EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIREDISTRICT COUNCILTHE GRANGE, NUTHOLT LANE,ELY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE CB7 4PLTelephone: Ely (01353) 665555 Direct Dialling: (01353) 668833

NOTICE OF MEETING: Planning CommitteeTIME: 2.00pmDATE: Wednesday 1 August 2001VENUE: Council Chamber, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, ElyCOMMITTEE OFFICER: Janis Murfet EXTENSION: 6282

Liberal Democrat Members Independent Members Labour MembersCouncillor John Abbott (Chairman) Councillor John Brooks Councillor Cyril HempsteadCouncillor Edward Twentyman (V-Ch) Councillor Cyril Durrant Councillor Graham StewardCouncillor James Coppola Councillor Sue KerridgeCouncillor Jeremy Friend-Smith Councillor John PalmerCouncillor Lionel Hart Councillor Eddie WoodbridgeCouncillor Valerie LeakeCouncillor Philip LewisCouncillor Fiona McKay-Rae

Lead Officer: David Archer QUORUM: 5 Members

AGENDA1. Minutes – 4 July 2001

2. Apologies

3. Change of Membership of the CommitteeMembers are asked to note that, with effect from 6th July 2001, there has been a change tothe Liberal Democrat group’s membership of the Planning Committee. Councillor FionaMcKay-Rae has replaced Councillor Martin Hancock.

MAIN CASES – ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION - PUBLIC

4. E/01/00163/FUL(NB) (3 - 7)Erection of two new buildingsAnglian Construction Forklifts Limited, Factory Road, BurwellApplicant: Anglian Construction Forklifts Limited

5. E/01/00573/GOV(RA) (8 - 11)Erection of a hutted Army Cadet Force HeadquartersBurwell Village College, The Causeway, BurwellApplicant: Reserves Forces & Cadets Association for England

6. E/01/00472/FUL(AM) (12 - 14)Erection of one no. four bedroom dwellingLand adjacent 4 Main Street, Wardy Hill, CoveneyApplicant: Lee Frankham

7. E/01/00569/FUL(NM) (15 - 19)Change of use to landscaped parkland area, footpaths and cyclewayconnecting hard landscaped area on Broad Street to Riverside areaFormer Jewson site, Broad Street, ElyApplicant: East Cambridgeshire District Council

8. E/01/00287/FUL(RA) (20 - 27)Removal of Conditions 4 & 5 attached to Planning PermissionRef. E/00/0901/F relating to power safety guidelines and monitoringTelecommunications Mast, Dane Hill Farm, Dane Hill Road, KennettApplicant: BT Cellnet

9. E/01/00467/FUL(AM) (28 - 31)Construction of fishing lakesThe Long Lot, Seventh Drove, Little DownhamApplicant: G T Taylor

10. E/01/00499/FUL(RA) (32 - 34)Conversion of garage and surgery to dwellingLand adjacent to 8 Church Lane, LittleportApplicant: Mr P A & Mrs J E Roberts

11. E/01/0085/F(RA) (35 - 37)Replacement pitched roof structure to form two first floor bedroomsand bathroom together with pitched roof over existing ground floorgarage and bathroom14 Strollers Way, StetchworthApplicant: Mr & Mrs D Nelson

12. E/01/00234/FUL(RA) (38 - 42)Partial change of use to restaurant (rear rooms only)46-48 High Street, SuttonApplicant: A Hai

13. E/01/00289/FUL(NB) (43 - 46)Replace existing bungalow with new house and replace existing garage8 The Row, SuttonApplicant: Mr J Darby

14. E/01/00471/FUL(AM) (47 - 49)Addition of workshop to existing double garage and turn roofthrough 90 degreesLand adjacent 47 Westley WaterlessApplicant: Mr D B Snow

15. E/01/00460/FUL(NM) (50 - 53)Proposed two storey side extension, rear conservatory and alterations2 Common Road, WitchfordApplicant: Mr Haddow

MAIN CASEAgenda Item No. 4

Proposal : Erection of two new buildings

Location : Factory Road, Burwell

Applicant : Anglian Construction Forklifts Ltd

Agent : K B Building Ltd

Reference No : E/01/00163/FUL

Case Officer : Nigel Brown

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

1.1 This application must be considered against this Council’s adopted policies regarding theexpansion of existing businesses in the open countryside. Other consideration include mattersof highway safety; the impact upon the landscape and the residential amenities of adjacentresidential properties.

1.2 Burwell Parish Council have raised concerns with respect of whether the applicant iscurrently complying with requirements of the existing planning permission on the site. Theyhave raised specific concerns with respect of the ability the existing mains sewerage to copewith this building.

1.3 It is considered that the proposal constitutes an acceptable expansion of an existing businessin the countryside. The infrastructure of the area including access and drainage is consideredadequate. The proposal would represent a minimal landscape impact. The application isrecommended for APPROVAL

1.4 A Members’ Site Visit has been arranged for 10.30 prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full planning application for the erection of two additional buildings for an exitingplant hire business at Factory Road, Burwell.

2.2 The proposed Building 1, would have a total area of 550 sq. metres, and would be used for therepair of plant machinery and fabrication work.

2.3 The proposed Building 2 would constitute an extension to the existing 636 sq. metres buildingon the site. This building would be used for the storage of machinery parts.

2.4 An existing parking area would be maintained to the front of the site. Access to the sitewould be directly onto Factory Road by way of the existing access.

3. THE APPLICANT’S CASE

3.1 No applicant’s case provided.

4. THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

4.1 The application site has an area of 1.974 hectares and is the applicant’s existing premises usedfor plant hire business. The site was previously established as land for the storage and hire ofcivil engineering equipment for which a Certificate of Lawfulness was approved in 1996. Thisestablished use extended to the whole land in this area.

4.2 In 1998, the applicant moved his premises from its existing location opposite to this currentsite occupying a part of the total established site.

4.3 The existing building on the site was an approved refurbishment of the original building onthe site.

4.4 The site accesses directly onto Factory Road, which is a single tracked road, linking this areaof Burwell Fen with North Street.

4.5 120 metres to the south-west of the site lie the group of residential properties known asBrickwork Cottages.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/0001/76/EUC, Workshop and plant yard, Refused, 12th May 1976.

E//96/0140/CL, Certificate of Lawfulness: Storage hire and repair of civil engineering plant,ancillary equipment and heavy transport, Approved 29th May 1996.

E/96/0942/F, Proposed new premises for sales repairs, workshop, offices and store.Withdrawn.

E/98/0061/F, Refurbishment/alterations to existing factory unit, A/C 15th April 1998.

6. REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Parish CouncilThe Council needs assurance that the original planning conditions especially relating toworking hours are being adhered to. If landscaping was part of the initial permission, has thisbeen completed. Questions raised as to whether sewage can cope with additional building.

6.2 CouncillorNo formal comments received.

6.3 Environment AgencyNo objection subject to conditions

6.4 Principal Environmental Health OfficerNo objection subject to conditions

6.5 Local Highways Authority

My concern about the use of Factory Road and more importantly the suitability of thehighway network approaching Factory Road to cater for the type and number of vehiclesassociated with commercial development is well documented.

Consideration should be given to the effect that an increasing number of commercial vehiclesis likely to have on North Street.

Improvement of the existing site access from Factory Road when considering the 1998application was not at the time felt appropriate. In view of the expansion of the works Istrongly recommend that if your Authority are mindful to approve this proposal, the accessfrom Factory Road needs to be improved.

Amended plan submitted indicating requested amendments. Further comments awaited fromLocal Highway Authority.

6.6 Swaffham Internal Drainage Board

We need further details to be able to assess this application:-

(1) Details of all impermeable areas proposed to include car parks etc.

(2) Details of the existing surface water system to which it is proposed to connect into, toa point of discharge to an open watercourse.

Details to be submitted.

6.7 County Archaeology Office

No archaeological investigation is considered necessary.

6.8 Local Residents

Letters of objection from New Fen Farm and 1,2,3,4,6,7 & 8 Brickwork Cottages, Factory Road:(i) Noise; (ii) traffic; (iii) stability of bridge at Dysons Drove, (iv) additional security lights;(v) development in open countryside; (vi) sewage.

7. THE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

7.1 The site lies outside of the development envelope of Burwell as defined within the EastCambridgeshire District Local Plan. The following plans from this plan are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1, 2, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 49, 58, 59, 60, 64, 115, 116, 117,118, 140, 141, 142 & 143 (Policies 1,2, 33-38, 43, 44, 47, 56-58, 62, 109-111 & 133-136 ofthe Draft for Deposit Local Plan 1997)

7.2 Policies SP1, SP5/2 and SP5/6 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant tothis application.

7.3 The proposal must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary PlanningGuidance covering car parking and the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines.

8. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG4 Industrial and Commercial DevelopmentPPG7 The Countryside, Environmental Quality and Economic and Social DevelopmentPPG13 TransportPPG16 Archaeology and PlanningPPG18 Enforcing Planning ControlPPG23 Planning and Pollution ControlPPG24 Planning and Noise

9. PLANNING COMMENTS

9.1 This application must be considered against this Council’s adopted policies regarding theexpansion of existing businesses in the open countryside. Other consideration include mattersof highway safety; the impact upon the landscape and the residential amenities of adjacentresidential properties.

9.2 The application site lies in the open countryside outside of the development envelope forBurwell. The enterprise moved to this site in 1998. The commercial use on this site wasestablished by way of a Certificate of Lawfulness for earth moving and civil engineeringwhich was approved in 1996. The application proposes the erection of an additional buildingand an extension to the existing building on site. As such, the proposal would constitute anexpansion of an existing business in the open countryside. Policy 143 of the adopted localplan considers the expansion of existing businesses in the countryside.

143 Proposals to expand existing businesses or business parks in or into opencountryside, or to redevelop such sites in the countryside for employment uses,will be considered favourably only in the following circumstances:

(i) the development will not adversely affect the character of thecountryside, or the setting of towns and villages; and

(ii) any intensification of use will not detract from the amenities of thesurrounding area.

9.3 The proposed expansion of this existing business in the countryside would be within theconfines of its existing premises. The whole site, including the proposed new build, fallswithin the defined and approved area of the Certificate of Lawfulness. As such, the principleof new build on this site is acceptable in policy terms subject to important proviso (i) and (ii)in Policy 143 of the adopted local plan.

9.4 The site currently has a defined area of 1.974 hectares and constitutes an existing refurbishedbuilding of similar size to the proposed building. Aside from a defined car park for thepremises the majority of the site is used for the stationing of the plant for hire. By definitionthe business of this enterprise includes the holding of a considerable amount of civilengineering equipment. The existing building and the parked plant are visible when viewingthe site from Wicken to the north. Also visible is the large factory building serving theDanisco enterprise on the southern side of Factory Road. As part of the 1998 planningpermission for the refurbishment of the existing building on the site the applicant wasrequired to carry out considerable landscaping. Although not yet done, this requirement forlandscaping would be reiterated and enforced for this additional development. As such, thelandscape setting of the site and the backdrop of the business opposite would result in animproved landscape setting of the site compared with the previous uncontrolled use of the sitefor the storage of earth moving/civil engineering machinery.

