Agenda and minutes

To determine the application.

Nick Harding 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)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr. Peter Bimson, an objector. Mr Bimson stated that he is a resident of Princess Avenue, owning a property that borders St Thomas’ cut and he has previously written a letter of objection, which prompted a response from the applicant, which are both available to members. He expressed his gratitude to the applicant for their response as it did allay a number of his fears that were raised in his initial objection.

Mr Bimson expressed the opinion that in principle he has no great objection to a development of a site thereof but as a neighbour he would obviously prefer there was not one and the reason he is here today is to draw members attention to matters relating to the proposed drainage strategy, which he feels warrants some more detailed scrutiny. He advised that he has no expertise in these matters and is reliant on information gathered through the LLFA and also supplied by the applicant.

Mr Bimson referred to a photograph on the presentation screen, with the point marked one being the location of St Thomas’ cut which is an excavated drainage ditch that holds water and controls its discharge northwards and downstream off the site and number two is the existing watercourse which is fed by St Thomas’ cut and ultimately this is the main route of discharge away from the proposed development as well as the existing site. He expressed the view that St Thomas’ cut stores water and controls the discharge away from the site and is bordered to the east by 5 properties and to the west is bordered by the existing landowner of the proposed development site, with the LLFA initially raising objection to the proposed development in part due to issues of riparian ownership and responsibilities of the maintenance of this cut as they pointed out that where maintenance is shared then the ability of the waterway to function as intended is dependent upon every party undertaking their responsibilities.

Mr Bimson showed views of the cut when it was first excavated in 2002 following the completion of the existing development and showed an image of the Land Registry search identifying a narrow strip of land representing the west bank of that drainage ditch and it is an unregistered piece of land, although it is his understanding that it is the property of the existing landowner. He showed a view of the cut today, which has become overgrown, and of particular note is the west bank of the watercourse has a number of very mature trees that have grown, which are now taller than the houses that are next to it and this would be under  ...  view the full minutes text for item P137/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall reminded members that they would remember this application previously when it was refused in June 2022 for the same proposal with 3 reasons for refusal. He stated that since this time the applicant has provided an ecology survey and submitted a Heads of Terms Section 106 Agreement for the site and, therefore, as David Rowen has said two of the reasons for refusal have been removed.

Mr Hall made the point that Manea is a growth village within the Local Plan and where the dwellings are to be sited is all in Flood Zone 1, with there being no technical objections to this application. He expressed the opinion that the proposal conserves all the trees on site and along the frontage of the entire site there is a footpath continuing through to Manea.

Mr Hall referred to one of the key reasons for refusal and was raised as a concern with members was the lack of affordable housing and the Heads of Terms on the previous application being carried out by others. He stated that the submitted Heads of Terms was agreed with Mr Harding in September 2022 and this reason for refusal has been removed and he displayed a map on the presentation screen showing the site and another area highlighted in blue, also recommended for refusal, which was approved by members last year against officer’s recommendation which extends back to Darcey Lode, is in Flood Zone 1 and has a footpath across the frontage of the site and between the two sites there is various other residential developments that are set back from Westfield Road.

Mr Hall displayed a location plan of the area and referred to the area to the south, which was a former grain store being a brownfield site which was also approved for a number of dwellings and there have been various approvals down Fallow Corner Drove so this area looking at the map is quite well built up. He reiterated that two of the previous reasons for refusal have been removed, the dwellings are all in Flood Zone 1, Manea is a growth village, a draft Heads of Terms has been submitted which has been agreed with Mr Harding, there are no technical objections, he considers it abuts the built up form of Manea and since the previous application was refused another application shown on the presentation screen was approved by members which also extends to the back of Darcey Lode.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that when this application came before members previously members were not happy with the ecology  ...  view the full minutes text for item P138/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey expressed the view that this is a non-controversial application, amendments were made with a previous officer and since then everything has been acceptable. He stated that the only thing he would like to make a point of is that the application has taken 86 weeks for a 12 weeks application and whilst he knows that there is negotiation and officers are busy he has still got to wait to get the approval and clear conditions, which might be another 12 weeks before they can start.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked why there is no Section 106 Agreement on this application? Mr Humphrey responded that if you sat in his position a Section 106 would not be offered as if the Council have not asked for one they are certainly not going to offer one but the viability does show that nothing can be offered. Councillor Benney expressed the view that on the number of houses being proposed here it is unsatisfactory that the Council is not getting any money out of it and asked if a Section 106 was asked on this proposal? Mr Humphrey responded that not that he is aware of. Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the applicant had any money that could be applied to a Section 106? Mr Humphrey responded no but made the point that the application stands as it is without any Section 106 contributions.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that it is within his gift to say that he could. Mr Humphrey responded that it is if the client instructs him to do so.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked if Mr Humphrey was prepared to make a Section 106 contribution towards the NHS? Mr Humphrey responded that it depends upon how much the request is. Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to Page 56 where it mentions £15,500. Mr Humphrey responded that he is sure the client would pay that.

