Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 12 November 2025.

The minutes of 12 November 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

The Legal Officer stated that the application is for residential and workplace use and the issue facing the Council is that there is no power which allows it to impose planning conditions or Section 106 obligations on a Planning in Principle (PIP) application. He explained that the advice that he has given the committee is that it would be better for the application to be deferred in order to allow time for discussions to take place with the applicant to consider amending the application to make it more efficient for the application to be approved or refused and then if it were to be approved it would be framed in the correct way so that members could achieve what they want in that event.

Councillor Connor stated that he is sorry that this issue has not been highlighted prior to today’s meeting and apologised to the applicant and agent for the issue which has arisen and also to members who have spent time reading the reports and have undertaken site visits.

Councillor Connor asked members whether they were content with the legal advice which had been provided to them and members unanimously agreed that they were.

Councillor Benney stated that it is disappointing that issue this has not been identified prior to today as the application has been in the planning system for a long time. He asked the Head of Planning to confirm whether the application is going to be brought back before the committee for determination? Matthew Leigh explained that as members are aware a new scheme of delegation is being introduced by Central Government and it is not likely to be heard by the House of Lords for at least another two months and he does not see any reason why this application will not be brought back to committee in January.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined, and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)

To determine the application.

The Legal Officer stated that he has advised the committee that this application should be deferred due to the fact that the Council cannot currently impose conditions to regulate the development and a deferral will enable discussions to take place with the applicant.

Members confirmed that they agree with the legal advice provided to them.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined, and will consider the application with an open mind)

To determine the application.

The Legal Officer stated that he has advised the committee that this application should be deferred due to the fact that the Council cannot currently impose conditions to regulate the development and a deferral will enable discussions to take place with the applicant.

Members confirmed that they agree with the legal advice provided to them.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined, and will consider the application with an open mind)

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker–Haines presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Benney, a District Councillor. Councillor Benney stated that the application site used to be in the ward but is now in his adjacent Council ward. He explained that this was a scheme that he looked at when he sat on the Investment Board and came under his portfolio holder responsibilities which is why he is not taking part in the discussion or voting for the item.

Councillor Benney stated he has always supported the application because when he first became a councillor for Birch Ward, he had several residents contact him with regards to a flooding issue in The Elms, explaining that when the Farriers Gate development was built at a higher level the water runs off from that development and into The Elms causing flooding to gardens which are often underwater as well as being halfway up the wheels of parked cars. He stated that at that time he went to see David Rowen, the Development Manager, and asked him what steps could be taken to overcome the drainage issue, and his professional advice was the best thing to resolve the issue will be to build near it and, in his view, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix the flooding issues in The Elms.

Councillor Benney added that councillors can be unpopular for approving the granting planning permission amongst other things but fixing a situation so that residents houses do not flood is a vital part of a councillors role, which is why he has always supported this application because when he was the Portfolio Holder, he was involved in meetings with Lovells who are the construction company responsible for the build of the development. He added that during the course of one meeting he asked whether the development would fix the problem in The Elms, and he was advised that it would and he asked for a written guarantee that the proposal would fix the problems for the residents of The Elms, and it was confirmed by the Lovells representative that it would, with the response he was provided being as good as you are ever going to get as a councillor to reach a satisfactory resolution.

Councillor Benney explained that there are two attenuation ponds on the site which are located in order to take the water away from the application site as well as to take the water away that is flooding through from Farriers Gate, which is the only chance which will come forwards to fix the issue and it will be a lost opportunity if it does not go ahead. He explained that at the outline stage of the application it was going to be for 80 houses, however, that has now been reduced to just over 50 dwellings due to the amount of land which is required for the attenuation ponds to drain the water away which is why  ...  view the full minutes text for item P77/25

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker–Haines presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application was deferred by the committee in June, with the committee agreeing to demolish the existing 1970’s bungalow which is heavily damaged with subsidence and replacing it with two dwellings being acceptable. He explained that he has worked with officers to bring forward a recommendation of approval for 2 three bedroomed chalet bungalows in the middle of March, and he added that the applicant is happy to sign the self-build declaration and pay the fee.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French thanked Mr Hall for taking into consideration the views of the Planning Committee and for working proactively with officers.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that if the application is approved, she would like to see a very strong condition added that during demolition and rebuild there is to be no parking allowed on Nene Parade. Hayleigh Parker-Haines stated that a condition for a construction management plan can be included to secure those details.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the application was heavily debated in June and the agent, applicant and officers have worked successfully together.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he welcomes the fact that the agent has worked with officers on the application and the application should now be approved.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Marks assumed the position of Chairman due to Councillor Connor’s declaration and being unable to Chair the item)

(Councillor Mrs French registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in planning)

(Councillors Connor and Imafidon declared that as they were not present when the item was debated previously, they would not take part in the item for its entirety)

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a Member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning. He added that he also knows the agent but has had no business dealings with him)

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mrs Simmons, an objector to the proposal. Mrs Simmons stated that the A141 is a major road which is very busy and Westry is an elsewhere location. She made the point that the report makes reference to the site being in Flood Zone 1 but according to the Government’s flood maps it does state that the area is located in Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Mrs Simmons explained that there has ben planning permission granted at The Paddocks and also across the road but the flood zone appears to be closer than a Flood Zone 1 and it also states that it is very close to Flood Zone 2 and she has severe concerns that her property will be flooded as a result. She explained that her property has suffered from frequent power cuts, along with total loss of water and in some instances very low water pressure, with the infrastructure and pressure on the utilities being unreliable at times and Westry is an isolated area with no nearby shops or facilities and poor public transport links with a very infrequent bus service.