9.5 The existing building on this site is within 120 metres of the residential properties atBrickwork Cottages. The proposed additional building would be further from these properties(i.e. 160 metres). Concerns have been raised by the occupants of these properties that theadditional building would result in an increase in activities and would likely increase potentialnoise nuisance to these properties. The existing building is a refurbishment of an originalbuilding without any noise insulation. Apart from strict operating hours this existingbuilding’s use has been unable to be controlled. Notwithstanding this, no complaints withrespect of noise have been received. It is considered that an additional suitably controlledbuilding further from the residential properties would unlikely cause harm to the residentialamenities of these properties. Subject to specific conditions the Principal EnvironmentalHealth Officer has confirmed this view.

9.6 Concerns have been raised by residents with respect of the capacity of Factory Road and ofNorth Street within the Burwell Conservation Area to cope with the perceived increase oftraffic serving the additional building. It is considered that the additional building is forpurposes already being carried out on the site. Repairs and refurbishment of plant is currentlybeing carried on, outside of the existing building. There would therefore not be a significantincrease of traffic flow to the site. The Local Highway Authority have constantly whenconsidering commercial activity in this area questioned the capacity and quality of FactoryRoad. However, they have accepted the existing historic commitments in this area includingthe previous established use on this site. It is considered that this proposal constitutes an

expansion of an existing premises already located on this site, and as such, the substandardnature of Factory Road could not justify a sustainable refusal of this proposal.

9.7 The Local Highways Authority have requested clarification, confirmation and improvement tothe existing access onto Factory Road. This confirmation/clarification has been provided andthe means of access to the site is considered acceptable.

9.8 Burwell Parish Council has raised concerns over the ability of the existing drainage system tocope with the additional building. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to theproposal, subject to specific conditions. The Swaffham Internal Drainage Board haverequested clarification of certain drainage details. This clarification will be provided andmembers will be updated at the meeting and conditions attached as appropriate.

9.9 It is considered that the proposal constitutes and acceptable expansion of an existingenterprise in the open countryside in accordance with Policy 143 of the adopted Local Plan.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00163/F as amended by plansreceived 13.6.01 and … be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

S3 Full time limitM3 Specified materialsL1 Soft landscapingL3 Soft and hard implementationL5 Boundary treatmentE2 Background noise levelE4 Noise – machinery and plant – 8am – 8am – 6 pm – 6 pmE14 Waste disposalE12 Security/Floodlighting detailsH17 Gates – set backH7 Access road width (for a distance of) 7.5m – 20.0 mH9 Access RoadH19 Junction detailsD3 Surface and foul drainageS5 Compliance

BACKGROUND PAPERS

East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceApplication file 01/00163/FUL


Proposal : Erection of a hutted Army Cadet Force Headquarters building

Location : Burwell Village College, The Causeway, Burwell

Applicant : Reserve Forces & Cadets Association for East Anglia

Agent :

Reference No : E/01/00573/GOV

Case Officer : Rachel Almond


1.1 The main issues to consider in dealing with this application are impact on the residential amenities oflocal residents and impact on the primary school. Letters of objection have been received from localresidents raising concern about how the use may impact on them. Burwell Parish Council haveobjected to the application. Comments are awaited from the Council’s Executive Director(Environmental Services) pending additional information awaited from the applicant.

1.2 This is an application, which cannot be determined by the District Council as Local PlanningAuthority. It has been submitted under Circular 18/84, which deals with Crown Land and CrownDevelopment because the applicant forms part of the Ministry of Defence. The District Council hasbeen consulted for its views and the procedure requires the District Council to consult the ParishCouncil, local residents and other consultees as for normal planning applications.

1.3 Whilst additional information is still awaited, it is not possible to give a firm recommendation toMembers. A verbal update will be given to Planning Committee.

1.4 A site visit has been arranged for 10.50am prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 The proposal is for a prefabricated building for up to 50 cadets and adult staff.

2.2 Additional information has been requested from the applicant including a block plan, details aboutany external activities and whether the building would be used by other groups.


3.1 This notification is for the erection of a hutted Army Cadet Force Headquarters building to be usedon two nights each week by up to 50 male and female cadets and their adult Staff between the hoursof 1900 and 2200. There will be occasional weekend use. Car parking will be on the existingcollege car-park.

Details of the building and site location are shown on the attached plans. The Cadet Detachment hasparaded at the College until recently but is currently temporarily closed due to lack of facilities.

Note: - Because of security implication is not possible to agree to landscaping schemes or tree andshrub planting which deny occupants of the building from having a full uninterrupted view of

perimeter fences, or which provide terrorists with cover for intrusion or concealment of explosivedevices.


4.1 The site is a flat area of grass located adjacent to the path which leads from the school to the SportsHall and through to Buntings Path. Two of the boundaries of the site are formed by close-boardedfences, which form the boundary of residential properties on Silver Street.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 No planning history affecting the specific site.


6.1 Parish Council

This Council feels that the siting of the proposed building is to near to adjacent properties and resiting in a different position would be more suitable.

Concern was expressed that the prefabricated design of the building does not blend with the existingschool buildings which are in close proximity.

There does not appear to be any provision for disabled access to the building should this not be aconsideration.

6.2 Councillor Fitch

Has requested that the application be reported to Planning Committee.

Councillor Durrant:

In my opinion this will be situated in the wrong position. Too near the school and adjoiningproperties in Silver Street. A building for the purposes stated is likely to contain inflammable andeven explosive material. Request referral to committee.

Councillor Brooks:

There is some local concern about this and the village college itself is in some confusion. This is anapplication for the future in case circumstances change. It would perhaps be best dealt with byCommittee and thoroughly thrashed out.

6.3 Local Residents

Letters of objection received from 8, 10 and 14 Silver Street, 28 Buntings Path and BurwellCommunity Sports centre association regarding the following concerns:

1. Poor quality building2. too close to residential boundaries3. overlooking will occur as building is raised4. noise and general disturbance5. devalue properties6. application should have been advertised7. site will not be available for other groups but if it was it would cause more disturbance8. concern about arms chest and implications of misuse

9. main hall does not look big enough to house up to 50 cadets10. possible light pollution.11. Car parking congestion12. Disturbance during construction13. Concerns over right of access14. Existing activities at the school and sports hall cause disruption15. Loss of light16. Other sites are more suitable17. Not an appropriate use near a primary school18. Site may be needed for school extensions19. Building may be vandalised

6.4 Executive Director (Environmental Services):

Comments awaited pending additional details.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Burwell and forms part of the Burwell VillageCollege site. The following policies contained in the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan Draft forDeposit 1997, as amended are considered to be relevant:

1, 2, 28, 33, 43, 47, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 102, 105, 148

7.2 Policies SP12/10 and SP13/1 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant.


8.1 PPG1 – General Policy and PrinciplesPPG13 – TransportPPG17 – Sport and RecreationPPG24 – Planning and Noise

8.2 Circular 18/84 – Crown Land and Crown Development


9.1 Policy 28 of the Local Plan states that development which would adversely affect residential amenitywould normally be refused in areas that are primarily residential in character but that where aproposal serves a wider community benefit, then the Council will balance the needs of thecommunity against the loss of amenity when reaching its decision. Several letters of objection havebeen received from local residents raising concerns about how this development will impact on theiramenities. These concerns have been echoed by the Parish Council and local District Councillors.Additional information is awaited from the applicant and comments are awaited from the ExecutiveDirector (Environmental Services) pending this additional information. However, it is the case thatthe proposed building would be located very close to existing residential properties and their gardensand the affect of the development in terms of residential amenity will need to be considered verycarefully. Clearly, the advice of the Executive Director (Environmental Services) will be importantin determining the likely impact on residential amenity.

9.2 Concern has also been raised about the safety implications of such a building in close proximity tothe primary school. It is not considered that objections could be raised on this basis and it isconsidered that the County Council as landowners of the whole site are best placed to consider anysafety implications in this regard.

9.3 It is also important to consider how the proposed development would impact on highway safety andcar parking. Whilst the application does not fall within the category of proposals to be considered byCambridgeshire County Council as Local Highways Authority, the Local Highways Authority hasconfirmed that they would not raise an objection to the proposals. It is also considered that theexisting car parking facilities at the college are adequate to cater for this development.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 A verbal update will be given to Members at Planning Committee.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00573/GOVEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Erection of 1 No. 4 bedroom dwelling

Location : Land Adjacent 4 Main Street, Wardy Hill

Applicant : Lee Frankham

Agent : Tony Walton Design


Case Officer : Andrea Mayley


1.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application is planning policy,residential amenity and Parish Council comments. Coveney Parish Council comment that thedwelling should be constructed from brick not feather edged board and consider that the dimensions ofthe plot are incorrect. The dwelling has been deliberately designed to appear as a converted barn,which is considered appropriate in this rural village and the applicant wishes to construct his dwellingusing wood rather than brick. Concern has been raised that the residential amenity of the adjoiningdwelling would be adversely affected by this dwelling, and therefore additional plans have beenrequested to illustrate the position of the dwelling on the site in relation to the adjoining dwellings andtheir windows to illustrate that any impact would be marginal.

1.2 It is considered that this application represents an acceptable means of developing this site. Thisapplication is recommended for APPROVAL.

1.3 A Member site visit has been arranged for 12.20pm prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application for the erection of a four bedroom dwelling on land between numbers 4 and6a Main Street in Wardy Hill. The dwelling takes the form of a barn/outbuilding that has beenconverted and has a cart shed style car port at the front of the site enabling two cars to park. Thedwelling is set back from the road to enable additional planting to be accommodated, to accommodatemore parking and turning, to minimise the impact on adjoining properties and to ensure the buildingdoes not appear over-large in the street scene.


3.1 No case has been submitted at this stage. 4. THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

4.1 The site takes access from Main Street in Wardy Hill. It is adjacent to a traditional brick builtfarmhouse - number 4 Main Street. The site extends for approximately 55 metres north of MainStreet, and has a width of approximately 13 metres. A relatively new dwelling is located to the westof this site, on a similar sized plot. The eastern boundary of the site comprises a drain that runs thelength of the site, adjacent to the side walls of number 4 and the associated outbuildings that run alongthis boundary.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 Outline planning consent was granted for one dwelling on this site under E/00/0244/O last year.Subsequently a full application was submitted earlier this year for the erection of a four-bedroomhouse and double garage. This application has not been determined at this stage.


6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council comments are as follows,1. To be in keeping with the surrounding properties, brick structure is the only acceptable building

material.2. The dimensions of the plot do not show a true representation of the area concerned.3. On the positive side, the positioning of the layout for the proposed property is more acceptable.

6.2 Councillor

No comments received.

6.3 Local Residents

Two letters of objection have been received from 4 and 6a Main Street raising the following concerns,1. House is out of character with the surrounding houses due to featherboard cladding.2. Sunlight will be lost.3. Plot of land is not very wide, putting a dwelling there will crowd the area.4. Wardy Hill is a rural village and does not need to be subjected to dense housing.5. This dwelling is an improvement over the first plan in that it is one metre away from the

boundary.6. The garage will block light to one of my rooms - the whole dwelling should be moved back two

metres.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope as defined by the approved East Cambridgeshire LocalPlan 2000. The following policies contained within the adopted Plan are relevant:1, 2, 21, 22, 23, 33, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64

7.2 The following policies contained in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant to theconsideration of this application:SP12/10

7.3 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines, CarParking Standards and Residential Design are relevant to the consideration of the application.


8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG13 Transport


9.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application are planning policy,residential amenity and Parish Council comments.

