Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 4 March 2026.

The minutes of the meeting of 4 March 2026 were approved and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kate Wood, the agent. Ms Wood reminded committee that they granted permission for this development last July subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and during that legal process the applicant started to work on obtaining costs for the construction of the development and the associated road improvement, where it became apparent that materials and build costs have risen significantly such that the development would not be viable. She stated that the applicant, therefore, sought advice from a viability consultant who worked through the calculations and suggested there were two options to make the scheme viable, which were firstly the loss of all financial contributions and the retention of just two affordable dwellings or secondly the loss of all five affordable dwellings but the retention of £186,500 of financial contributions towards the doctor’s surgery and education.

Ms Wood expressed the opinion that given that their experience when this application was previously considered was that improvements to the doctor’s surgery were important to local people and that the Council has granted permission for 70 affordable units further up West Street, they decided that the second option of no affordable units and keeping the financial contributions was the most appropriate way forward. She stated that this was put to officers who, as can be seen from the reports, have agreed with the approach and have had the viability assessment verified by the Council’s own consultants and their quantity surveyor, which has now led to this point whereby they are asking members to agree the change to the Section 106 Agreement.

Ms Wood confirmed that no changes at all are proposed to the development, which was approved unanimously last year, with the proposal before committee solely related to the Section 106 Agreement. She stated that it is regrettable that they are unable to provide the full range of planning obligations but note that this has been the same issue with other recent planning permissions in Chatteris where they have noticed that in some cases there is no affordable housing and no financial contributions have been able to be offered.

Ms Wood expressed the view that the financial contributions in this scheme will help to make the development sustainable and to accommodate the new residents into the community. She pointed out that the scheme includes the upgrading of a length of West Street and that will be an additional benefit to those in the vicinity and to those using the route for dog walking and to access the pocket park, located further south.

Ms Wood expressed the opinion that the application scheme is the only opportunity to provide this upgrade to West Street and to formalise the public footpath, with the scheme also facilitating the removal of the existing industrial buildings on site, which contain asbestos, and enable the proprietor of that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P120/25

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 they are pleased that the officer’s report recommends approval, Manea is a growth village with a shop, skate park, fishing lake, railway station and doctor’s surgery and the officer’s report confirms this site is within the built-up form of the village. He made the point that there are no technical objections to this application and it all lies within Flood Zone 1.

Mr Hall stated that prior to submitting this application, they submitted a pre-application with the Middle Level with regards to surface water and they had a positive written response returned that it could be taken into Darcy Lode provided it was attenuated. He acknowledged that this is a PIP application, but they thought ahead by submitting a pre-application with Middle Level.

Mr Hall expressed the view that along Westfield Road there have been numerous approvals in the past, some of these are being built out already, with these approvals coming from officers, members and the Planning Inspectorate. He feels the idea of residential development back towards Darcy Lode has, therefore, been accepted and this is set out in the officer’s report at 10.9, with there being various other approvals in this area of Manea and the officer’s report sums up this application very well with a recommendation for approval.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that in view of the recent appeal decision which enforced any kind of development in Westfield Road, it is recommended for approval and he feels it does not warrant a lot of debate on it.

·       Councillor Marks stated that residing in Manea he has seen what the Parish Council has said but the Council has been found against already and the precedent has been set, especially by the Inspector, whether members agree or disagree with that decision is a different matter.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

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

(Councillor Imafidon declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 on the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Manea Parish Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, 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 and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that since the last application was refused in October 2024, they have revised the proposal down to three dwellings on a different site area to ensure there is material planning change. He added that there are no technical objections to this application and Highways raise no objection.

Mr Hall stated that when this application was heard at the previous committee in 2024, it was brought up that a lesser amount of dwellings might be acceptable but the seven was too much so the application was refused. He stated that, at present, there are caravans on site, one has been on site for a number of years with the applicant’s family residing here paying Council Tax and there is an additional caravan on the site for the applicant’s mother who has moved there from Chatteris due to health reasons.

Mr Hall made the point that all of the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and on the previous applications there were letters of objection from members of the public but there are no objections on this application so whether lessening the dwellings has removed the objections he is not sure. He stated that there is a dog grooming and kennel business operating at the site, which would be removed if this application is approved and that has substantial vehicle movements each day and the idea of three additional dwellings on site would result in a lot less vehicle movements.

Mr Hall acknowledged that the site is the other side of the bypass but made the point that so is Eastwood End, which is just further north of this site and no development was allowed there until, he believes, 2019 and development has now been allowed here right up to the bypass, just like this site. He added that there is already a footpath link here directly back to the Church and that has been there for well over 15 years to his knowledge and he believes it was also improved when the warehouse for Knowles Transport was approved.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the Church, which is often the heart of the community, is within 90 metres of this site and feels that the site is part of Wimblington, just like Eastwood End, which is also on the opposite side of the bypass, with there being traffic lights in this area to cross the bypass.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon asked for clarification that the site will bring three additional dwellings to site and does this mean the kennels are not being completely closed down or moving away? Mr Hall responded that on site at present there is a bungalow, a dog grooming and kennels business all owned by the same person, with the bungalow at the front  ...  view the full minutes text for item P122/25

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Robert Horsepool, an objector, read out by Member Services. Mr Horsepool stated in relation to outdoor recreation that the application is for a dog exercise park, 200 metres to the west of the park is Black Dyke and the entry to at least 6 miles of public footpaths and bridleways providing exercise for both humans and their dogs. He made the point that most local people know of these free exercise routes and lots of people use them daily and from conversations with locals while out walking all will continue to use the free local open spaces.