·       Nick Harding asked for an apology stating that the application was submitted with a viability assessment so given that was submitted in the first place and it was checked to see whether it was all right and proper, why would officers ask for a Section 106 Agreement given that officers were satisfied with the results so he believes the agent has been misleading. Mr Humphrey agreed that the viability assessment was submitted with the application which said there was no money available which is why he answered Councillor Mrs French in the manner he did and it was asked again by another councillor and the viability shows there is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P139/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter 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 made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that officers have carefully considered this, they have taken into account strict planning rules just as would occur with any private applicant and have reached a recommendation, which he believes is the right one.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with the comments of Councillor Cornwell. He feels that there are some sites that are just not developable because if you go single-storey at this location it would be out of keeping with the street scene, if it is two-storey then there is overlooking issues to the rear and he feels the best use for this is the same usage as it has had in the past and that is for a car park.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that on looking at the site he thought it was a little bit tight but went again the next day looking at No.58 and that plot is smaller and so is every plot along that road and, in his view, it is a lot larger plot than the houses in the surrounding area so is of the view that something could be built on here.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the point is that it is a single-storey and everything around it is not single-storey so he does not feel it is all about the plot size, it is the proposal’s relationship to the surrounding area, which is important to consider as well as the committee would do for any other application.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that his comments are not in relation to it being a Fenland District Council application but on its own merits he feels the car park where it stands is a big space and something can be built here.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with Councillor Skoulding that the site is big enough for development but the question is the street scene and a bungalow does not fit in and with a two-storey there are other issues so it is one of those plots that is almost impossible to develop and it should not be any different due to its being a Fenland District Council application.

·       Councillor Marks expressed confusion about street scene as 80A is a bungalow that was built in the back recently and he has sat in the dentist chair looking out across and he cannot see that it would be detrimental to the street scene.

·       Councillor Sutton reiterated that it is clearly a single-storey between a built up two-storey aera so it is clearly out of keeping with the rest and to compare it with the one to the rear of 80, which is nowhere near it. He feels to suggest that a bungalow would be placed here and not affect the street scene is perverse and ridiculous.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that on  ...  view the full minutes text for item P140/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that 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)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey displayed a map of the emerging Local Plan showing the site outlined in blue and stated that this is a PIP application and from the draft policy map June 2022, accepting that it is a draft and carries no weight, it does show the thinking of the policy makers who are planning officers that they could see that the village could extend in this manner with the red shaded area in the corner of this site. He stated that the Environment Agency has no objections providing flood mitigation measures are incorporated and a sequential and exception test is completed at the technical stage.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that it is all about location and land use, making the point that Doddington is a growth village and this land is clearly adjacent to the existing developed footprint, which is in accordance with LP12A that allows development adjacent to existing villages. He stated that the site access will be within the 40mph speed limit, with details to be agreed with highways at the technical stage.

Mr Humphrey stated that the land is grade 3 the lowest quality of land that could be built on and hence it has been set out to grass and trees. He displayed a flood risk map and expressed the opinion that whilst the planning officers state the site is partly within Flood Zone 2/3, this is not being disputed and they are happy that development can be made on the other two-thirds of the site, with attenuation within the Flood Zone 2 and 3 area, they do not have to build within the Flood Zone.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that this application can deliver a quality scheme similar to that already delivered on Benwick Road just past Hospital Road in Doddington, which has been built out and shows what can be done when such applications are supported.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the proposal being for up to 9 dwellings and the development not making effective use of land and assumes that these are executive homes being proposed. Mr Humphrey responded that they are.

Nick Harding made the point that the plan showed by the agent was not the correct plan so no part of the application site is within the settlement boundary as per the consultation that took place on the draft Local Plan.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he thought he had heard that this was in the 60mph limit and asked if this is correct? Nikki Carter responded that the speed limit changes alongside the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item P141/22

To determine the application

Nikki Carter 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 asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Meekins asked about the accuracy of the recording of objection and support letters as it says there are 19 letters of objection and then it says 27 letters of support but the number on the report is 40 so is it 27 or 40 letters of support because this is a significant difference. David Rowen responded that he is assuming that the 27 letters of support is the accurate number and there has been a mathematical or typographical error in terms of the split of where those letters are from, it says 16 of letters were from March and 16 from Chatteris but he is guessing that one of those is possibly 6.

