Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated along with additional representations which had been received and sent directly to members of the Planning Committee.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council who explained that she was also present to raise an objection on behalf of the community. Councillor Johnson expressed the view that retrospective planning applications are becoming more common place within businesses in Wimblington, with the error caused by Knowles Limited has cost the community and councils a lot of time and money. She added that she would also like to know whether Planning Officers have considered the installation of a weighbridge which has been added to the application is to be approved along with the retrospective application as it did not form part of the originally approved planning application.

Councillor Johnson stated that the committee is aware of the history regarding planning applications for the site along with the appeal with the Secretary of State which was granted including conditions. She added that Knowles Limited then went ahead and built something different than that represented to the Secretary of State and this error raised concerns with regards to road safety and flooding.

Councillor Johnson explained that the site is situated close to the boundaries of flood zones 2 and 3 and local residents are already experiencing problems with heavy flooding especially within the proximity of the Knowles Limited site. She made the point that she is sure that both the committee and officers are fully aware that there are two types of flooding, namely river and surface water.

Councillor Johnson stated that this flooding occurs when ground or drains cannot soak up and transport away rainwater meaning that a property can be at risk of flooding even when it is not near a river, with some Cambridgeshire locations known as wet spots and are prone to surface flooding. She explained that a flood zone is a planning term used for deciding where the development should go and what planning officers are frequently forgetting is to take into pluvial flooding which is now becoming more and more prevalent in and around Wimblington and the surrounding areas.

Councillor Johnson stated that the construction built in error and without consultation is not proportionate to the design granted by the Secretary of State and the drainage soakaway and runoff water from such a large impermeable surface is of great concern to close residents. She questioned whether the conditions put in place by the LLFA, and the Highway Authority are robust enough as, in her opinion, there are a number of them which are hard to implement since the work has already been completed.

Councillor Johnson questioned whether adequate measures have been taken to ensure that the draining soakaway and an attenuation pond have been installed to the correct specification. She explained that a local resident, Mr Jerry Smith, has already forwarded in depth reports to the committee highlighting the highway hazards and she explained that the new site entrance which is to be aligned with the new existing aperture is only metres away from the new A141 junction and traffic lights.

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that this is a busy junction for HGV vehicles and other traffic and this in itself is seen as dangerous, making the point that lorries slowing down to enter the site and slow lorries exiting the site at such a busy junction especially with already established businesses along the Manea Road which have heavy good vehicles raises more pressure on that junction. She expressed the view that Knowles Limited should be asked to correct the error and widen the canopy to allow for two vehicles to safely pass each other.

Councillor Johnson made the point that the Planning Officer has stated that the issues have been addressed and as such the application should be granted with a number of conditions attached but, in her view, the concerns are such that Knowles Limited has not respected the appealed planning application or conditions and she questioned how conditions can be monitored for the current application. She referred to condition 2 which states sole use for agricultural crop and storage and asked why there is a lorry parking area which is being used, with Mr Knowles advising the Parish Council that large articulated lorries would not be used at the application site but this, in her view, does not appear to be the case.

Councillor Johnson referred to condition 4 which states that hard standing within the site shall be constructed to include adequate drainage measures and she stated that hard standing from concrete has already been constructed and she questioned whether it has adequate drainage measures included. She expressed the view that conditions are there for a reason and the conditions need to be more robust and enforced strongly.

Councillor Johnson stated that Wimblington Parish Council and the community would ask the committee to seriously consider the application and conditions.

Members asked Councillor Johnson the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that Councillor Johnson had referred to a weighbridge and on the plan the weighbridge appears to be at the rear of the building. He asked Councillor Johnson to explain why she is objecting to the weighbridge?. Councillor Johnson stated that when a consultation exercise took place with Knowles Limited, they did not state that it was going to be used as a weighbridge establishment as well which will also mean that there will be more vehicles going in and out of the small narrow aperture. She added that it was not included in the planning application that went to appeal, and it has been added in retrospectively.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the junction and the vehicles leaving the A141, he travels the road everyday and is yet to see a lorry having to hold back to let another vehicle out of there because, in his view, if a lorry does come then there is enough room to take an articulated lorry off the highway and wait for any vehicles coming out. Councillor Johnson made the point that if you are exiting the A141 to turn down towards Manea and a lorry found it necessary to wait to get into the aperture due to another vehicle coming out then that could be considered as a hazard. She added that the distance from that actual junction to the entrance of the actual aperture is only 90 metres.