Mr Horsepool made the point that with regard to actively farmed Grade 1 farmland, this modified grassland forms part of the Government’s SPI payment scheme, where a farm may put aside a percentage of total land down to grassland and can claim a payment for doing so, with there being rules on cutting and maintaining, so although it may not look like it is being farmed it provides a high biodiversity net gain that would be lost by converting this Grade 1 farmland. He stated that the original application also stated that the exercise park was being built on existing stubble land, but, in this view, this is incorrect and is actually onto the grassland, which helped with showing an increase in net gain calculation instead of a negative result of biodiversity net gain by the agent and could be misleading information.

Mr Horsepool expressed the opinion that it would be hard not to put this application in a position with any more visual impact as the applicant has a large area of modified grassland and some of that area has hedgerows and trees which would have been more suited to this project to also provide screening and shelter as well as better road access and this was also noted by the Parish Council. He referred to Policy LP15 which states safe and convenient access, but, in his view, the single track lane has many dog walkers and children/families out on bikes, with it being a national speed limit road with no passing places and increased traffic of up to 6 cars per session would be a risk as these visitors will probably be from outside the village and not be familiar with the area.

Mr Horsepool referred to biodiversity gain and feels that the agent may have not visited the site as this is not crop stubble land and has not been so for a few years so, in his view, this report may be inaccurate. He acknowledged that although loss of views is not part of planning, loss of privacy is and the entry to the development is 68 metres form Sorrento to the south west not 83 metres but the south west corner of the development is less than  ...  view the full minutes text for item P123/25

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney stated, that as set out in the committee report, the proposal is acceptable in principle, and she would suggest that the matters before committee this afternoon are capable of being addressed in a proportionate and policy compliant manner. She made the point that the scheme was before committee for 7 dwellings previously and the rear element of the development has been removed as per the concerns.

Ms Penney expressed the view that the current recommendation for refusal rests on two reasons, firstly concerns relating to living accommodation standards and private amenity space and secondly concerns regarding flood risk. She referred to the first issue of internal space standards and garden provision, with the report acknowledging that bedrooms 1 and 2 meet the nationally described space standards and the concern arises in respect of bedrooms 3 and 4, however, this is largely a consequence of how these rooms have been labelled and illustrated on the submitted plans, rather than any fundamental deficiency in the built form itself.

Ms Penney stated that importantly the application description does not fix the number or function of the bedrooms and as such there is a straightforward and reasonable solution available through the use of a planning condition. She made the point that they would be entirely content to accept a condition specifying that bedroom 3 is to be used as a single bedroom and bedroom 4 is a study or home office, with this approach bringing the development fully in line with the national space standards.

Ms Penney expressed the view that planning practice guidance is clear that conditions should be used positively to enhance the quality of development and to enable proposals to proceed where they might otherwise be refused. She feels, in this instance, such a condition would directly address the identified concern without requiring any physical alteration to the scheme and, in her view, both reasonable and consistent with the national guidance to resolve this matter through condition, rather than refusal.

Ms Penney made the point that, in terms of private amenity space, Policy LP16h of the Local Plan states the expectation for one third of the plot to be garden space as a guide rather than a rigid requirement, the committee itself confirms the proposed garden areas are broadly in the region of one third of each plot. She feels that given the policy is written with an intentionally flexible manner, and the scheme broadly aligns with that guidance, it is difficult to conclude that the level of private amenity space is so deficient so to justify a refusal and when taken together with the ability to control internal accommodation through a condition, the overall standard of amenity provided by this scheme is, in her opinion, entirely acceptable and consistent with the spirit of the Local Plan.

Ms Penney referred to the second reason for refusal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P124/25

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent and Mr Missin, the applicant. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the application is asking for permission for one dwelling set on approved residential garden land acting as an infill between the dwellings of The Chestnuts to the south and Churchill Lodge to the north. He expressed the view that the officer’s report and their design access statement notes the 2017 outline permission for The Chestnuts under the current Local Plan where the site received permission for the construction of The Chestnuts and the reason for allowing the property of The Chestnuts is because Fenland at the time did not have sufficient land supply, however, the site still needed to be assessed on its economic, social and environmental benefits.

Mr Lunn-Towler expressed the view that when judged on this criteria, the land which included the site before committee today was deemed sustainable for development and whilst it is understood that Fenland currently do have a land supply and this application is different, he feels it is important to make the committee aware of the 2017 assessment as it relates to this application. He stated that, for economic benefits, the 2017 report said that the site would deliver limited growth through the employment of local trades during construction and provide economic contributions for the future, with residents using local amenities.

Mr Lunn-Towler referred to social benefits, despite the site’s rural location causing a slight hindrance, the site will provide a house to contribute towards the housing need and assist in meeting the needs of existing and future generations. He referred to environmental benefits, the site will be an infill near residential dwellings and whilst a rural location means future occupants would be reliant on the car, it will have no more of an environmental impact than the existing dwellings there and the climate change impact is minimal.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the 2017 report concludes with stating that the economic and social benefits outweigh the environmental in favour of the dwelling being approved and, in his view, there has been no material change of policy since that report and, therefore, no change in the opinion of the site’s sustainability. He expressed the opinion that the one dwelling being asked for today as an infill between existing dwellings is sustainable and would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to this area.

Mr Lunn-Towler made the point that the application is supported unanimously by the Parish Council, and they summarise the application positively as an infill development on a site capable of providing a comfortable family dwelling. He added that the application has no technical objections for drainage, highways, environmental health and the site lies within Flood Zone 1.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the dwelling will allow the applicant to construct a new home and focus on their current needs as The Chestnuts is becoming too big for them to maintain and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P125/25