Agenda and minutes

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andy Brand and Azhar Ahmed, the applicants.  Mr Brand stated that he is the Planning Director of Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Ltd and he is accompanied by Azhar Ahmed who is the Assistant Development Director of their delivery partner Accent Group. He explained that Accent are currently delivering new affordable homes across Fenland, and he has been working with them with regards to the proposed site and this full planning application includes their proposed house types, making the point that the officer’s report identifies a scale of affordable housing deficit within Fenland and there are over 800 households on the Council’s waiting list for housing with a preference to live in March alone and the need across Fenland is for over 1,800 households.

Mr Brand explained that the proposal can provide an affordable home for forty-eight of those households and, should planning permission be granted, Accent would commence work on site within the first half of the year. He expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation for refusal had come as surprise as he had been working for some time with officers to successfully address matters in respect of drainage and highway matters.

Mr Brand stated that there are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the report, and he  clarified that, with regards to the Section 106 Agreement, there would be 100% affordable housing as part of the agreement. He made the point that at 10.3 of the report it suggests that the site is not within the settlement boundary of the emerging Local Plan, however, that is incorrect as the site is within the settlement boundary and the report also refers to the two trees which do not warrant refusal.

Mr Brand explained that, with regards to the loss of the trees, the report does not confirm that as part of the development there will seventy new trees planted which includes new trees facing Wimblington Road. He advised the committee that the Highway Authority have required the removal of the trees due to highway safety factors and whilst he would have preferred to maintain the trees that is not possible.

Mr Brand stated that the trees will require removal to facilitate further development through the broad location for growth for southwest March and he made the point that the delivery of forty-eight new homes accompanied by the planting of seventy trees should be given considerable weight. He added that he agrees with the conclusion at 10.24 of the report which states that the gap arising from the loss of the two trees is not much different to other existing large gaps along Wimblington Road.

Mr Brand referred to the first reason for refusal which relates to the requirement for a Broad Concept Plan (BCP) which was set out in the 2014 Local Plan and prior to submitting the planning application he  ...  view the full minutes text for item P86/23

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey referred the committee to the presentation screen and explained that the white arrows depict development and the white square next to the red site is an isolated dwelling. He explained that the centre of the village can be seen on the bottom left-hand side which is where the pub, school and church are located, and the proposal site is much closer to the centre of the village that most of Friday Bridge.

Mr Humphrey explained that the site which is edged in white is a site for six plots which was recommended for approval and was approved by the committee, referred to as the Maxey 6. He explained that the application is a resubmission of the previous planning in principle refusal, however, the current application has some differences, one of which being that it is an outline application, there is a single point of access not nine accesses, it has received highways support,  the Planning Committee membership is different from the previous determination and the application has been encouraged following officer support for the Maxey 6 which is 220 metres away.

Mr Humphrey stated that the site is within Flood Zone 1 on flat agricultural land, Friday Bridge is a limited growth village and the Maxey 6 site was supported by officers which is also in accordance with LP12. He made the point that the application site is adjacent to development which is what is needed on LP12, and the site is on a straight road with one letter of objection whereas the Maxey 6 site had 22 letters of objection and is on a rather bad bend.

Mr Humphrey referred the committee to the Maxey 6 officer report which states that the site forms  a gap in the existing frontage which, in his opinion, conforms to the core shape of the settlement. He explained that there are dwellings either side of the proposed site which has also been allocated in the emerging Local Plan.

Mr Humphrey explained that on the officer report for the Maxey 6, officers had stated that there was no distinctive character of the local area in terms of design and also that the gap would be a visual loss to the street scene but on balance is a suitable place for development. He stated that within his application, a proposal for a footpath extension has been included to make the application LP15 compliant and also similar to the Maxey 6 application.

Mr Humphrey explained that with regards to ecology he had requested that the application be deferred to a future meeting to allow his team and the planning officers time to assess the report and any implications, however, this request was refused, pointing out that there is no dyke fronting the application and the ecology report has now been  ...  view the full minutes text for item P88/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Sutton, the agent and Will Sutton, the applicant. Adam Sutton stated that the application is a PIP application which is limited to the consideration of location, use and amount, with the amount of development not being in question and is deemed as acceptable as is the use due to the nature of the land use surrounding the proposal. He stated that with regards to location, the Planning Officer is questioning compliance with LP3 and LP12 of the Local Plan but made the point that Christchurch is categorized as a small village within the settlement hierarchy of LP3 and the policy restricts development to residential infilling.

