Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of March 8, 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting 8 March 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated he is glad the scheme is being recommended for approval and he has worked closely with the case officer to achieve a scheme that is acceptable. He explained that this scheme was similar to one approved in outline in April 2022 and the proposal for two bungalows on site follows the principle of the consented outline application scheme but more detail has been included in this full application with the designs taking some reference from the adjacent bungalows with good quality materials proposed and additional soft landscaping to improve the biodiversity on the site.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposed two bungalows and attached garages ensure that no significant overlooking or overshadowing is created between the dwellings or adjacent dwellings, with en-suite windows having obscure glazing where they are located on the driveway side. He expressed the opinion that the bungalows have a good level of private amenity and are well set back from Wype Road which is in keeping with the adjacent development previously completed by the applicant with each plot sitting fairly centrally.

Mr Bevens stated that the highway design, together with the position of the access, sight lines and footpath provision, was discussed at some length with the highways officer to ensure consistency with the adjacent bungalows and maintaining pedestrian and vehicle safety. He expressed the opinion that they were advised that a 1.2 metre footpath inside the proposed new hedge planting would be acceptable and this still offers connection back in the north west direction into Eastrea village and there is nothing on the south eastern boundary so there is not a need to extend the footpath any further than indicated.

Mr Bevens stated that the case officer has confirmed the scheme is acceptable noting that it complies with the relevant policies of the Fenland Local Plan 2014 and the applicant is happy with the proposed conditions. He requested that members support the officer’s recommendation.

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

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he remembers this coming before committee previously when it was granted against officer’s recommendation and he voted against it as, in his view, it was too far out of the village.  However, it was democratically approved and he cannot see any problems why this now cannot be granted.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with Councilor Sutton but asked officers to clarify the situation with regards to the footpath as she is aware that the Town Council objected previously. Nikki Carter explained that the 1.2 metre footpath on the inside of the hedge has been deemed to be acceptable as it was included on the previous approval.

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

(Councillor Miscandlon declared that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P128/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Robert Sears, the applicant, and Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Sears stated if successful his daughter will be able to have one of the plots as she is taking more responsibility and will very soon take over his responsibilities on the farm, currently being involved in undertaking the farm accounts. He feels it would be useful for her to be living on the farm and near the station as she has young children and it would enable them to go to school in either direction, with her husband being a teacher and it is all about future proofing for future generations.

Mr Sears referred to what he is doing on the farm in relation to the environment, with them being in a mid-tier scheme and are taking 240 acres out of food production, which is approximately one-sixth of their total farm for the next 5 years. He advised that the land will be sown with 5 different sorts of seed mixes, which will provide an all year round source of food and cover for the likes of birds and insects and provide pollen and nectar for pollinators and to complement this they have so far planted 2.3 miles of hedgerow and in the coming Winter they are planting 74 hedgerow trees which will provide shelter, food, nesting sites and song posts.

Mr Humphrey made the point that this application is for 5 executive style plots on the edge of Manea and, in his view, the market shows there is a distinct lack of such plots and if this application is approved it will help address this situation. He referred to the officer’s executive summary which refers to the site as being beyond the established settlement of Manea and it is, in his view, on the edge of the village but adjacent to housing and a new development of the Station car park, with this development changing the character of the area and was a Council application and the access for the plots are within the village sign for Manea.

Mr Humphrey stated that from the previous refusal for this application members agreed that the site was within the village. He feels the application will help secure and future proof the Sears farming enterprise for generations to come, with the site actually being closer to the school and village hall than the proposed allocations on the emerging Local Plan at Fallow Corner for some 29 dwellings by some 300 metres and the site is well related to the existing farm and the spatial characteristics of the village.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that proximity of the station should not be underestimated and undoubtedly will be used by the residents of these dwellings. He referred to the NPPF, which prioritises new development with access to significant public transport hubs, such as rail  ...  view the full minutes text for item P129/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that this is a resubmission and enables them to hopefully overcome or clarify reasons for the previous refusal, namely flood risk. He compared this site to the Council’s own application at Parson Drove, which is very similar and where the application was in Flood Zone 3 with sites that were available but were discounted and this proposal is in Flood Zone 3 and whilst sites are available they are not similar enough and he is sure everyone wants their applications to be determined in a similar manner to the Council.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that they are offering renewable energy solutions as the Council did in order to make this application more acceptable. He referred to Policy LP16d, which states that the Local Plan requires that development makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and he believes this application will enhance Gaul Road as it goes down from the bypass and will add interest and help raise the profile of March

Mr Humphrey made the point that the proposal is on the site of a former dwelling and he has included historic plans to show that there was a dwelling here because the last time it was considered by committee members could not remember or did not realise that a dwelling was on the site which has been demolished. He feels it is unfortunate that this plot is the only area which is undeveloped in the Gaul Road area as developed by Cannon Kirk adding numerous new houses but would hate to see that this site is fenced in with Harris fencing and left until someone else tries to get a new house in the area.