·         Councillor Marks asked Councillor Johnson whether she would agree that the turning into the potato store where a vehicle has to actually turn across the traffic having come off the A141 would cause more of a problem than anything that pulls straight into Knowles Limited? Councillor Johnson stated that would be the same as if something is pulling out of Knowles and going across the road and if the lights have changed at that time and people are coming around off the A141 then that will also cause an issue and, therefore, both aspects need to be looked at.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she has read the information provided with regards to the rainwater coming off of the roofs and she asked Councillor Johnson whether that is something that she has significant concerns over? Councillor Johnson stated that when considering surface water and run off water, when you look at the area previously it was made up of grass and mud but that has now been taken away which has removed a great deal of permeable area where run off would have gone or surface water would have drained. She added that there is now a large area of roof which does have some drainage, and it has been stated that there are some drainage runs in the concrete.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford and Jordan Trundle, the agents and Mr Knowles, the applicant. Mr Trundle stated that he has been responsible for the current application and the previous withdrawal and Section 73 application, with Chris Walford being involved during the 2017 application and the 2018 appeal which was approved and forms the basis of the application before the committee today. He explained that Mr Tony Knowles is the applicant and is present to answer any operational input questions that maybe required.

Mr Trundle thanked the Planning Officer for her work during the application process and stated that he fully agrees with the officer’s assessment and the recommendations put forward to the committee to approve the application.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked for the number of HGV which are likely to visit the site each day? Mr Knowles confirmed that the maximum figure would be 20 vehicles. Councillor Gerstner stated that the conditions have been listed in the officer’s report and he asked Mr Knowles to provide absolute certainty that all of the conditions will be met and adhered to. Mr Knowles confirmed that will be the case. Mr Trundle added that in relation to the surface waster drainage there is a condition for independent verification of the installation that the LLFA have put forward.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether there are dykes and ditches surrounding the area and if so, will they be taking any surface water? Mr Trundle explained that there is a discharge point at the bottom right-hand corner. He added that there will be two discharge surface water manholes at the top right of the existing store and then bottom right of the existing store and they will both have flow controls that the drainage strategy has set out which meets the same peak discharge rate which was approved under the original application and then that will discharge into the eastern corner alongside where the basin is into the existing network.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether any of the drainage comes under the actual drainage boards as she notes from the officer’s report a 5-metre strip is mentioned and the normal access strip for internal drainage boards is 9 metres. Mr Trundle explained that the discharge into the initial network is into riparian ownership and the IDB has stated that with regards to the existing network he has controlled and attenuated the discharge to the edge of the site. He added that in terms of the riparian ownership, a meeting had taken place with the LLFA in July which concluded the resolutions and for the other points to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Mr Trundle explained that he has made contact with the Middle Level Commissioners, however, he is yet to receive a response from them. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is disappointing to hear and added that she is concerned about whether the width of the maintenance strip for the drainage dyke is going to be wide enough. Mr Trundle stated that there will be enough easement and maintenance on both sides.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the weighbridge is part of the planning application? Mr Trundle confirmed that it is and is located on the plan in the middle of the site. He explained that the tracking shows the tipper units that are coming into the site so that the capacities within the grain store are known. Councillor Mrs French asked whether it was a commercial weighbridge? Mr Walford explained that it is not commercial and that a vehicle has to be checked when it leaves a site whether or not it is agricultural and whilst it may look to be a commercial enterprise a vehicle cannot go onto the road if it is over 44 tonnes.

·         Councillor Marks stated that previously when the weighbridge was not at the site then vehicles would need to travel a mile into the village to the other Knowles commercial site to use the weighbridge facility and if they were overweight then they would need to come back again which is not good for the environment.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there are any plans to install any further gates to the front of the site which would mean that lorries would have to wait on the road if the site were not open. Mr Trundle explained that in the consultation exercise that was undertaken after the TRO was approved in late October, there has been a condition added in relation to gates not to be within 20 metres of the highway.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the front hedgerow which had been shown on the presentation screen, there appeared to be what looked like trees being put along the front. He added that with regards to visibility is the hedge going to be kept at a low level or will it be left to grow higher. Mr Trundle explained that the landscaping has crossed over from the previous approved scheme and he added that there is the intention to maintain a lesser visual impact as possible to the roadside. He added that they will be fully maintained in order to prevent any visibility issues on the site, and they are planted far enough back to allow this to happen.