Mrs Simmons added that the properties located across the road took over six months to rent out and, in her opinion, the proposed properties will also find it difficult to attract new residents and occupants will also find it difficult to cross the busy A141. She expressed the view that the surface water run off to existing properties needs to be considered as local residents are very concerned if the flooding situation worsens.

Mrs Simmons explained that the road suffers from severe congestion which causes hazards for emergency vehicles when they are trying to navigate the heavy traffic and, in her opinion, any additional development is only going to add to the existing chaos. She expressed the view that the proposal conflicts with LP3 of the Local Plan and is located in an isolated and unsustainable area, with the flood risk having been misinterpreted, the highway safety is of a concern as the application is on a major road and the demand for housing in Westry is low and the site is agricultural.

Mrs Simmons added that she has lived in other parts of March and moved to Westry in 2011 for a quieter environment and, in her view, the land should be left as agricultural as it has been up to October 2025 and there should be no development on that land when there are other suitable places to develop. She added that the objections which were submitted for the development at 433 Wisbech Road are also relevant to this application due to its proximity to the current application site.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she also lives in Westry and has not experienced any loss of power or water. Mrs Simmons stated that throughout the year she experiences low water pressure,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P79/25

To advise members of the current situation and determine an appropriate course of action.

Hayleigh Parker–Haines presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that it does not impede any works which need to be undertaken by having a Tree Preservation Order applied and if works needs to be undertaken to it which deem it to be unsafe then that can be done. He added that it does look to be a nice mature tree, and he feels that the order should be granted.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she concurs with view of Councillor Benney.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the Tree Preservation Order in respect of 1 x Sycamore tree be CONFIRMED.

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated that his clients moved into their property in December 1995 and have never suffered from any type of flooding episode or been waterlogged with surface water, with the only occasion where they have had an excess of water was outside their driveway on the road which was as a result of the road drain being blocked. He explained that on investigation the land distributor was blocked solid with mud and dirt which was cleared by highways and there have been no further occurrences.

Mr Bevens explained that report of the annual overflow of sewage detailed in some of the letters of objection has not happened at the address but is a recurring problem at Poppyfields where there is an ongoing issue that Councillor Marks is involved with. He stated that with regards to land drainage, the applicant has been paying drainage rates to Welney Internal Drainage Board on a yearly basis since 1995, and they also pay a farmer to clear the ditches twice a year around their land to cut and to dredge the ditches as and when required, with the applicant being aware that other landowners do not make payments and do not even pay for the pumps.

Mr Bevens added that the applicants’ stables, barns, tack room, shed, poly tunnel and paddocks have also been in pace for 29 to 30 years and 52 Station Road which is located north of their field also has brick buildings and stables located on the east side of the property which all protrude into the area of the countryside and go beyond the linear frontage of Station Road. He referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the recent planning applications which have been submitted along Station Road, and he pointed out the site to the north at 76 Station Road, which, whilst it had pig sheds located on the site, it still proposed the back land development.

Mr Bevens explained that the Planning Officer has stated that the application does not respect the rural character or linear settlement pattern of Station Road, making the point that the site to the north is also located in Flood Zone 3 and had to raise floor levels of the proposed dwellings. He explained that the next slide demonstrates that it is a triangular shaped area of land where the development is proposed and it is a self-contained parcel of land which is bound by Station Road and existing ditches to the north, south and east, with there being numerous outbuildings established behind the linear frontage of Station Road which were shown on the slide by red squares.

Mr Beven referred to the presentation screen and explained that the slide shows the site layout that formed the permission in principle for the rear of 76 Station Road and highlights the fact that there is a precedent already for  ...  view the full minutes text for item P81/25

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the application is for an infill plot for a single dwelling to match in with a continuous linear development along London Road and the dwellings along that part of London Road are all individually designed dwellings which have been there for several years. He referred to the officer’s report with regards to the bowling green which was a private bowling green and its use ceased in 2014 when the owner passed away, with it never being a public facility and was only for the owner’s private use and was never a commercial bowling green as Chatteris already has one located in Wood Street.

Mr Hall explained that in the officer’s report it refers to various refusals and appeals on the site in 2006 and 2008 which he agrees with and added that they were considered under a different Local Plan. He stated that all along the front of the site on the opposite side of the road there is a footpath which stretches for almost the whole length of London Road and the site is in Flood Zone 1.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the red star which indicates the application site, and he explained that to the northeast of the site the construction for Hallam Land has commenced and to the south of the application site down London Road and Stocking Drove there have been various planning permissions given since 2019 and some of those are built out, and some are partway through construction. He expressed the opinion that the committee have already accepted that this area is part of the built-up form of Chatteris under LP3 of the Local Plan and there are no objections to the application from any consultee or members of the public and Chatteris Town Council support the application.

Mr Hall expressed the view that it is an ideal site for an individual dwelling to match in with the adjacent development in Flood Zone 1 and it has not been used for agricultural land for at least 20 to 30 years. He added that it has a footpath link and matches in with the adjacent built-up form of linear development.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he has noted that the bowling green is not a public asset and was last used in 2014 but as it appears to be well maintained he would like to know what it has been used for since that time? Mr Hall explained that it is his understanding that the family just maintain the site as a green piece of land as the family still reside there.

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

·       Councillor Murphy stated that, within the presentation, officers have stated that the site floods, but he has lived in Chatteris for 80 years and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item P82/25