·       Councillor Cornwell questioned that this application is exactly the same as the application that came in before and was refused? Nikki Carter confirmed this to be correct.

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

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that there is a pending application for the opposite side of that field, behind she believes 12C, so it will set a precedent as stated in the officer’s report.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that there have been some more objections very recently and the total now is 51, 23 in objection and 28 in support. He stated that most of the objections are on Eastwood End and lots of the support are not in the vicinity. Councillor Sutton feels that officers have got the decision correct as it is not in keeping with the area and whilst each application is looked at on its own merits it would set a very dangerous precedent should this be approved.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that he has business dealings with the applicant so took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

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

(Councillor Connor registered, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a District Councillor for Doddington and Wimblington and does attend Wimblington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in planning)

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the scheme is before committee with a recommendation of approval and they have worked closely with officers to achieve this. She expressed the view that the development will infill the gap to the north and east of the existing dwelling at Goosetree House to reflect the form and pattern of development which characterises Selwyn Corner.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the indicative drawings show that two modest dwellings of a scale and character which reflect the surroundings can be achieved on site and each dwelling will be provided with at least one third of the plot as dedicated private garden space and two parking spaces each. She expressed the view that two parking spaces can also be provided for the host dwelling as well as a central turning area in order that all properties can turn so that they enter and exit Selwyn Corner in forward gear, with the existing access to the site being used and this has been acknowledged as an acceptable arrangement by officers.

Mrs Jackson stated that the site lies within Flood Zone 3 and a Flood Risk Assessment has been provided to demonstrate that the scheme will be technically safe from flooding. She advised that a sequential test has been carried out which confirms that there are no other sites available to accommodate this development and this has been acknowledged as acceptable within the committee report.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the application complies with policies of the development plan and the proposal will bring forward two new dwellings within a sustainable location which will contribute to the ongoing vitality of Guyhirn. She requested that members support officer’s recommendation of approval of planning permission.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the access looks very narrow and asked if it meets the standards? David Rowen drew Councillor Cornwell’s attention to 5.4 of the officer’s report and the comments of the Highway Authority who is not raising any concerns or objections to the application from that perspective. Councillor Cornwell acknowledged this but his question is about the actual access which is not on a road, the access to the property may be acceptable but he is talking about the section that goes alongside the existing structure to actually get to the site which is not a highway. David Rowen stated that the dimension shown on the plans is 3.475 metres.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding agreed that it does look cozy but, in his view, that is the nature of everything around it so he cannot see a problem himself.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the previous application was just refused  ...  view the full minutes text for item P143/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that this site is part grassland, part approved overflow car park and, therefore, as officers have said part brownfield and feels it is well related to the town of March as looking at the 2014 Local Plan it can be seen that it is next to the built form so it clearly shows it is abutting the urban area and, in his view, Policy LP12d is met. He expressed the opinion that the application will comply with the interpretation of Policy LP16d as it will make a distinct demarcation between development and the open countryside, with the existing landscaping still acting as a boundary between the two.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the application sits next to and opposite a new dwelling so, in his view, these three new dwellings will fit into place. He stated that it was proposed to remove the conifers and replace them with native species but the client is happy to take a condition to ensure the conifers are left should officers and committee so wish. Mr Humphrey requested that the site be deemed acceptable and asked for members support.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he cannot see any problem with the proposal, apart from the sequential test, as there are houses opposite it and he would have thought this would be the boundary of the town.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with Councillor Skoulding as other development has been allowed in this area and it is a brownfield site so she is not sure why it has not passed the sequential test.

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that if you know March it is an elsewhere location, it is not part of the town there are a few businesses here but most of the businesses are in this location as it is the best place for them and as far as he is concerned it is an elsewhere location.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Cornwell to refuse the application which was not supported by a majority at the vote.

Nick Harding reminded members in regard to reasons if going against the officer’s recommendation that one of the key ones has to be how has the sequential test been passed. He stated he has had a skim read of the applicant’s submission and it appears that the search has been restricted to sites that have been available for sale which falls short of what the requirement is in the Council’s Flood Water SPD, but he might be wrong and if he is then he would provide an apology. Nick Harding subsequently did provide an apology to Mr Humphrey as sites have  ...  view the full minutes text for item P144/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Victor Aveling, a supporter. Mr Aveling stated that he said he would speak in support of the application as he probably knows more about this site than anyone as it was part of Eastwood Farm, which he farmed for many years and eventually Fengrain decided it would be a nice place for them to build a grain store as it was central for their members and the soil type is ideal as it has a very good bearing capacity. He stated that the application was approved, which was before the Isle of Ely Way was constructed and Fengrain used the old railway line as an access so they could get to the Manea Road.