9.2 Wardy Hill has been designated as an infill only settlement in the local plan. This site is locatedwithin the development envelope and it is considered that the development of the site accords with thedefinition of infill. The principle of development on this site was established with the approval of theoutline application last year (E/00/0244/O).

9.3 Concern has been raised by the occupiers of both neighbouring properties regarding loss of light. Anadditional plan has been requested to precisely show where this dwelling will be located in relation toadjoining dwellings and windows. It is considered that the dwelling has been well positioned on thesite to minimise any interference with the adjoining dwellings in this regard. Although the end of thedwelling extends slightly further north than the adjoining dwelling, it is not considered that theshadow cast will significantly affect the light to this property such that the dwelling should be refused.Further, the ground floor window located in the side of number 4 Main Street could be obscured bythe erection of a two-metre fence, and therefore it is not considered that the loss of daylight to thisroom is made worse by the proposal.

9.4 The Parish Council has raised concern about the use of feather edged boarding for the externalappearance of this dwelling. The preference is for the dwelling to be constructed from brick. It is notconsidered that the use of this material adversely affects the character of the street scene or the area,and therefore it is not considered possible to refuse the application on this ground. It is consideredthat the dwelling will make a very positive contribution to the street scene by adding a rural stylebuilding into an essentially rural village. Further, the siting of the dwelling on the plot will enableadditional planting which will help soften what would be quite a hard edge of development on thisside of the road.

9.5 In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal represents an acceptable means of developing thisnarrow site, without adversely affecting the residential amenity of the adjoining properties to anunacceptable degree, and positively contributing to the character of the street scene.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application E/01/00472/FUL should be APPROVED subject to thefollowing conditions:

1. Full (S3)2. Details of Materials (M2)3. Parking and turning (3) (H10a)4. Pedestrian visibility (H14)5. Gates set back (5.0) (H17)6. Soft landscaping scheme (L1)7. Landscaping Implementation (L3)8. Construction works (noise level/time) (E7)9. No conversion of garage (R19)10. No additional windows (any) (R21)11. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERSApplication file E/01/00472/FULEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Change of use to landscaped parkland area, footpaths & cycleway connecting hardlandscaped area on Broad Street to riverside area.

Location : Former Jewson Site, Broad Street, Ely

Applicant : East Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent : Gillespies

Reference No : E/01/00569/F

Case Officer : Nigel McCurdy


1.1 The main issues to be considered in the determination of this full change of use application are:

• The impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area• The appropriateness of the soft and hard landscaping proposals and usability of the site• The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties• Whether the proposals successfully overcome the previous reasons for refusal of parkland in

1999.

1.2 The application proposes the effective reuse of a derelict brownfield site within the Broad StreetConservation Area, which would significantly enhance the character and amenity of the area andprovide an important recreational linkage from this part of the city through from the riverside to BroadStreet and Cherry Hill Park. English Heritage and the Conservation Officer have supported theproposals and the resultant positive impact on the Conservation Area. The Executive Direct(Environmental Services) and the Landscape Officer have confirmed that the uses and layout would beappropriate and not harm amenity of neighbouring property. The Executive Director (CommunityServices) has confirmed that the park would positively enhance the tourism facilities in the City andshould contribute to the aim of achieving longer visitor stays. Ely City Council has objected to theproposal in terms of the cycleway, which it feels would encourage cyclists onto the riversidepedestrian area. The proposed hard and soft landscaping and overall layout successfully overcomes aprevious refusal of consent for a park on the site that failed to demonstrate that the scheme wouldprotect and enhance the Conservation Area. The application is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application seeking deemed consent for a public park and associated hard and softlandscaping. A fully specified landscaping layout accompanies the application, includingrecontouring, turved areas, wildflower areas, shrub and tree planting and timber/steel benching. Aseparate bound gravel pathway and a joint pathway/cycleway would meander through the site, withjoint entrances/exits at Broad Street and the riverside. A semi-formal entrance would be created on theBroad Street frontage incorporating paved, gravelled and lawned areas, steel bollarding and seating,with an aerial pleached hedge partly screening and funnelling users into the park.


3.1 No supporting case has been submitted.


4.1 The site comprises the majority of the former Jewson commercial site and extends to some 1 hectare,falling between Broad Street to the west and the riverside (Pegasus Walk) to the east. All commercialbuildings on the site were demolished in 1996 and the site has been levelled following extensivearchaeological investigations in 2000. The Maltings complex and a range of residential properties abutthe site along the northern boundary, and residential properties along Jubilee Terrace and Jubilee Quaylie to the south.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/96/0558/CAC Total demolition – Jewson Limited – Approved 7/10/96

5.2 E/98/0713/O Residential development access road framework and Public Open Space – Approved18/3/99

5.3 E/98/0959/F Creation of green open parkland – Refused 23/2/99 due to detrimental impact on theConservation Area and failure to make best use of derelict brownfield site.


6.1 Ely City Council

Refusal recommended as the proposed cycleway is not approved. It is considered undesirable toencourage cyclists onto the Riverside, which is a pedestrian area.

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Local Residents

Letters of concern from 80 Broad Street and 17 Jubilee Quay:

• Presentation is of utmost importance - will require proper regular maintenance, particularly grasscutting and litter removal, if is to provide attractive facility for locals and tourists

• Plan looks very attractive but may lead to problems of noise nuisance, leaf litter and safety ascreates access to rear garden areas.

6.4 English Heritage

Thank you for referring this application to English Heritage. I write further to the previous commentson previous applications on this site.

This site is located in a sensitive part of the conservation area of Ely, in a location where a link couldbe formed from the river towards Broad Street. The sites have been vacated from their previous use asbuilders’ yards.

The proposed parkland use would appear to introduce an appropriate innovative character. The newproposals should reinforce the existing historic character.

The character of the promenade beside the river and Broad Street are important to this part of the ElyConservation Area. On Broad Street there are a number of buildings, which are of significance not

only as historic buildings but also as the remains of a historic street. The proposed parkland should becarefully detailed to be cohesive with these historic elements.

In conclusion, I have no further objections to the approval of this application.

6.5 Conservation Officer

The proposals are generally well considered and follow previous informal discussions. The schemeshould enhance the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of the various adjacent listedbuildings, and well as linking the Broad Street Conservation Area to the river. The proposals need toaddress and resolve the existing less than pleasing fencing surrounding the Maltings. The riversideboundary requires definition, ideally with appropriate tree planting, and the Broad Street frontagerequires a strong visual statement to create a focus – a specimen tree as focal point.

6.6 Executive Director (Community Services)

The proposed park will have a positive impact on the tourist experience in Ely, enabling us tocomplete a circular trail taking in the Cathedral, Cromwells House, the retail centre & Museum theriverside & some of Elys most interesting historical buildings. This will help in achieving our aim ofkeeping visitors in the town longer, & hence securing a higher level of expenditure per visitor.

6.7 Landscape Officer

The landscape scheme shows a high level of design consideration, particularly the relationshipbetween the sweeping paths across the open area and the more compact, formal entrance from BroadStreet.

The following comments are minor but may be able to be incorporated to improve the scheme for thepurpose of maintenance:

! Footpath provision/landscape layout should be adequate to prevent members of the publiccreating worn paths on the soft landscaped areas, particularly from The Maltings side of theriverside area.

! I would prefer the use of an alternative type of bench to match those existing at the riverside.This would help to unify the new and existing landscapes and help to simplify ongoingmaintenance. The suppliers for the existing benches are CU Phosco Ltd. Tel: (01920)860600.

! The raised area near to the riverside does not show the proposed contours correctly. Theseshould not cross over. Sloped areas should be at an even and shallow gradient to allow thesafe use of grass cutting machinery. Park access should be possible for ride on grass cuttingmachinery.

! The design of the screen areas at the front of residential windows has caused enquiries to thisoffice. Resident's privacy should be preserved as much as possible and at the same timeheavy shading by shrubbery should not occur to windows. It would be helpful if the shrubspecies selected can be managed by cutting down to ground level if the need arises.

! I would prefer the planting mix to have a larger proportion of native trees and shrubs for thepurpose of bio-diversity.

6.8 Executive Director (Environmental Services)

I have gone through the remediation statement prepared by Amtech with regard to the above site.

The capping and dig and dump methods employed on the site at the locations specified in thestatement and preceding reports relating to Broad Street would appear to be adequate to enable the siteto be used as parkland.

However care will still need to be exercised during the planting and maintenance regimes to ensure thecapping measures employed are not compromised.

Should the land use change from parkland then the site will need to be reassessed, especially if thenew use were to be domestic homes.

Additionally I am waiting to hear back from Mr Whitehead on the monitoring proposals put forwardin earlier reports relating to the site to assess if the clean up work altered the local hydrogeologicalpattern.

6.9 CABE:

Thank you for consulting the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) aboutthis proposal.

CABE is consulted about more projects than we have the resources to deal with and, unfortunately, wewill not be able to offer any comments on this proposal.


7.1 The following policies of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are relevant to the determination ofthis application:

Policies SP1, SP12/10, SP12/11, SP12/12, SP12/14 and SP13/1

7.2 The following policies of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 are relevant to thedetermination of this application:

Policies 1, 2, 34, 43, 44, 45, 58. 59, 63, 67, 68, 69, 77, 79, 126 and 127.


8.1 The following central government guidance and advice is relevant to the determination of thisapplication:PPG1 General Policies and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG13 TransportPPG15 Planning and the Historic EnvironmentPPG16 Archaeology and PlanningPP21 TourismPPG23 Planning and Pollution ControlPPG24 Planning and Noise


9.1 The main issues to be considered in the determination of this full change of use application are:• The impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area• The appropriateness of the soft and hard landscaping proposals and usability of the site• The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties• Whether the proposals successfully overcome the previous reasons for refusal of parkland in

1999.

9.2 The Conservation Officer has confirmed that the proposal will positively enhance both theConservation Area itself and the setting of a number of adjacent listed buildings, and English Heritagealso supports the application. The Broad Street frontage would be relatively formal with tree planting,paving and a pleached hedge helping focus pedestrian access to the park and retaining the enclosedcharacter of the street scene. Points of detail have been raised on boundary treatments and these arebeing pursued. The Executive Director (Community Services) has also commented on the application,stating that the park would be an important element in increasing the attractiveness of Ely to touristsand establishing a circular trail of attractions, encouraging longer stays and thereby increased tourismrevenues.

9.3 The Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposals and supports the overall layout and design conceptsfor the park. Again, a number of minor points of detail have been raised and are being pursued. Thepark would include both open grassed areas for general informal use, together with wildflower areasand more formal planted areas with bench seating. Consequently, the site would provide a mix ofspaces attractive to a range of users. The Executive Director (Environmental Services) has not raisedany concerns regarding potential conflict between public use of the park and the amenities ofsurrounding residential properties, and remediation of the sites previous commercial activities hasbeen satisfactorily resolved.

9.4 Planning Committee refused a previous scheme for parkland, which lacked any detail in theapplication, in February 1999 as failing to enhance the Conservation Area and not making best use ofa brownfield site. The current proposals, with fully detailed layout, planting and furniture detailsclearly demonstrate that the park would be an asset to the City and positively enhance the character ofthe Conservation Area. Use as a public park is not irreversible and consequently the second previousrefusal reason is also addressed.