Mr Humphrey expressed the opinion that it is edge of town, in a sustainable location and he believes that the Flood Zone 3 application is similar to one that the Council have had approved in Parson Drove.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that in 1.2 it states that the site appears randomly placed but questioned this as it is going to be surrounded by the continuation of the current approved development in Gaul Road. Other members indicated that the development he is referring to is finished. Councillor Cornwell queried how the approval on this development in Flood Zone 3 differs from this particular site and questioned that there is no more development taking place in Gaul Road. Nikki Carter responded that there has been a recently approved application on the opposite side of the road for 55 dwellings within Flood Zone 1. Councillor Cornwell stated then the site is not actually isolated as such. Nikki Carter responded that it is not asserted that this site is isolated just that it is separated from  ...  view the full minutes text for item P130/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that he has worked closely with officers to secure support for the revisions in this application which have largely been instigated by a potential purchaser for one of the houses. He advised that the archeological investigation is underway and subject to clearing the remaining conditions the applicant is looking to make a start on the site. He stated that revisions to the scheme are minimal and asked members to support the officer’s recommendation.  

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards as follows:

·       Councillor Meekins referred to the Parish Council’s comments on 16 March who objected on the basis of a chimney when it is not going to be used. Mr Edwards responded that it is an architectural feature.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to an e-mail received from a resident saying that the amendments are not minor and asked if they are or not? Nikki Carter confirmed they are minor changes in the context of this development for nine dwellings.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that he sees this as a minor amendment to an approved planning application so he sees no reasons to refuse it and feels that officer’s have made the right decision.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows the applicant and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

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

(Councillor Connor registered that he is a District Councillor for Doddington and Wimblington and does attend Parish Council meetings but takes no part in planning)

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report which had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during the deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with public participation procedure, from Mr Davies, the applicant, and Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand made the point that members were probably unaware of the airfield and the air sports the centre offers as it has never been advertised locally due to its unprotected rural location, with the business being successfully operating from the site since 2013. He stated that last year, at the end of the 10 year lease, the applicant completed the purchase of the field from the landowner and the centre currently relies on electricity from solar panels as a sub-station is required to provide a permanent supply at a cost of £44,000.

Mr Brand advised that fire gutted the applicant’s home in 2021 and with the Council aware of their situation they moved into the current mobile home on site and since living here they have realized the benefits to their business which also allows passers by to call in and enquire about the centre’s activities. He referred to the committee report stating that the business could be operated with security cameras but without a permanent electricity supply there is no guarantee that they would be operational during the night, especially in Winter.

Mr Brand referred to a report in the Fenland Citizen of a break-in at a builder’s yard in Whittlesey Road where security cameras and houses opposite provided no deterrent and the applicants believe that only their full-time presence will provide a sufficient deterrent to protect their continued investment and allow them to advertise locally the recreational activities. He mentioned that the report also states a district-wide sequential test is required but, in his opinion, it is unreasonable to expect an existing business to comply with this and the Environment Agency’s flood risk map shows roughly 90% of Fenland in Flood Zone 3, with the towns and villages situated in the higher flood zones.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the business requires an open countryside location for the wind and air sports offered, which Council officers appreciated in granting the original 2012 permission, and the closest dwellings, Cross Road and Burrowmoor Road are also in Flood Zone 3 and related to agricultural farms, none of these are for sale or suitable to provide the needed security. He stated that the applicant wants to make the Fenland community aware of the unique activities the centre offers but needs to be confident that their investment and the recent grant to assist their expansion is protected from theft, living on site they believe will provide that protection and allow an efficient operation being present for business 7 days a week.

Mr Davies stated that Fenland Wind and Air Sports Centre is a unique outdoor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P132/22

To determine the application.