Adam Sutton stated that the Planning Officer has indicated that the Local Plan defines residential infilling as development of a site between existing buildings, however, the proposed site falls within the constraints of LP3 and does not limit the number of dwellings which are acceptable as infill development. He made the point that LP12 allows for development where the site is in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village except for those villages listed as small or other where only infill sites will normally be considered favourably, which poses two questions, firstly is the site in or adjacent to the existing developed Christchurch, which, in his view, it is, as well as whether the site is in Christchurch, which he feels it is.

Adam Sutton added that the second reason for refusal is LP14 which requires sequential and exception tests to be completed where required and the application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and a sequential and exception test which identify that the development is acceptable compared against other sites in Christchurch. He stated that the Planning Officer has made the point that facilities in Christchurch are not under threat, however, this is incorrect as the number of pupils at the school in the village is falling and the addition of family dwellings in the village will go some way towards helping those numbers increase.

Adam Sutton made reference to the handout of a map which had been circulated and he explained that it was a 1993 development area boundary map for Christchurch, which whilst he acknowledged that the map is no longer used and has been replaced by the current Local Plan, it gives a good indication of the built area of Christchurch. He explained that the map has been highlighted to show three areas of development which have been approved adjacent to the built area and all three extend the built form of Christchurch and, in his view, none of them can be considered as infill development in accordance with the definition set out in the Local Plan.

Adam Sutton stated that the proposed development shares similarities in respect of the location of the site in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/23

To determine the application

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Ian Gowler, the agent and Penny Lee, the applicant. Mr Gowler explained that there is one reason for refusal in terms of its impact and location on the surrounding countryside and referred to the presentation screen, which highlights where the proposal site falls in relation to Doddington and the slide also points out the various developments that have been approved under the current Local Plan. He explained that many of the developments that have been approved are very similar distance to the proposal from the core of the village with one exception being one development of three dwellings that was approved in December which is 500 metres further out of the village and, therefore, in his view, the site should be considered as suitable with regards to settlement hierarchy and not in the open countryside.

Mr Gowler made the point that the site is immediately adjacent to a row of bungalows which has been there for 70 years, and the site was also indicated in a draft policy map dated June 22 and states that it is suitable for frontage development as it is outlined in red and shaded in pink and was presented at a Cabinet meeting. He made the point that the emerging Local Plan has little weight, but it does highlight that there would be some development along this way.

Ms Lee explained to the committee that she has lived in Doddington for the last 45 years and she moved in order to find space for her hobby which is breeding of her horses. She added that due to ill health of her partner, they have decided to apply for planning permission in order to make life easier and build a bungalow along with continuing her hobby.

Ms Lee expressed the view that it appears to be very difficult to find a property in Doddington and she explained that her parents, brother, grandson and late partner are all buried in the graveyard in the village and Doddington is very much her home. She added that the site is on the edge of the village and the amenities are all very good, along with a footpath and a good road and, therefore, the access is good.

Ms Lee explained that she would have liked her granddaughter to live there with her family as she is also keen to assist with the horses. She referred to the comments made by the Parish Council concerning the ridge and furrows and the ancient wells and explained that the ridge and farrows are further down the field and will not be affected and with regards to the ancient wells, she is yet to find them, but she added that if they are there, they are right down the bottom of the land and will not be affected.

Mr Gowler stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item P90/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that he has spoken to the applicant regarding the history of the site and when the applicant purchased the site many years ago along with the adjacent row of properties, they did not have internal toilets and two of the properties did not have electric and were in a poor condition and over time the properties now all have electricity, toilets, and new kitchens. He stated that this has all meant that this building to be demolished has no longer been required for the external toilets and washroom due to the improvements by the applicant and it has not been used for a number of years.

Mr Hall stated that the report makes reference to a planning approval for this building to be converted in 2016 into a dwelling, however, the report does not state that the conversion was to remove all of the internal walls which are all original, over double the size of the building, due to the fact that on its own it is not suitable for a residential dwelling and it would have had an extension which would be two storey which would change the appearance of the outbuilding. He explained that it is all to be built on the boundary which is only one metre from the neighbouring property to the south, with the neighbour immediately to the south raising concerns regarding the stability of the building due to slippage of roof tiles and sections of mortar appearing on his pathway and this building is on the boundary.