9.5 Ely City Council has objected to the proposal due to the inclusion of a cycleway trough the scheme,which it feels would encourage cyclists onto the pedestrian riverside area. It is this case that theplanned cycleway is a joint pathway/cycleway and is not intended to be delineated or designed tohighway standards as a separate cycleway. In planning this new development, it would be short-sighted not to secure a layout that allowed for future improved cycle provision. Pegasus Walk remainspedestrian and enforcement of such regulations is not a matter for the planning process. TheExecutive Director (Community Services) has not raised any concerns regarding potential conflict.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/00569/F, and amended by letter & plans received ….. beAPPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. Full Time Limit – S32. Soft & Hard landscape Implementation – L33. No development shall commence until full details, including samples, of all hard landscaping

surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and all worksshall be carried out in strict accordance with such approved details thereafter. Reason: Tosafeguard the character of the area and help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

4. Compliance – S5

BACKGROUND PAPERSApplication and related history filesEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Removal of conditions 4 and 5 attached to planning permission referenceE/00/0901/F relating to power safety guidelines and monitoring

Location : Telecommunications mast, Dane Hill Farm, Dane Hill Road, Kennett

Applicant : BT Cellnet,

Agent : Crown Castle International




1.1 The main issue to consider when dealing with this application is whether conditions 4 and 5 ofplanning permission reference E/00/0901/F meet the tests for conditions laid down in Circular 11/95.Kennett Parish Council has objected to the removal of these conditions. After careful consideration ofthe tests laid down in Circular 11/95 it is considered that the conditions should be removed from theconsent and the application is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an application for full planning permission to remove conditions 4 and 5 of the planningpermission granted last year for a 25 metre telecommunications mast and equipment.

2.2 The conditions read as follows:

4. The radio – frequency fields emitted from this installation shall not exceed ICNIRPguidelines.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

5. The telecommunication operator shall submit details of post installation monitoring of powerlevels from the installation at 6 monthly intervals to the Local Planning Authority for itswritten approval.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.


3.1 In determining this application we should be grateful if you could take the following matters intoaccount.

3.2 Health and Safety and Planning Control

Condition 4 and 5 attached to the planning permission relates to health and safety, which is regulatedunder separate legislation. Insofar as health and safety is a material planning consideration the extentof the an authorities interest has been clarified in the letter from Nick Raynsford (Minister forPlanning) sent on 30 June 2000 to all Council leader in England. This followed the report of the

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the IEGMP). Paragraph 8 of this letter statesunambiguously

“…….It is our view that, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines (asrecommended by Stewart on a precautionary basis), it should not be necessary for a planningauthority, in processing an application, to consider the health effects further ….”

As you will see from the enclosed information relating to health and safety, the proposed upgrade ofthe existing installation will clearly comply with the relevant ICNIRP guidelines.

In the letter from the Minister clarification was also given that notwithstanding the now ongoingrevision of PPG8, local planning authorities should continue to deal with planning applications on thebasis of current legislative arrangements and policy guidance.

The current legislative arrangements maintain the clear principle of non duplication between planningand other regulatory controls, in this case health and safety legislation. Hence, the longstandingadvice which originally appeared in Circular 16/85 – Telecommunications Development and which isnow found in paragraph 37 of PPG8 – Telecommunications that:

“Radiation safety is a matter for the health and Safety Executive.”

The Minister also goes on to indicate that the recommendations of the IEGMP do not mean thatindividual local authorities should introduce their own precautionary policies for determiningapplications for mobile phone base stations as that would be a recipe for confusion ad uncertainty.

It is abundantly clear therefore that as a matter of law and policy, radiation safety is not a matterwhich falls within the control of the planning system or can be reasonably interpreted to do so. Assuch, Condition 5 is in clear conflict with the guidance set out in Circular 11-95 – The Use ofConditions in Planning Permissions. We expand upon this further below.

3.3 The Six Tests

Paragraph 14 of Circular 11-95 clearly states that as a matter of policy, conditions should only beimposed where they satisfy all six tests set out and with which you will be familiar. Condition 5 is infundamental conflict with at least three of the tests identified in that it is unnecessary, not relevant toplanning and is unreasonable in every respect. To clarify this point beyond doubt, we elaborate onwhy it is in conflict with the first 3 tests referred to.

i) Is it Necessary?

The reason given for imposing the condition is in the interest of residential amenity. As explainedabove, issues relating to health and safety are not the responsibility of the local planning authoritybeing a matter regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the recommendations of theIEGMP independent random auditing will be carried out on behalf of the HSE by theRadiocommunications Agency. For information the NRPB has recently published a report(NRPBR321) this includes a random audit of 17 mobile phone base stations and formed part of itsevidence to the IEGMP. This audit showed the highest measured public exposure was one fivehundredth of international guidelines, while typical average exposures were on fifty thousands of theguidelines.

The Radiocommunications Agency has now published on its web site the first results of the randomaudit carried out and this is enclosed. Again you will note that all the recorded exposure levels arewell within ICNIRP guidelines.

Thus, in view of the separate safeguards already in place under the remit of the Health and SafetyExecutive Condition 4 and 5 are unnecessary.

3.4 ii) Is it Relevant to Planning?

Having regard to the separate legislative regime identified above, the simple answer to this is no.Paragraph 22 of Circular 11-95 clearly indicates that a condition which duplicates the effect of othercontrols will normally be unnecessary. An example is given relating to pollution control, thegenerality of which is very similar to radiation safety controls. The advice does acknowledge that acondition may be needed to address the impact of emissions in the example given, but only to theextent they might have land use implications which are not controlled by the appropriate pollutioncontrol authority. Taking this analogous example, Condition 4 and 5 is not required to address suchmatters, but merely seeks to duplicate the existing health and safety controls.

Taking further the analogous guidance relating to pollution control, we refer you to the advice inPPG23 – Planning and Pollution Control. The guidance found at paragraph 1.3 is of generalapplication to this case, where is also states that the planning system should not be operated so as toduplicate controls which are the statutory responsibility of other bodies (including local authorities intheir non planning functions). Radiation safety is not the responsibility of your Council in any of itsfunctions and Condition 4 and 5 evidently seek to duplicate the controls which are the statutoryresponsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.

3.5 iii) Is it Reasonable in all other Respects?

As Condition 4 and 5 demonstrably fails the above two tests, it is manifestly unreasonable and thereare no other factors which apply to make its imposition reasonable in any other respect.

Thus, with reference to paragraph 6 of Circular 11-95, Conditions 4 and 5 are clearly inconsistent withnational planning policy. In addition, we note that it also fails to accord with the East CambridgeshireDistrict Local Plan adopted June 2000. This statutory document does not contain any policy tosupport its imposition.

In our extensive experience of telecommunications development, health and safety has been identifiedas an issue in numerous planning applications and appeals. By way of example, you will see from theenclosed appeal decisions that although health and safety was a key issue in both cases, no conditionssuch as Conditions 4 and 5 were imposed in allowing these appeals both following a public inquiry.This is typical of every case we are aware of since before and after the report of the IEGMP and wecan provide numerous other examples on request.

3.6 Further to the recent telephone conversation between your Ms Almond and our Mr Virtue, we enclosean appeal decision for Southbourne Water Tower, Seafield Road, Bournemouth dated 21 September2000.

Paragraph 42 of this decision relates to a draft health and safety condition suggested by BournemouthCouncil to be attached to the grant of planning permission. However, the Inspector clearly addressesthis point stating:

“Draft PPG8 at paragraph 74 states that it is not for the local planning authority to seek toreplicate through the planning system controls under the health and safety regime. If, oncea mast is in operation, there is evidence that an operator is not meeting their statutoryresponsibilities, HSE may investigate and, if necessary, require action to be taken. In thelight of this and paragraph 22 of the Circular 11-95, I do not consider it necessary toimpose conditions to control and monitor the emissions from the proposedtelecommunications equipment”.

The Inspector understood that a condition of this nature would duplicate the separate controls of theestablished health and safety regime, and so did not consider it necessary or proper to impose such acondition on the planning permission.

To avoid the predicament, where to resolve this situation an ‘unnecessary’ appeal against the non-determination of our application in full is the final and only solution. We respectfully request that ourapplication be determined positively at the next available Committee.


4.1 The site is located to the north of a group of farm buildings known as Dane Hill Farm. The olderbuildings have consent for conversion to 7 residential units and beyond them is a farmhouse. To thenorth of the mast runs the B1085 Chippenham to Kennett road and a small group of cottages lies onthe opposite side of this road.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/00/0901/F – Replacement of existing 22.5 metre tower to create a 25 metre tower to accommodateBT Cellnet equipment – 14/12/00

5.2 E/96/0771.F – Erection of a 22.5 metre lattice tower to provide a base station – A/C 9/1/97


6.1 Parish Council

Cannot condone the removal of conditions 4 and 5

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Local Residents

Letter received on behalf of owner of farm buildings with consent for conversion raising concernabout the saleability of the units in relation to perceived health risks. Health and Safety Executiveshould be consulted to ensure that equipment complies with ICNIRP guidelines.

6.4 Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services):

Essentially the applicant is relying upon PPG 8 that radiation safety is a matter for the Health andSafety Executive (HSE) not a Planning Authority. There is a policy of non-duplication of controls andas such the Planning Authority should not consider radiation safety.

The use of conditions in planning permissions

Is it necessary?

DETR Consultation paper 31st July 2000. The local planning authority cannot use the planning systemto replicate controls under the health and safety regime. Enforcement of health and safety legislationis a matter for the HSE not the local planning authority. If a proposed development meets the ICNIRPguidelines it should not be necessary for an authority, in processing an application to consider healtheffects further.The conditions were imposed in the interests of public amenity, but radiation is outside the ambit ofthe planning authority as the mast falls within ICNIRP guidelines, therefore conditions 4 is

unnecessary. However regarding condition 5 the HSE are not responsible for regulating whether theguidelines are complied with and condition 5 is necessary.

Is it relevant to planning?

Condition 4, No as duplicates health and safety controls PPG23 Planning and Pollution Control – byanalogy, states planning system shouldn’t be used to duplicate controls which are statutoryresponsibilities of other bodies ie HSE regarding radiation output. However this is a guideline only.Regarding condition 5 there is no statutory duty on the HSE to monitor the emissions and it is relevantin the interests of health and safety.

Is it reasonable in other respects?

In light of the above, no. The Local Plan adopted June 2000 does not contain policy to support theimposition of condition 4.

Regarding condition 5 this is a reasonable condition as it will ensure that any risk is effectivelymanaged. With the development of third generation technology (3G) the government is keen toencourage the shared use of mast sites. Consequently it is possible that in the future the present outputmay be increased, or additional masts placed at the location. There are presently no provisions to forthe HSE to monitor and confirm that the ICNIRP guidelines are being met, although all providers haveagreed to comply with the guidelines. Considering that the output may change in the future, it wouldbe prudent for the radio frequency fields to be monitored, in the event the emissions exceeded theguidelines the matter could be referred to the HSE for enforcement action.

Health and safety

Public Amenity – Perception of risk

Guidance in Circular 8/93 states that “while Planning authorities are expected to consider the views oflocal residents when determining a planning application, local opposition is not by itself a reasonableground for refusal of a planning application, unless opposition is founded on valid planning reasonswhich are supported by substantial evidence”. There are no planning reasons to impose theconditions, and no evidence regarding safety concerns.

