion and although this previous application had regrettably been unviable, the current proposal represents the most viable means of redeveloping the buildings. He said the Applicant and himself have considered consultees comments and have amended proposals in light of these. They have removed proposals of a new build dwelling and instead opted to pursue the conversion of the barns as well as addressing ecological and conservation concerns by commissioning reports that assessed the impact on the neighbouring wash-land. These proposals concluded that there would be no significant impact however plans are in place to protect the Barn Owl that currently uses the site by building a Wildlife Tower to the Barn Owl Trust’s specification.  He confirmed that the Applicants are happy to accept a planning condition securing the provision of a passing bay along Eldernell Lane to satisfy any concerns. He highlighted that following consultation, the majority of statutory consultees have now withdrawn their objections and provided assurance to local residents that the Applicants have no intention to use the dwellings as Holiday Lets. He asked members to acknowledge the steps taken to ensure compliance with conservation safeguards and development policies and highlighted that the officers recommendation is to approve the application.

Members asked Andrew Middleditch the following questions;

·         Councillor Connor asked for confirmation that the dwellings will not be used for Holiday Lets. Andrew Middleditch said that that was not the intention for the application and explained that his clients are not planning on developing the site themselves and said conditions could be attached to the planning permission in regards to Holiday Lets, as the Applicants intention was to apply just for residential use.   

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

·         Councillor Mrs Hay asked if the application requires planning permission purely for the small linked area that will be built and not conversion of the barns in general. David Rowen confirmed that the only reason the development requires planning permission is due to the small area being built to link the existing buildings together.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay said the current buildings on the site look an eyesore and said as long as the character is retained during conversion, the development would enhance the area. She asked if a condition could be added in regards to the potential drainage issue. David Rowen confirmed that there is a draft condition relating to a treatment plant and management regime for the site.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for confirmation on the potential sewage issue and highlighted that there are other developments locally that have had major issues with treatment plants on their development. She added that a condition should be added in relation to Holiday Lets and agreed with the concerns of local residents in relation to this. She explained that she understands residents and Whittlesey Town Councils concerns relating to the impact on the character and appearance of the site but said by restoring the buildings sympathetically, this would be better than new development in the area.

·         Councillor Sutton noted Councillor Mrs Laws concerns however Condition 10 of the proposed conditions does cover concerns relating to drainage. He said in his view, the barns are ripe for conversion and should be supported and whilst he takes on board concerns regarding the owls on site, provisions are in place to minimise this and the owls will simply relocate their nests. He stated his support for the application.

·         Councillor Connor asked if a condition could be added in relation to Holiday Lets. Nick Harding confirmed that a condition could be added however asked members to consider an appropriate reason why Holiday Lets should be refused on the site. He told members that they must consider the reason for refusing this and have strong enough evidence for this. He asked members to consider if the application was submitted as Holiday Lets, what  planning reasons they would have to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Newell noted that the report stated that the ’Newt Survey’ had taken place at the wrong time of the year and asked if this had been carried out again. David Rowen said comments had been received from ecological experts, Peterborough City Council, Natural England and RSPB and they were happy with the application subject to the conditions noted in the report.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for confirmation that a construction-traffic plan was in place for construction vehicles on the site during development. The Chairman suggested that the passing bay would need to be constructed prior to development starting on site to allow construction traffic to access the site without creating a danger for existing vehicles. He said the lane would benefit from two passing bays as oppose to the one proposed due to the number of residents already residing in the lane.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws said regarding the potential traffic to the site, we must be mindful to the existing residents in Eldernell Lane and highlighted the importance of a construction management plan and asked it to be considered that construction vehicles do not work unreasonable hours. She added that Holiday Lets would add a lot more traffic to the road and said members should be mindful of this.

·         Councillor Sutton highlighted that the lane is in a good enough condition presently to accommodate agricultural traffic and added that construction vehicles would only be on site for a short period of time.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and decided that the application be:

APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Mrs Laws asked after the vote if conditions could still be added to the planning permission in relation to Holiday Lets. It was confirmed that the proposal did not include the condition discussed and therefore this could not be added.

(Councillor Mrs Davis abstained from voting on this item)

(Councillor Connor and Mrs Davis declared that they know one of the speakers on this item, Roger Wilkin, but have not taken part in any discussion in relation to this application)

(The Chairman and Mrs Laws registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters, that they are members of Whittlesey Town Council but take no part in planning matters)

(The Chairman registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)