Mr Hall explained that in the officer’s report under 1.3 it states that the building can be used in some form or another and he questioned what use could be made of it, it is too small for a garage and would also mean the removal of all the internal walls and when he walked up to one of the doorways he found it necessary to crouch down, making the point that if a floor was introduced even with minimal insulation then that would reduce the headroom. He expressed the opinion that it would be impractical to convert the site into a dwelling without substantial demolition works and the building has not been used for a number of years by the owner or tenants to his knowledge.

Mr Hall explained that as the officer has pointed out the demolition would allow for some additional parking on site for residents and there have been other buildings on the site located along the southern boundary which have all been given approval to be demolished and that has taken place. He stated that under LP16 it states that the proposal should not have a detrimental effect on the street scene settlement pattern or landscape of the area and the building cannot  ...  view the full minutes text for item P91/23

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 presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ben Tickner, an objector. Mr Tickner explained that he has been a resident of 117 Knights End Road for 30 years and he was addressing the committee on behalf of other residents from 106, 119, 123 and 125 Knights End Road. He made the point that one of the main reasons for the objection is the unsatisfactory access which is proposed to be via the current residential driveway, with a road that would completely loop around the existing dwelling to the new properties behind, with the new access being just 50 metres from the existing junction between Knights End Road and the March bypass which is exceptionally busy, situated on a blind bend and would be dangerous.

Mr Tickner explained that the traffic congestion is apparent and has increased significantly at the junction in recent years and he does not support having an additional turning to more residential dwellings so close to the existing junction. He expressed the view that the proposal should be considered in terms of the current road layout not how it might look in 10–20 years and added that he does not feel that the current proposed access is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic, a footway and space for rubbish bin collection.

Mr Tickner stated that he does not think that it is sensible to grant the proposal as there is not sufficient infrastructure in terms of pedestrian access or drainage, with the current drains only extending as far as no 110 Knights End Road, and the property at 110 has particularly suffered from flooding in recent years and the proposed soakaway drainage falls far short as surrounding fields are currently waterlogged. He stated that there has also been concern raised as the location does not have any pedestrian access and there is no footpath on the south side of Knights End Road and that on the opposite north side it finishes at number 110.

Mr Tickner made the point that another major objection is that the development will not be in keeping with the local area, with Knights End Road consists of street-facing frontage housing and the proposal would be back land development and out of character with the area, with the existing residential garden being surrounded on two sides by agricultural land. He expressed the opinion that the proposal is overbearing with too many properties in too small a space which would significantly overlook existing dwellings leading to loss of privacy, light and irreversibly damaging the countryside feel of the road.

Mr Tickner added that the proposal would also involve significant loss of ecologically valuable hedgerow vegetation and its removal would result in an increase in the amount of noise for existing residents as the vegetation currently shields the residents from increasing bypass dust and noise. He expressed the view  ...  view the full minutes text for item P92/23

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew members 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 explained that the site is wholly located in Flood Zone 1 and no concerns have been raised with regards to flooding. He stated that the proposal site abuts an established existing development in Christchurch, and the built-up form and follows a similar line to the adjacent development all of which is frontage linear established housing, and the proposed small village extension follows that pattern.

Mr Hall made the point that Policy LP12 states that the site must be in or adjacent to the developed footprint which the application is. He stated that the previous application which was seven years ago there were concerns raised with regards to biodiversity and a full ecology report has been included with the current application and Natural England have been consulted and have raised no objection.

Mr Hall confirmed that all of the trees at the front of the site are going to be retained and he made the point that the Parish Council give their full support to the proposal and welcome the footpath link that has been included and they have asked whether street lighting can be included which he explained is achievable as part of a condition. He stated that the previous application which officer’s have referred to did not include footpath provision, did not have an ecology report and was only on part of the site for two dwellings whereas, in his opinion, the current proposal is materially different.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the additional dwellings will give support to the local school, pub and community centre and he added that the site has not ben used for agricultural land to the best of his knowledge for the last ten years. He reiterated that the site is all located in Flood Zone 1 and the site has been identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential linear development which is what the application proposes.