Compliance with the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation Protection)Guidelines

The guidelines require a safety exclusion zone to prevent unauthorised or inadvertent access into areaswhere radio frequency emissions might be in excess of the guideline thresholds. The exclusion zonegenerally ranges from 2.5 metres to a maximum of 8.5 metres from the face of the antennas. In allarea accessible to the public the equipment on existing Crown Castle installations appears to complywith the guidelines.

Land at Winter Hall Farm – Appeal Decision 2nd August 2000

Where a proposed development meets guidelines set by the ICNIRP it should not be necessary for aplanning authority, in processing an application to consider the health effects further. PPG8 paragraph37 points out that radiation safety is a matter for the HSE.

Conclusion

In light of the above representations made by the applicant it would appear that we will havedifficulties in the validity of conditions 4, however condition 5 may be a matter that it is reasonable toimpose.

My original advice stands regarding condition 4 and is enforced by Nick Raynsford the PlanningMinister who stated that local planning authorities should not consider health aspects if the applicationmeets the guidelines of the ICNIRP Board. All operators have agreed that planning applications fornew development will be accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Regarding condition 5 and the submission of details of post installation monitoring of radiation, thereare no specific legal provisions covering non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (NIEMR). Control ofexposure is governed by the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and theManagement of the Health and Safety at Work regulations 1992. HSE expects employers to preventadverse health effects by complying with NRPB guidelines.

The Radio communications Agency is undertaking an audit programme of mobile phone base stations,the current focus of the audit is base stations on school sites. All results (currently 11) have beenmany hundreds of times below the ICNIRP guidelines. There is no an audit of other base stations.

The Steward Group recommended that an independent random ongoing audit of all base stations becarried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded. This had not yet occurred, the HSE donot audit the base stations, and the RA are concentrating on base stations within school sites. Themobile phone operators have agreed to a “10 commandments” best practice guide which states theyshould “assess all radio base stations for ICNIRP compliance or public exposure, and produce aprogramme for ICNIRP compliance for all radio base stations as recommended by the IndependentExpert Group on Mobile Phones”.

Consequently, taking these factors into account it would appear that Condition 5 is in compliance withthe recommendation of the Stewart Group, and the industry’s own best practice guide.


7.1 Policy 112 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 is relevant to the consideration of thisapplication. It states:

In determining whether approval of siting and appearance is required for telecommunicationsinstallations, or when considering planning applications from licensed telecommunications operators,the Council will need to be satisfied that:-

(i) the siting and external appearance of apparatus, including any location or landscapingrequirements, have been designed to minimise, as far as its technically feasible, theimpact of such apparatus upon amenity;

(ii) antennae have, so far as is practicable, been sites so as to minimise their effect on theexternal appearance of the building on which they area installed;

(iii) the applicants have shown evidence that they have fully explored the possibility oferecting their antennae on an existing building, mast or other structure. In particulartelecommunications operators will be urged to co-ordinate their requirements for theDistrict and carry out early consultations with the Council on specific sites whichwould meet their operational requirements; and

(iv) applicants have considered the need to include additional structural capacity to takeaccount of the growing demands for network development including that of otheroperators.

Proposals that adversely affect Parks or Gardens of Historic or Landscape Interest, ConservationAreas, Listed Buildings, SSSI’s, or other areas of historic or nature conservation interest, will not bepermitted, except where they would provide an essential link to a national network for which noalternative sites are available.

7.2 On 4th July 2000, in response to public concerns about the health implications of telecommunicationsdevelopments, Council made the following resolution:

That a precautionary approach to telecommunications be adopted, pending Department of theEnvironment, Transport and Regions advice, and that the Council will seek to secure writtenconfirmation from operators that all new installations (which are subject to prior notificationsprocedures or formal planning applications) meet ICNIRP guidelines, and that the operators willcarry out post installation monitoring for submission to the Council, such monitoring to be secured bycondition where appropriate.

7.3 Policy SP8/8 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 is also relevant to the consideration of thisapplication.


8.1 PPG1 – General Policy and PrinciplesPPG8 – TelecommunicationsPPG18 – Enforcing Planning ControlPPG23 – Planning and Pollution

8.2 Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

8.3 Draft PPG8 on Telecommunications and recent central government statements are also relevant to theconsideration of this application.


9.1 This application has to be considered in the context of the Council’s policy to attach the safety leveland monitoring conditions to planning applications for telecommunications masts and equipment.However, the conditions need to meet the requirements of Circular 11/95, which sets out six tests forconditions. The circular states that conditions must be enforceable, precise, concise, relevant,reasonable and necessary. In addition, the Council needs to bear in mind recent appeal decisions andgovernments statements along with the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 and therecently published new draft.

9.2 As suggested by the applicant and agreed by the Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services)it is not considered that condition 4 relating to compliance with ICNIRP guidelines meets the tests laiddown in Circular 11/95, particularly given the advice contained in PPG 8 and more recent advice andappeal decisions that compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines is a matter for the Health and SafetyExecutive and not a matter to be duplicated by the planning system, provided that the applicantconfirms compliance with ICNIRP. Compliance with ICNIRP has been confirmed in the applicant’ssupporting statement. Taking all of the above into account it is considered acceptable to removecondition 4 relating to the ICNIRP guidelines.

9.3 Turning to condition 5 which relates to monitoring of the site, the Executive Director (Legal andDemocratic Services) originally considered that it may be appropriate to retain this condition because

the Health and Safety Executive do not audit base stations and the Radiocommunications Agency arecurrently undertaking an audit which concentrates on school sites and because monitoring of sites isalso in compliance with the telecommunication industry’s own best practice guide. However, theapplicant has submitted details of an appeal last year involving Bournemouth Borough Council (seeparagraph 3.6 above) where there was a considerable amount of local objection on the basis of healthconcerns but the Inspector did not consider it necessary to include a condition to control and monitorthe emissions from the telecommunications equipment in light of the advice contained in PPG8 andCircular 11/95. It is therefore also considered acceptable to remove condition 5 relating to monitoring.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/00287/FUL be APPROVED subject to the followingcondition:

1. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00287/FULEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Construction of fishing lakes

Location : The Long Lot, Seventh Drove, Little Downham

Applicant : G T Taylor

Agent : G A Hall (Prime Irrigation Ltd.)




1.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application is planning policy,highway safety, residential amenity, Parish Council comments and the impact upon the landscape.Little Downham Parish Council supports the application. The Landscape Officer has no objection tothe principle of the development, although considers that a landscaping scheme should be submitted toshow how the development can be integrated into the local landscape. Comments from the LocalHighways Authority are awaited. Councillor White has requested this application be determined atthis committee due to concern raised about the suitability of the local roads to accommodate thisproposal.

1.2 It is considered that provided an acceptable means of landscaping the site can be achieved, andprovided the Local Highways Authority do not raise serious concern on the grounds of highwaysafety, this proposal is acceptable. The application is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application for the construction of two lakes, three stock ponds, a junior lake andancillary roads, car parks etc. The main reservoir is covers an area of approximately 75 x 130 metresand reaches a maximum depth of 2.75 metres. The second lake takes the form of a snake and covers asimilar area, with a maximum depth of 1.75 metres. A small junior lake is proposed to be locatedbetween the two larger lakes along with the stock ponds and the main car park.


3.1 Traffic flow projections4 cars per hour26 cars per day but mostly 60% full40 pegs available for fishing

It is anticipated that a peg fill of 50-60% may occur on 2-3 days a week, with less on most days. Mostanglers travel 2 or 3 per vehicle, so traffic is not anticipated to be very heavy. Most anglers will arriveand leave at differing times of day.


4.1 The site takes access from Seventh Drove, immediately north of Fodder Fen in the parish of LittleDownham. The site is bounded to the north by Abraham’s Drain. The land is currently agricultural by

definition, although he site is not in production at present. The character of the landscape could bedescribed as classic fen land, with views extending to the horizon only interrupted by the occasionalfarm building or dwelling. The nearest residential property to the site is Fen Rose, which also takesaccess from Seventh Drove adjacent to Abraham’s Drain.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 This site has no relevant recent planning history.


6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council supports this application to bring more interest to the area and the village. TheParish Council looks forward to receiving the landscape details for this site.

6.2 Councillor White

Fishing lakes would be an attraction for the area and help the local economy. Some concern aboutlocal roads being suitable; suggest this proposal be considered by Planning Committee.

6.3 Local Residents

Two letters of support have been received from 2 Seventh Drove and Highcroft Farm, Main Drove,stating that the proposal will encourage wildlife, increase leisure activities in the area and encouragepeople into the countryside.

One letter of objection has been received from Fen Rose, Seventh Drove raising the followingconcerns,

1. Main Drove and seventh Drove are single track, poorly maintained roads with no passing places;additional traffic can only make them worse.

2. Noise disturbance from vehicles entering and leaving.3. Where will the overflow for the car park on competition days be?4. Planned access onto the lakes from the road is very poor.5. Will opening times be restricted, could there be night fishing?6. No provision of toilets, although a septic tank is requested, will there be portaloos?7. The applicant claims a link between this proposal and agriculture/horticulture; we can see no

connection.8. There are fishing lakes 6 miles away at Oxlode, if there is no demand for this facility what will

happen to it?9. The applicant also controls surrounding land, could this not be moved to the far corner away from

residential properties? There is access from Main Drove. This site is virtually on our frontdoorstep.

6.4 Local Highways Authority:

The application has been discussed with the Local Highway Authority by the case officer, and theLocal Highways Authority is unconcerned by the proposals and wishes to make no formal comment orobservation.

6.5 Environmental Services Manager:

No adverse comments to make regarding this proposal.

6.6 Landscape Officer:

I am happy with the principle of a new lake at the proposed location. However, I consider that ascheme of landscaping should be submitted to allow it to be integrated in to the existing landscape.The emphasis should be on native tree and shrub planting and mounding should be to a maximumheight of 0.5 metres.

The application should have the separate approval of the Environment agency, particularly in respectof its proximity to the adjacent ditch.

6.7 Environment Agency:

On objections received. A range of advice on points of detail has been offered, to be forwarded to theapplicant.


7.1 This site lies within the development envelope as defined by the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan2000. The following policies contained within the Adopted plan are relevant:

1, 2, 33, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64

7.2 Policy SP12/10 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 is also relevant to this application.

7.3 This Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance covering car parking is also relevant to this application.




9.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application is planning policy,highway safety, residential amenity, Parish Council comments and the impact upon the landscape.

9.2 This site is located in open countryside as defined by the local plan. Planning policy supports thediversification of agricultural holdings into properly managed leisure facilities providing there wouldbe no adverse impact upon the character of the area, residential amenity or highway safety.

9.3 The applicant has provided details of the expected traffic generation from the site. The views of theLocal Highway Authority have been sought and no objections have been raised to the extent of ornature of the proposed use.

9.4 The Parish Council and Landscape Officer have stressed the need for an appropriate landscapingscheme to be submitted that will help assimilate the development into the open fen land. It is acceptedthat the principle of this development is acceptable, therefore it is considered that adequatelandscaping can be achieved by the submission of details in response to a condition.

9.5 The occupiers of Fen Rose, which is adjacent to the access to the site, on the opposite side of SeventhDrive, have raised additional concerns regarding their residential amenity. The EnvironmentalServices Manager has not raised this as an issue, however the proposed site is relatively close.Although fishing is a peaceful activity, there may be disturbance to the occupiers of this dwelling by

the traffic movements of the anglers themselves. It is suggested therefore that the fishing activity onthis site be limited to daylight hours only, when it is considered the numbers of vehicles will not besufficient to disturb residential amenity to a significant degree.