·         Councillor Marks stated that as you come round the corner when you come up to the T junction there is a sign to indicate 30mph. He added that there has been a discussion today to move the 50mph sign back and in his opinion, it is adequate, but he asked whether they are comfortable with that being moved back. Mr Trundle explained that they have no problem and added that it currently sits adjacent directly outside of the current application site, by moving it further to the east and it extends that 50mph zone before it goes to the national speed limit. He added that the Highways Officer has indicated that there will be some works required when the TRO works are undertaken around the 30mph sign on the bend to prevent any confusion between the speed limits.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification that there are no plans for the site to become anything else other than an agricultural store? Mr Knowles confirmed that is a separate side of the business and this is only for agricultural purposes. 

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that LP16 of the Local Plan requires development not to have an adverse impact on neighbouring users through various elements. She added that she has concerns over noise and she asked what mitigation measures will be put in place to negate the impact on neighbouring users? Mr Trundle stated that with regards to the previous consent which was in place there is a bund in the back part of the yard which is where most of the traffic would be in terms of manoeuvring in and out of the site. He added that landscaping provides some form of comfort although it is not a formal attenuation measure which will lessen any sort of impact from outside to residents. Mr Trundle explained that the palisade fencing is there for security impacts, and these are the mitigation measures that are in place and have been accepted by officers. Mr Walford explained that the previous consent had a compacted stone yard at the back whereas this one is hard standing and will, therefore, be quieter in terms of vehicle movements on the yard. He added that the back stop on the previous approval and historically when he first visited the site in the early 2000’s, it was a lorry depot and, therefore, this application is a lot better than it would or could have been if it had been left as the old former depot. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that the application is dealt with in its current form and not what was there historically.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether Knowles own the property to the roadside as you turn in? Mr Knowles confirmed that is his home. Councillor Marks stated that it is only one property which would be affected by noise as the other two are shielded from the building and any turning vehicles.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the distance between the site and the church is known due to concerns associated with flooding at the church. Mr Trundle stated that this information is not known.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for the distance between the site and the church? David Rowen stated that the distance is 101 metres from the site to the church. Councillor Mrs French added that it is quite a long way.

·         Councillor Benney stated that members have been made aware that this is a retrospective planning application and when he undertook his planning training, he was advised that a retrospective application is treated no differently to a full application and he asked officers for clarification. David Rowen stated that is correct and the legislation does not differentiate between a proposed application and a retrospective application. He added that a retrospective application has to be considered on its own individual planning merits.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the applicant’s character and business conduct has been raised today by the objector and he added that it is his understanding that the character of any applicant is totally irrelevant to the application and has no bearing on the application and it should only be judged on its planning grounds. David Rowen stated that the character of an applicant is not a material planning consideration.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that with regards to the planning conditions there have been instances where conditions have been added to applications and then they have not been adhered to and the local community appear to have concerns that the conditions are not going to be met and adhered to in a proper and correct fashion. David Rowen explained that officers would not be recommending conditions to the committee if they did not feel that they were robust conditions and enforceable and officers are content that the conditions that are recommended are reasonable, enforceable and lawful. He added that with regards to the possible breach of any conditions, the Council has a Planning Enforcement Team who investigate breaches of planning control including breaches of conditions and have a reactive service so that any reports of breaches can be investigated and dealt with accordingly. Councillor Connor confirmed that any planning breaches will be dealt with accordingly.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Knowles Transport are one of the largest employers in the area and, in her view, it would not be in the company’s best interest not to comply with any conditions.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the officer’s recommendation is to approve the application which, in his view, is a good solid application. He added that he has heard no evidence that supports anything to the contrary and the application needs to be approved.

·         Councillor Marks added that Knowles is a transport company and has to have an operator’s licence and good reputation at all times. He stated that he has never heard anything to the contrary to suggest they are not a good transport company. Councillor Marks added that he is mindful that he voted against the Woodbury application, however, in that case it meant vehicles would be turning across the traffic as opposed to vehicles turning in and then straight into the yard. He made the point that the potato store probably has more congestion than Knowles will ever have, and the applicant is moving the speed limit and making it better and he fully supports the application.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority be given to officers to apply suitable conditions.

(Councillors Connor, Marks, Sennitt Clough and Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they have been lobbied on this application)