This item had been withdrawn.

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Hickey, an objector. Mr Hickey advised that he lives as 9 Askham Row, which is one of the two properties directly impacted from the proposed application. He stated that he moved from London in September 2018, with the primary reason for the purchase of his property being space, country living, village life, privacy, security, future retirement and a forever home.

Mr Hickey expressed the view that discussions with the original owner prior to the purchase assured them that it was not his intention of building further properties on this land and would be kept as farmland. He stated that he asked if the land was for sale behind his property but the owner was unwilling to sell individual plots at that time and subsequently he was relieved when three of his neighbours purchased part of the land to prevent any possibility of future buildings.

Mr Hickey stated that in his objections Mr Bolton mentioned that he would never have sold the land to the applicant had he known his intention and he and his wife are also very disappointed with the applicant as the previous statement of his intentions was to purchase the land to prevent any building work going ahead. He referred to privacy and regulations, with the proposed dwellings creating an, in his view, unacceptable encroachment on his personal privacy which will have a direct line of site into his living room and as stated on his formal objection the application clearly goes against local planning policy and adds to the breach of the villages housing threshold which has 192 committed as of 8 March 2022 and is already at 150% of the threshold agreed.

Mr Hickey referred to the District Council recently refusing planning permission to one of the other neighbours that purchased the land from Mr Bolton at the same time as the applicant, with the application at that stage for a change of use to a garden and in the findings it was stated that the application breached Fenland’s local planning policy LP12, delivering and protecting high quality environments, and it does not make sense that approval should be given to building 3 domestic dwellings and associated gardens on the same site. He stated that there have recently been two new dwellings approved and built on Hospital Road and there are further planning applications submitted for 5 houses along the same road the field in which the 3 dwellings would reside, which has space for approximately 50 dwellings and approval of this application would, in his view, set a precedent and would support an enormous spike in applications for this field, especially as the person that has purchased the remaining field land has already submitted planning applications for 7  ...  view the full minutes text for item P134/22

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that there are no neighbouring objections to the proposal or any objections from the consultees. He feels the key point with the application is the neighbouring property, number 19, which is to the west of this site and when he visited the site he reviewed the street scene in this area of The Stitch and showed a photo on the presentation screen that he had took of the bungalow immediately adjacent to the proposal site and to the left-hand side of this bungalow there is already a two-storey property constructed in 2005, which is approximately a metre from the boundary, set well forward of the adjacent bungalow and is similar to what is being proposed with this application.

Mr Hall expressed the view that on the opposite side of The Stitch, properties 68 and 72, which are further to the east, have a very similar situation where there is a bungalow set well back from the street scene and a two-storey property set well forward. He referred to the officer’s report making reference to this property being set forward but, in his view, there are numerous other properties along this side of The Stitch that are set forward and more forward than this dwelling, which can be seen on Google Maps and also on Ordnance Survey.

Mr Hall stated that on the actual street scene he has submitted it does show a 1.8 metre high fence along that boundary so he has shown a boundary treatment but he would be happy to accept a condition here. He expressed the opinion that the proposal still has over a third garden area, parking on site for 3 vehicles, materials matching in with the existing property and there are no doors and windows on this side elevation against the neighbouring building and this proposal is no higher than the existing property with this application receiving no objections.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that there are no windows or anything on the property itself but asked what about the bungalow? Mr Hall responded that the bungalow’s principal elevations are front and rear but he believes there is an opening on the right hand side of the bungalow which faces the proposal site but the bungalow is set back.

·       Councillor Murphy asked why the photo shows this side of the bungalow when there is more room as the house here is at an angle away from the bungalow but the side where this proposal is going is right up close to the bungalow and the photo should have been taken the other side. Mr Hall responded that the property on the photograph is parallel with  ...  view the full minutes text for item P135/22

To determine the application.

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

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

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that “postage stamp” springs to mind, he feels that officers have made the right decision and he will be supporting the recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis agreed with Councillor Sutton as she feels it is shoehorning onto a too small plot.

·       Councillor Miscandlon agreed, it is shoehorning and the amenity space left for the residents will be detrimental to their health and wellbeing.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that officers have got the decision right.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Connor and Mrs Davis registered that they are District Councillors for Doddington and Wimblington and do attend Parish Council meetings but take no part in planning)