9.6 In conclusion, the Local Highway Authority does not raise any concerns in terms of highway safety,the Environment Agency and Executive Director (Environmental Services) raise no objection, and it isconsidered that this proposal is acceptable subject to appropriate landscaping and the conditions setout below.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application E/01/00467/FUL should be APPROVED subject to thefollowing conditions:

1. Full (S3)2. Soft landscaping scheme (L1)3. Hard landscaping scheme (roads, car parks etc.) (L2)4. Landscaping Implementation (L3)5. Construction works (noise level/time) (E7)6. The operation hereby approved shall be restricted to use during daylight hours (to be specified)

only.7. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Conversion of garage and surgery to dwelling

Location : Land adjacent 8 Church Lane, Littleport

Applicant : Mr PA and Mrs JE Roberts

Agent : E & P Building Design




1.1 The main issues to consider in determining this planning application are highway safety, impact on theLittleport Conservation Area and affect on the setting of the nearby listed parish church, whether theproposal constitutes overdevelopment and impact on adjoining residential amenity.

1.2 Littleport Parish Council has recommended refusal of the proposal as overdevelopment of the site on abad corner. No objections have been received from the Council’s Conservation Officer. Subject to thereceipt of a satisfactory amended plan relating to provision of turning space within the site, theapplication is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an application for full planning permission to convert an existing free standing, flat roofedgarage and building which was formerly used as a doctor’s surgery into a two bedroomed separatedwelling with a pitched roof.

2.2 Two car parking spaces are proposed and provision of a turning area has been requested. A rear gardenof 13 metres length is also proposed. The proposal still leaves sufficient garden and parking facilitiesfor the existing property, number 8 Church Lane.


3.1 No case has been submitted.


4.1 The lies within the Conservation Area of Littleport and is opposite the listed Parish Church. The site isadjoined by residential development on three sides and is located close to the corner of Church Lane.There is an existing vehicular access on the site, which serves the existing garage and existing parkingfacility for the existing house. The access is currently gated. The garden of number 8 is surrounded bya tall brick wall at the back edge of the footpath.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/0279/89/F – Erection of a house and garage – Refused 13/4/89TP5618 – Erection of a Doctor’s Surgery – A/C 18/9/56


6.1 Parish Council

Refusal – overdevelopment of the site on a bad corner.

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Local Residents


6.4 Conservation Officer

No objections subject to materials


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Littleport and within the Conservation Area asdesignated in the east Cambridgeshire Local Plan Draft for Deposit 1997, as amended. The followingpolicies contained in that plan are relevant to the consideration of this application:

1, 2, 26, 33, 38, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 73, 90, 172, 173.

7.2 The following policies contained in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995are also relevant:

SP12/10, SP12/11.


8.1 PPG1 – General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 – HousingPPG13 – TransportPPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment


9.1 Littleport Parish Council has objected to this application being overdevelopment on a bad corner.However, it has to be taken into account that the proposal is using an existing access and an amendedplan is awaited to show adequate turning facilities on site. The proposal involves the conversion of anexisting flat roofed building which served as a garage and a surgery into a modest, 2 bedroomeddwelling complete with new pitched roof. The new dwelling would have a rear garden ofapproximately 13 metres in length and the existing house would still retain an adequate amount ofgarden space. It is not considered that the proposal could be described as overdevelopment in thesecircumstances.

9.2 The site lies within the Littleport Conservation Area and is located on the opposite side of ChurchLane to the listed Parish Church. The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised no objections to theapplication subject to agreeing materials. It is considered that the conversion would result in animprovement to the appearance of the area.

9.3 The proposal immediately adjoins the driveway of 12 Church Lane and there are residential propertiesto the rear of the site. It is not considered that the proposed development would adversely affectresidential amenity. To conclude, the application is considered to be acceptable.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/00499/FUL as amended by plans received….. beAPPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. Full time limit (S3)2. Details of materials (M2)3. No additional windows (R21)4. No extensions or ancillary buildings (R17)5. Parking and turning for 4 cars new and existing dwellings (H10A)6. No gates (H18)7. Boundary treatment (L5)8. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Replacement pitched roof structure to form two first floor bedrooms and bathroomtogether with pitched roof over existing ground floor garage and bathroom

Location : 14 Strollers Way, Stetchworth

Applicant : Mr and Mrs D Nelson

Agent : Andrew Fleet




1.1 The main issues to consider in dealing with this application are impact of the proposals on theappearance of the dwelling and the streetscene and impact on the residential amenities of adjoiningresidential properties.

1.2 Councillor Gibb has requested that the application be reported to Planning Committee. StetchworthParish Council has no specific objections but have raised issues in relation to covenants on the siteand problems of setting a precedent for similar extensions in this part of the estate.

1.3 The application is considered to be acceptable in relation to the streetscene and impact on neighboursand is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an application for full planning permission to increase the height of the roof of an existingbungalow to provide two additional bedrooms and a pitched roof over an existing garage andbathroom.

2.2 An illustrative plan has been submitted to show how the proposals would relate to the bungalows oneither side, taking into account an existing consent to put a first floor extension on number 12Strollers way adjacent

2.3 A section plan has also been submitted to demonstrate no overlooking to adjacent properties from therooflights in the side of proposed new roof.


3.1 No applicant’s case submitted.


4.1 The existing property on site is a relatively modestly sized bungalow located between two otherbungalows along a small line of bungalows to one side of Strollers Way. There are two houses on theopposite side of the estate road and the estate is generally made up of a mix of house and bungalowdesigns. To the south east of the site are open fields.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 N/61/225 – Outline for residential development – A/C 21.9.61N/71/33 – residential development – A/C 15/3/71N/71/261 – Estate road and footpath to serve future residential development A/C 3/7/72


6.1 Parish Council

No specific objections but:

Parish Council wishes to remind ECDC that covenants do exist for this development. Further that theParish Council did already point out to the District that the earlier decision to allow this type ofapplication would “open the floodgates” for more, similar submissions – ie. As at 12 Strollers Way.

6.2 Councillor Gibb:

ECDC in considering this application, should point out that the original planning consent fordevelopment of the Strollers Way Estate has covenants governing development over a certain height.An objection is therefore raised and should be referred to the Planning Committee for Members.

6.3 Local Residents


6.4 Executive Director (Legal & Democratic Services):

No conditions on consent restricting height. If there are covenants on the deeds of 14 Strollers Wayrestricting this proposal, that is a matter for the owner. Following the decision in the BritishRailways case, it is clear that the fact than an applicant for planning permission may have to obtainother legal consents, etc before he can implement that permission is not of itself a reason to refusepermission.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Stetchworth as designated in the EastCambridgeshire Local Plan Draft for Deposit 1997, as amended. The following policies contained inthis plan are considered to be relevant:

1, 2, 33, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64 and 190

7.2 Policy SP12/10 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 is also considered to be relevant.


8.1 PPG1 – General Policy and Principles


9.1 The proposed alteration to the roof and provision of bedrooms in the roof space is not considered tohave an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity as the proposed rooflights in the sideelevations will be positioned at a height which would not easily facilitate overlooking. In addition, itis not considered that the proposals would cause significant loss of light or overshadowing given it isrelationship with adjoining properties.

9.2 In relation to the streetscene, it is the case that number 14 Strollers Way is located in a row ofbungalows. However, the estate has a mix of housetypes and the adjacent bungalow (number 12) hasplanning permission for a first floor extension. The agent has submitted a streetscene, whichillustrates that the proposal would not appear incongruous in relation to adjacent dwellings,particularly taking into account the approved extension at number 12.

9.3 Councillor Gibb has raised concern about possible restrictions and covenants on the site. There areno restrictions detailed in the planning history of this site and legal advice detailed in this reportstates that other possible restrictions should not be taken into account as material considerationswhen dealing with planning applications. Similarly, the concerns raised by Stetchworth ParishCouncil about precedent have been considered but it is the case that this application falls to bedetermined on its merits and is considered to be acceptable.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/0085/F as amended by plans received 13/6/01 and 28/6/01be APPROVED subject to the following:

1. Full time limit (S3)2. Matching materials (M1)3. No additional windows (R21)4. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/0085/FEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Alterations to existing shop front and partial change of use to restaurant

Location : 46-48 High Street, Sutton

Applicant : Mr A Hai

Agent : Headley Stokes Associates




1.1 The main issues to consider in dealing with this application are effect on residential amenity, impacton the Sutton Conservation Area and car parking requirements. Sutton Parish Council and severallocal residents have raised concerns about the parking implications of the application and letters ofobjection have been received from local residents who adjoin the site in relation to noise disturbanceand smell nuisance being experienced from the existing use. The physical works to the property havebeen largely completed so this application is partially retrospective. Whilst the existing takeawaybusiness has continued to operate, the proposed restaurant use has not been implemented.

1.2 The Executive Director (Environmental Services) has not raised an objection to this applicationsubject to conditions relating to appropriate soundproofing and ventilation. The Executive Director(Community Services) supports the scheme as adding to the service base of the village. Theproposed development would not provide sufficient car parking in accordance with the Council’sstandards. However, on balance, it is not considered that a refusal of the proposal could besubstantiated on this basis alone and the Local Highways Authority has raised no objections.Therefore, the application is recommended for APPROVAL.

1.3 A Member site visit has been arranged for 12.00 noon prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an application for full planning permission to alter the shop front and partially change the useof the rear rooms of the site to restaurant (Use Class A3). The front part of the site does not requireplanning permission to change from takeaway to restaurant as these uses both fall within Class A3 ofthe Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987. The proposed use of the rooms to the rearare for toilets, storage and the kitchen, these works have been largely completed and the kitchen iscurrently being used for the takeaway business which gained planning permission in 1996.


3.1 We note the comment in your letter regarding complaints about noise/odour from the kitchen: theclient has stated that the internal fittings could be repositioned so as to avoid cooking againstboundary walls: this detail could be further discussed and/or conditioned on any approval.

3.2 We note the proposed conditions and have notified our client.

With regard to other points raised: -

1. Our client is not aware that the Pound Lane property was previously condemned: however,we note that you are investigating this matter.

2. The upper floor of the Pound Lane property is, and will continue to be occupied by 2members of staff.

3. The area to be used for restaurant purposes, allowing for circulation etc is 28.5m2.

4. The maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 4 including theowner/proprietor.

5. There are 3 spaces available in the yard area: only 1 staff car will be on the site at any onetime.


4.1 The site occupies the northern corner of High Street and Pound Lane in Sutton and lies within theSutton Conservation Area. The site is occupied by the existing takeaway business and the residentialproperty, 2 Pound Lane.

4.2 Sutton High Street in the area is predominantly residential but with some commercial units. Severalof the residential properties are sited at the back of the pavement. The highway in the immediatevicinity of the site has double yellow lines on it. Two properties on High Street are physically joinedto the application site and one property on Pound Lane is also immediately abutting the yard of thesite.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/95/0906/F – Conversion of existing shop and hairdressers salon into Indian Takeaway – A/C8/2/96

5.2 Various applications relating to shops.


6.1 Parish Council

No objections to shopfront alterations but work has started and change of use to restaurant alsotaking place.