Mr Aveling advised that eventually when the Isle of Ely Way was constructed several people came to him asking if they could buy some land for a small industrial use and he approached Fenland and the Industrial Development Officer thought it was a very good idea stating that it was an ideal site to have industry that you would not want alongside residential accommodation and consequently over the years several plots have been sold. He felt that there should be a decent pre-planting scheme to screen the site and he employed a firm of landscape architects to design it, with quite a lot of trees being planted and the ones adjacent to the site are a wide mixture of native trees.

Mr Aveling expressed the view that the footpath is the other side of the trees and was surprised by the comments of officers regarding the footpath as you cannot see anything through these trees. He expressed the opinion that on the refusal reasons for planning permission at an earlier date he did know a little bit about it as Mr Lefevre of Data Shredders came to him and said he had been refused could he help or give advice and he asked three councillors to speak with him and when they heard what Mr Lefevre actually wanted to do they thought it was a good idea and they said the reason for refusal was the application was for lorry parking and the site would contain 200 lorries and this was not wanted, which seemed logical as no one wants 200 lorries parked there, and the Council at that meeting said if another application was submitted it would be looked at probably very differently to the first one but Mr Lefevre decided he had enough of planning and would leave things as they were.

Mr Aveling stated that he cannot see that this is an open agricultural site, it is just to the north of the industrial area, it is surrounded by trees on two sides and the industrial estate on  ...  view the full minutes text for item P145/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that 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)) during its deliberations.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Connor asked for clarification on whether the mobile home on site is authorised or unauthorised. David Rowen responded that it is unauthorised.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell acknowledged that the Parish Council are not very happy with the proposal saying the position of the dwelling would ruin the Grade II Listed Building and when you look at the way the site has been divided up it seems to have been done in such a way that it does not provide a proper access to it, which is very long and narrow, and then the dwelling would be totally not in keeping with the Listed Building being effectively in the garden of the Listed Building. He feels that officers have got the recommendation right on this application.

·       Councillor Skoulding agreed with the comments of Councillor Cornwell. He expressed the view that the proposal is too close to the Listed Building and when it was viewed on the site inspections members were all shocked by the scheme.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed that the officer’s recommendation is correct, this is part of her County Council division and she gets complaints repeatedly about what is already there without this proposal. She made the point that she would like to see the unauthorised mobile home enforced and removed as it another issue she is getting complaints about.

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

(Councillor Sutton declared that the applicant is known to him through involvement with the local boxing club and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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, on behalf of the agent Craig Brand. Mr Hall expressed the view that the only issue with this application highlighted in Paragraph 1.3 and 10.7 of the report is the proposed dwelling does not comply with Part D of Policy LP16, all other relevant sections of Policy LP16 are met. He stated that Part D relates to assessing the proposal’s impact on the character and appearance of the area’s street scene.

Mr Hall stated that Silver Street is a private residential cul-de-sac of mainly two-storey housing with no passing traffic, the existing late 1960s bungalow has a shallow pitched roof, which exaggerated the difference in height between the original submitted proposal and the bungalow and after being told that the proposal was cramped and incongruous the depth of the dwelling and roof pitch was reduced. He made the point that no objections were received to the original proposal from residents on Silver Street, Bronze Street, Norwood Road or March Town Council.

Mr Hall referred to photos on the presentation screen, with the first slide showing a view from Norwood Road down Silver Street with only the front of the host bungalow visible on the left and stepped back two metres behind the bungalow front wall only a small part of the new dwellings gable and roof will be seen above the existing hedge. He referred to the second slide which shows a similar development 200 metres from this application site in Norwood Road near the railway level crossing, this application was refused in June 2018 as not being compliant with Policy LP16 Parts D, E and H in the refusal notice and is in a highly visible location to traffic to and from Hostmoor Industrial Estate and the Recycling Centre, the Planning Inspectorate in June 2019 overturned the refusal as the Inspector considered the main issues were the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would provide satisfactory living conditions in respect of outlook and private amenity, the Inspector found the dwelling design and layout with the private amenity space set adjacent to the public highway and to the side of the dwelling to be acceptable and not detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that this application proposes a modest dwelling with a traditional site layout of private rear amenity space and front garden set 1.1 metres from the side boundary and 2.2 metres from the host bungalow and will not detrimentally harm the street’s character. He hoped that members would support the application so that the applicant’s son and partner can get on the property ladder.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item P147/22