Mr Hall explained that the footpath link also complies with Policy LP15 and is welcomed by the Parish Council and all of the consultees including Highways, Environmental Health, Natural England and County Council Archaeology all support the proposal which is ideal for development as it falls within Flod Zone 1, is in linear form and has a footpath as well as proposed lighting and will include a mixture of housing albeit in an indicative form, with the site abutting the established built up form of Christchurch.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application differs from an earlier application the committee determined and approved due to the fact that it has a footpath which means that it is connected to the village and brings benefit, and it will support the local school and pub. He made the point  ...  view the full minutes text for item P93/23

To determine the application.

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

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Jacqueline Kerr, an objector, read out by Member Services. Mrs Kerr stated that the land adjacent to the build site has been flooded since 10 December 2023 and Mr Grainger has been using a petrol pump, which she has heard daily, from morning until 6 in the evening, since 10 December 2023 up until 3 January 2024, which she confirmed to Planning on Wednesday 3 January and a conversation with the Planning Officer prior to Christmas, with the water having been moving towards the built plot and has also encroached onto her property. She added that Wave have also been pumping water out from her property towards the drain in Cats Lane so the water can then drain into the dyke opposite her property and initially tjeu used a petrol pump, however, that broke which resulted in them using an electric pump, which would not have been obvious to any neighbours as to what they were doing.

Mrs Kerr expressed the view that had it not been for Mr Grainger pumping the water into his dyke, east of the building plots and her husband doing the same thing daily for three weeks, the water would have gone onto the build plots, south of the water and from seen from the photos it would have been seen that the water was level to the Norway maple, protected under TPO04/2022. She expressed the opinion that the photos also show the water running parallel to the west boundary of the proposed site and the east boundary of Shallon, with this water being feet away from the building plots, and the photos were taken on 14 December around the time that Mr Grainger started to pump water from the top part of his land but also on 3 January 2024, with the photos of 3 January showing Shallons outbuilding which would be level and adjacent to the south boundary of the building plots east of Shallon.

Mrs Kerr stated that Mr Grainger states in his recent notes “has the water come uphill from our land”, which she feels indicates that the land slopes towards the building plot and is why the water was starting to encroach onto the building plot for the above application. She made the point that following three weeks of water being pumped, her land and the field south of the application site, still has water on it.

Mrs Kerr expressed the view that the applicant has already confirmed that the lie of the land slopes towards Cats Lane so after days of heavy rain, it would have been thought the water would have by now reached the building plots and they have not as the water has been pumped into the dyke east of the field and photos have then been taken on 3 January and sent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P94/23

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Jodie Chittock, a supporter read out by Member Services. Ms Chittock stated that she is a direct neighbour and only neighbour to 84b, residing at 84 and wrote a statement last time the application was considered back in August, so members can look back and see how this is impacting on her mental health, the not knowing if they have stability and could have to move if not given permission as she is worried who will buy this land after. She expressed the view that the only people who will buy it for sure will be undesirable to Chatteris and the area and will potentially turn it into a business or scrap yard.

Ms Chittock acknowledged that access is the committee’s main concern, but made the point that they owners have lived here for 4 years this Summer so she does not see that the access could have a negative impact from one more family, with the access already being used which is rightfully their right of way as they are at the top. She feels if the neighbours have already been on the site for four years as this has been going on for some time now waiting to go to committee, she does not see why they would get refused when it has been left this long and, therefore, they are using the access already and it causes no issues.

Ms Chittock stated that the applicants are just a family with three children with one to be born in June wanting to start a life and secure a family property and asked members to consider allowing them to stay as the last 4 years they have been totally respectful and not at all negatively impacted the environment or access. She asked that consideration be made to worst outcome and that would be who buys it after and what they will do with it, with the impact on her family and her children whom play safely outside the gate as she worries about strangers and their safety with this. She stated that she completely supports the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nathaniel Green, the agent. Mr Green explained that the plan on the previous presentation screen is a previous plan, however, it does not matter given that the only change that took place was that the turning area was moved from the tree protection area. David Rowen stated that the plan depicts the quantum of development which is proposed onsite subject to some minor tweaks and, therefore, he is satisfied with the plan shown.

Mr Green stated that two of the reasons for refusal have now been disregarded thankfully but the issue of highways still remains, making the point that he understands that Highways Officers have a job to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P95/23