Additional comments:Concerns regarding customer car parking facilities.Comments on amended plans for shopfront awaited.

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Local Residents

Letters of objection received from Flat at 44, 44 and 50 High Street regarding the followingconcerns:

1. work already done2. existing noise and odour problems from relocated kitchen

3. kitchen is a covered courtyard not a proper room4. rear wall is only makeshift5. roof construction is amateur6. extraction equipment is poorly sited and installed7. party wall being used without consent of owner8. 2a and 2b Pound Lane was previously condemned9. will seek legal action for compensation if planning permission granted and nuisance

continues10. existing late night business attracts youths to the area11. parking problem in the area already will be made worse

6.4 Conservation Officer:

No objections to shopfront alterations. Concern expressed about existing signs and lighting.Comments awaited on recent amended shopfront details.

6.5 Executive Director (Environmental Services):

Further to our previous conversation, we would require that the existing ventilation system should beused which is regularly maintained and that sound insulation measures should be carried out, toprevent any nuisance to adjacent property.

The conditions therefore are:

The building shall be constructed so as to provide adequate sound insulation against all internallygenerated noise, so that activities from inside the kitchen area can not be heard in the adjacentproperty. This is to be assessed with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided.

The existing activated carbon ventilation system should be used, maintained and filters replacedregularly, as per the manufacturers requirements, so as to prevent odour and noise nuisance toneighbouring properties.

The two flats above the shop at 2a and 2b were confirmed empty by Karen on 6 February 1997 andthe repairs were not therefore needed to be carried out. If, however, the flats are going to beoccupied by an employee then the repairs under the notices have to be carried out. Hope thisinformation is sufficient.

6.6 Local Highways Authority:

It would be better if adequate parking was provided. However, within this part of the village onstreet parking is rife. There are yellow lines to prevent parking on the junction so I would notanticipate a big problem ensuing if this were approved without parking to meet the standards.

6.7 Executive Director (Community Services):

No objections to the proposal. We would in general terms like to see as wide a range of facilities aspossible to be available in our villages and this proposal would strengthen the range available inSutton.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Sutton and within the Sutton Conservation Area asdesignated in the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000. The following policies contained in thatplan are relevant to the consideration of this application:1, 2, 5, 28, 33, 43, 56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 120, 127, 131 and 132.

7.2 Policies SP1, SP12/10 and SP12/11 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan are also relevant.


8.1 PPG1 – General Policy and PrinciplesPPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development and Small FirmsPPG6 – Town Centres and Retail DevelopmentPPG7 – The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social DevelopmentPPG13 – TransportPPG15 – Planning and the Historic EnvironmentPPG18 – Enforcing Planning ControlPPG23 – Planning and PollutionPPG24 – Planning and Noise


9.1 The main issues to considering dealing with this application are impact on the conservation area,effect on residential amenity and car parking requirements. Policies 127 and 131 of the local plan areof particular relevance to the consideration of this application. Firstly, Policy 127 states that theCouncil will support proposals that will increase the number, range and quality of retail and serviceuses facilities within centres such as Sutton subject to ensure environmental safeguards such asresidential amenity and highway safety/parking. Policy 131 deals specifically with uses such as hotfood takeaways, restaurants and public houses and states that they will only be supported where theywould not have an adverse impact on residential amenity and parking. Therefore, whilst the principleof such a use may be acceptable within Sutton, the application needs to be considered in terms of thedetails and its environmental impact on interests of acknowledged importance.

9.2 The site lies within the Conservation Area of Sutton, which has a mix of residential and commercialuses within it. The area around the application site is predominantly residential in character. Whilstcomments are awaited from the Council’s Conservation Officer in relation to the recently amendedshopfront details, no objections have been received in relation to the use of the site as a restaurantwithin the conservation area. The Conservation Officer has raised concern about the existing lightingand signs on the signs on the site, which do not have the benefit of advertisement consent. Details ofthe proposed signs for the site are awaited. However, subject to the receipt of additional commentsfrom the Conservation Officer, it is considered that the physical alterations to the shopfront and theuse of the site as a takeaway and restaurant are considered to be acceptable in relation to the impacton the Conservation Area.

9.3 Concern has been expressed by two local residents who immediately adjoin the site about thepotential impact of the proposed restaurant use and the current problems, which they haveexperienced as a result of the newly relocated kitchen at the back of the site. The main concernsrelate to noise nuisance from the kitchen and odour problems. These concerns have been carefullyconsidered but the Executive Director (Environmental Services) raises no objections to theapplication. Conditions have been suggested to ensure adequate soundproofing of the premises andan adequate ventilation system. Given these comments, it is not considered that a refusal reason onthe basis of adverse impact on residential amenity could be sustained.

9.4 Concern has also been raised by Sutton Parish Council and local residents about the increased carparking requirement for a restaurant use. The proposed development will result in approximately28.5 square metres of floor area being used for dining and the applicant has confirmed that thiswould equate to approximately 24 covers. This would equate to a car parking requirement ofapproximately 6 car parking spaces based on 1 space per 5 square metres of dining area. However, itshould be borne in mind that the front part of the site already has planning permission to operate as atakeaway and could change to a restaurant without planning permission as it falls within the same

use class, therefore it would be unreasonable to take this area into account when calculating the carparking requirement. When considering the previously approved floor layout and comparing it to theproposed layout, it would appear that the current proposals result in approximately a further 15square metres of dining area which equates to a parking requirement of 3 spaces in total.

9.5 The applicants have confirmed that the maximum number of employees on site at any one timewould be 4 and that 3 car parking spaces will be available in the yard area and only one staff car willbe parked at any one time. It is difficult to envisage how the small yard to the rear of the site couldbe practically used by customers of the site. However, it should be noted that the roads in the vicinityof the site are generally delineated with double yellow lines prohibiting car parking so cars will notbe able to park in the immediate vicinity where local residents complain of congestion. Customerswho travel to the site by car will have to park in a wider, dispersed area. The Local HighwaysAuthority has not objected to the application. Taking into account all of the above, the smallnumbers of spaces involved (3) and Policy 64 of the local plan which allows for a relaxation of thecar parking standards in town centres and conservation areas, it is not considered that this applicationcould be refused on the basis that insufficient car parking spaces are provided.

9.6 It is regrettable that the application is largely retrospective but that, in itself, could not be sustainedas a reason for refusal. To conclude, the application constitutes an improvement to the conservationarea physically and will result in the base of services within Sutton being broadened and enhanced inline with Policy 127 of the local plan, something which the Executive Director (CommunityServices) has encouraged. The concerns of local residents and the Parish Council regarding amenityand car parking have been carefully considered, conditions are recommended to protect residentialamenity and the shortfall in car parking is not considered so great as to warrant a refusal of planningpermission, particularly in the light of Policy 64 which allows for relaxation and taking into accountthe permitted change from takeaway to restaurant on the front part of the site. On balance theapplication is considered to be acceptable.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/00234/FUL as amended by plans and letters received30/5/01, 19/6/01 and 4/7/01 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. Full time limit (S3)2. Details of ventilation system and maintenance regime to be submitted within 28 days of consent3. Details of soundproofing measures to be submitted within 28 days of consent4. Opening hours 10am to 10.30 Mon to Thurs, 10am to 11pm Fri and Sat, 10am to 10pm Sun and

Bank Holidays5. Details of signs to be submitted6. Occupation of 2a/2b Pound Lane to be linked to business7. Standard noise condition8. Details of waste storage on site to be submitted.9. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application files E/01/00234/FUL & E/96/0906/FEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Replace Existing Bungalow with a New House and Replace Existing Garage

Location : 8 The Row, Sutton

Applicant : Mr. J. Darby

Agent : Neil Cutforth & Associates


Case Officer : Nigel Brown


1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon theresidential amenities of neighbouring properties; and its impact upon the character of the area.Matters of highway safety also have to be considered.

1.2 Sutton Parish Council has raised objections to the proposal stating that the proposed dwelling is toolarge for the site.

1.3 It is considered that the replacement of a bungalow with a house would not harm either theresidential amenities of adjoining occupiers or the character of the area. The proposal achieves anacceptable and workable garden area and does not constitute harmful overdevelopment. Theapplication is recommend for APPROVAL.

1.4 A Member Site Visit has been arranged for 11.50am prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application for the replacement of the existing bungalow, 8 The Row with a house.

2.2 The replacement house would be four bedroom, with the provision a dining room, kitchen and livingroom with a conservatory at ground floor.

2.3 The proposal also involves the replacement of the existing garage on the site.

2.4 Access to the site would be way of the existing access onto The Row.


3.1 I note that you would prefer the siting of the new house to be handed and adjacent to the house at 10The Row Sutton to avoid undue overshadowing to the bungalow at 6 The Row Sutton. However, asdiscussed, this amendment would not be possible, given the position of an existing outbuilding,which is in the ownership of number 10 The Row, to the rear of the plot. This building would projectinto the rear garden behind the proposed house (should the house be repositioned) and severely limitthe amenity space and natural light to the ground floor windows at the rear of the new house. Itherefore am not able to reposition the dwelling.

3.2 I would also like to confirm that the bungalow, number 8, incorporates a single garage to theboundary with my clients site and as such any additional overshadowing would not be to habitableaccommodation.


4.1 The application site has an area of 387.5 sq. metres and is located on the northern side of The Row.The Row is a residential road characterised by a mix of housing types both in terms of age, designand scale. This part of The Row is specifically characterised by a mix of bungalows and houseseither side of the road.

4.2 The existing property, 8 The Row is a bungalow bound to the east by a similar bungalow, 6 TheRow, and to the west by 10 The Row, a house similar in design to the proposal.

4.3 The northern side of The Row is significantly higher than the southern side.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 ER/68/156, Erection of a bungalow, A/C, 2nd October 1968.


6.1 Sutton Parish Council

1. Dwelling too large for site2. There used to be a walnut tree on this site it should be preserved if it is still there.

6.2 Councillor

No formal comments received.

6.3 Council’s Tree Consultant

I have visited the above site following the specific comments of Sutton Parish Council.

There does not appear to be a Walnut tree on the site although there are a small number ofornamental trees and a small Weeping Willow, none of which are, in my opinion, worthy of a TPO.

There are larger hedges around the site and I would recommend that these should be retained andprotected as part of any development proposal.

6.4 Local Residents

Letters of objection from 6, 10, 13, 15 & 17 The Row

(i) Overlooking; (ii) choice of materials; (iii) highway safety; (iv) problem with constructionvehicles; (v) character of street scene; (vi) loss of hedge, and (vii) overshadowing and overbearing.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Sutton as defined within the East CambridgeshireDistrict Local Plan 2000. The following policies are relevant to this application. Policies 1, 2, 3, 8,34, 38, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64 and 66 of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 (Policies 1-3,7, 33, 36, 38, 55-57, 60, 62 & 64 of the Draft for Deposit 1997).


7.3 This application must also be considered against this Council’s adopted Supplementary PlanningGuidance covering residential design, car parking and landscape.


8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3, HousingPPG13, Transport


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon theresidential amenities of neighbouring properties; and its impact upon the character of the area.Matters of highway safety also have to be considered.

9.2 The application site lies within the development envelope of Sutton, as such, residential developmentis acceptable in principle.

9.3 It is noted that the general character and appearance of The Row is a mixture of dwelling types interms of design, age and scale. This part of The Row has a clear mix of houses and bungalows. Thepresence of houses is not confined to the lower southern side of the road. The proposed house issimilar in design and scale to the adjacent property, 10 The Row. It is therefore considered that thereplacement of the existing bungalow with a house on this site would not harm the character andappearance of this part of The Row.

9.4 The northern side of The Row is significantly higher than the southern side. Concerns have beenraised by residents with respect of the potential overlooking from a two-storey property on thenorthern side onto the lower southern side. It is noted that this relationship is common throughout thelength of The Row. Having considered the distance between the proposed property and existingproperties on the other side of the road, it is not considered that a level of harm from overlookingcould justify the refusal of this application.

9.5 Objections have been raised from the occupier of the adjacent bungalow 6 The Row, on grounds ofthe potential overbearing effect of the proposed house. No windows are currently in the westernelevation of this adjacent bungalow that could be overshadowed by the proposed house; the areadirectly adjacent to the proposed house is in the fact the garage for this adjacent property. It isconsidered that no harm would be caused to the residential amenities of 6 The Row, either fromovershadowing or overlooking.

9.6 Sutton Parish Council, have raised objections to the proposal on grounds of overdevelopment. It canbe confirmed that the proposed dwelling would be afforded an eight-metre rear garden. The plotcoverage would be around 32%. Both the proposed house and garage would follow the footprint ofthe existing bungalow, with the inclusion of a conservatory to the rear and a porch to the front. It isnot considered that this level of development would constitute harmful overdevelopment that couldjustify a refusal.

9.7 The proposal would achieve adequate car parking to this Council’s standards and the means ofaccess onto The Row is acceptable in terms of highway safety.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00289/FUL be APPROVED subject tothe following conditions:

1. Full Time Limit (S3)2. Details of Materials (M2)3. Parking (H10B) 34. Topping and Lopping (L4)5. Retention and Protection of Boundary Vegetation (L6)6. Construction Works- noise level/time (E7)7. No Extension or Ancillary Buildings (R17)8. No Conversion of Garage (R19)9. No Additional Windows (R21) the western and eastern10. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Addition of workshop to existing double garage and turn roof through 90degrees

Location : Land adjacent 47 Westley Waterless, Newmarket

Applicant : Mr D. B. Snow

Agent : David Butler and Associates




1.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application are residentialamenity and the Parish comments. Westley Waterless Parish Meeting comment that theproposal will further adversely affect the character of the street scene and that the position ofthis garage has set a dangerous precedent for erecting structures in the front gardens ofexisting properties. The garage is well screened by vegetation from the public perspective andit is not considered that the alterations proposed would result in an adverse impact upon thecharacter of the area or street scene, or upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.

1.2 This application is recommended for APPROVAL.

1.3 A Member site visit has been arranged for 10.15 am prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application for the addition of a workshop to an existing double garage. Theproposal also includes the change in direction of the pitched roof resulting in the gable endsfacing south-west and north-east.


3.1 No case has been submitted at this stage.


4.1 The site takes access from The Street in Westley Waterless. The double garage has beenerected as part of the development on one detached house that was approved on the site underE/00/0268/F last year. The garage is located forward of the dwelling adjacent to the graveldriveway to the new property. The land rises gently from the road towards the north-east andexisting vegetation helps to assimilate the view of the new buildings into the street scene.The new dwelling has been erected adjacent to existing dwellings, which are also served viasimilar accesses from The Street.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

E/00/0268/F - Detached house and garage. A/C 31.5.00

E/99/0523/F - Erection of a new two storey dwelling A/C 24.8.99E/94/0399/F - Erection of new two storey dwelling (renewal) A/C 5.10.94E/89/0313/F - Erection of a house A/C 8.6.89


6.1 Parish Council

We are in receipt of your letter dated June 07 advising that the potential buyers of the aboveproperty wish to extend the garage and turn the roof through 90 degrees. I have hadnumerous complaints from village residents regarding this development and especially inrelation to the double garage. In particular, complaints have come from those with concernfor the traditional appearance of the village and those whose outlook onto greenery has beenruined by this development. We are therefore obliged to oppose this proposition which, ifallowed, will further impose its ugly presence on this picturesque village.

The Parish meeting is also extremely concerned that ECDC have allowed such a dangerousprecedent to be set, without consideration as to its impact on future planning applications.Whether “official” or not, there has always been an established building line for this sectionof the village, in front of which building has not previously been allowed. As a result ofdelegated powers decision making, one person has been able to overturn this “accepted” ruleand has paved the way for houses to be developed to the front of the “building line” withpotential to further spoil everyone’s outlook.

6.2 Councillor

No comments received at this stage.

6.3 Local Residents

No letters of objection have been received at this stage.


7.1 This site lies within the development envelope as defined by the East Cambridgeshire LocalPlan 2000. The following policies contained within the Adopted plan are relevant:

1, 2, 33, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64


7.3 This Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance covering car parking is also relevant to thisapplication.




9.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application are residentialamenity and Parish comments.

9.2 It is not considered that the residential amenity of any of the adjoining dwellings will beadversely affected by this development. Consideration of a planning application cannot takeinto account the loss of view from a private perspective and it is not considered that the publicview will be adversely affected as a result of this minor proposal. The garage is well screenedby vegetation from the road, and can only be seen in full from the access track inside the siteboundary.

9.3 The Parish Meeting’s concern with regard to any precedent that may have been set has beenconsidered. Any future applications for buildings forward of the existing dwellings would beconsidered on their individual merits and would be expected to fit in with the street scene andcharacter of the area, and would not be automatically passed if it could be demonstrated thatthere would be significant harm.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application E/01/00471/FUL should be APPROVEDsubject to the following conditions:

1. Full (S3)2. Matching materials (M1)3. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00471/FEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Proposed two-storey side extension, rear conservatory and alterations.

Location : 2 Common Road, Witchford

Applicant : Mr R Haddow

Agent :


Case Officer : Nigel McCurdy


1.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this full application are:

• The design of the extension and impact on the street scene• The impact on privacy and amenity of existing properties• Adequacy of parking arrangements.

1.2 The existing property is a chalet bungalow and the proposed side extension continues thatstyle, with a lower ridge, to provide garage and workshop accommodation at ground floor andan en-suite bedroom within the extended roof area. The property would remain with fourbedrooms, one existing lost to facilitate revised stair and circulation space at first floor. Theexisting rear conservatory would be replaced with one larger. The proposed works relate wellto the existing building and would not appear out of character in the street scene. The reducedridge height and roof design, together with fenestration pattern protect the reasonableamenities of the neighbouring bungalows, and adequate parking facilities are retained.Witchford Parish Council has objected to the application on grounds of overdevelopment, theimpact on existing bungalows, and adequacy of parking facilities. The application proposesthe modest extension of an existing property in similar style and in a manner that protectsexisting amenities, and is therefore recommended for APPROVAL.

1.3 A Member site visit has been arranged for 12.45 pm prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application proposing a side extension to provide garage and workshopaccommodation at ground floor and an en-suite bedroom within the extended roof area. Theproperty would remain with four bedrooms, one existing lost to facilitate revised stair andcirculation space at first floor. The ridge height is lower than the existing and the frontagestaggered back. The existing rear conservatory would be replaced with one larger, and anexisting shed demolished. Parking facilities would remain within the site’s front curtilage, inaddition to the new garage.


3.1 No formal case has been submitted with the application.


4.1 The site and property lie toward the southern end of Common Road, backing onto the yardand premises of Midway Garage along the rear eastern boundary and siding onto the parkingarea for the Shoulder of Mutton PH along the southern boundary. The front western boundaryis formed by Common Road, with bungalows opposite, and a bungalow adjoins the site alongits northern side boundary. Access to the drive and parking area is gained directly offCommon Road.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/91/0353/F – Granted consent for a one and a half storey dwelling and two temporary mobilehomes during construction. There were no conditions restricting normal ‘permitteddevelopment’.


6.1 Witchford Parish Council

• P.C. feels overdevelopment of a site that was originally designated for a bungalow.• Bungalows opposite and next too. Neighbours concerns should be fully considered.• Parking facilities should be adequate for a 5 bed house.• To go to full committee and a site visit is requested.

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Local Residents

Letter from 4 Common Road and a solicitors covering letter for objections from 3, 5 & 7Common Road:

• All other properties required to be bungalows• Dwelling and extension is effectively a house• Two storey dwelling sadly passed at other end of Common Road, adj No 11• Previously advertised as five bedroom house• Original garage converted to additional accommodation and never notified• If garage required, original should be converted back• Overdevelopment• Why so large – intended commercial use?• Increased traffic generation aggravate existing situation• Vehicles reversing out of site – not satisfactory, as is route to school• Reduction in daylight• Lack of notification• No mains drains available – aggravate drainage problems• Size is beyond normal cubic volumes permitted• Further overlooking and loss of privacy• Noise and fire hazards from garage and workshop.


7.1 The following policies contained in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are relevant todetermination of the application:

Policies SP1 & SP12/10

7.2 The following policies contained in the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 arerelevant to determination of the application:

Policies 1, 2, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65 & 66

7.3 The District Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the determination ofthe application as follows:

Residential Design Guide; Parking Standards


8.1 The following national planning policy guidance is relevant to the determination of theapplication:

PPG1 General Policy & PrinciplesPPG3 Housing


9.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this full application are:

• The design of the extension and impact on the street scene• The impact on privacy and amenity of existing properties• Adequacy of parking arrangements.

9.2 The proposal is to extend the existing building in a similar style, with accommodation withinthe roof and a dormer on the front elevation. The ridge level has been reduced from thatexisting and the extension staggered back from the main frontage. Consequently, theextension would not appear out of scale with the existing building. The neighbouring propertyis a bungalow, and the reduced ridge and design and alignment of the roof (sloping away fromthe site boundary) does not appear incongruous in relation to the bungalow adjacent, or indeedthose opposite.

9.3 The Parish Council has raised concerns along with local residents that the area is characterisedby bungalows, and that the existing house itself and the extension are therefore inappropriate.However, it is the case that each application must be considered on its merits, and theproposed extension relates well to the existing pattern of development.

9.4 There are no windows proposed in the side elevation or roof of the extension andconsequently there would be no resultant overlooking of the adjacent bungalow. Planningconditions could be attached to prevent subsequent insertion of windows under ‘permitteddevelopment’. Windows already exist in the front and rear of the property, and consequently,the bungalows opposite would not experience any increased loss of privacy. The extensioneffectively lines up with the adjacent bungalow, with a 2.5 metre gap between the properties,and the roof pitch slopes away from the boundary. This arrangement ensures that there wouldbe no significant loss of light to the adjacent bungalow.

9.5 The Councils parking standards require a maximum of three spaces for a detached propertywith three or more bedrooms. The existing parking area for the property is unaffected by theextension and in addition a garage is proposed. Consequently parking arrangements areacceptable, and turning facilities are not required in this instance. To ensure that parkingarrangements remain acceptable, a planning condition should be attached preventingconversion of the garage to additional accommodation, and also to prevent any trade orbusiness operating from the garage or workshop, to protect the amenities of neighbouringproperties.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/00460/F be APPROVED, subject to the followingconditions:

1. Full Time Limit – S32. Matching materials – M23. No additional windows – R21 ‘the side (northern)’4. No conversion of garage – R195. Compliance – S5

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application and related history filesEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance

Date post:	12-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

Documents