Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 5 March 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of 5 March were and confirmed and signed as an accurate record, subject to an amendment to Minute P102/24, where it should state that it was proposed by Councillor Mrs French and seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 David Ward, an objector. Mr Ward stated that the applicant has submitted a proposal on land which is not in his ownership, explaining that there is a strip of land which contains a metre wide dyke running behind all of the bungalows in Green Park and this area was fenced off against the applicant’s property and has been the legal factual possession of the residents of Green Park for the last 50 years. He stated that the applicant’s company is aware that they do not own the strip of land and illegally removed all of the fencing that runs along their properties.

Mr Ward expressed the view that if the application is granted then the Council may find that developers submit planning applications on land which is not in their ownership. He explained that there was a Judicial Review on the parcel on land which took place in June 2003 where planning permission was refused for a similar sized development and the Inspector for the Secretary of State had at that time stated that the proposals were of a significant harm both to the character of the area and the amenity of the adjoining properties, with planning permission being refused due to the fact that there was no benefit stemming from the development which was sufficient to outweigh the harm.

Mr Ward added that drainage calculations provided by the applicant are incorrect and appear only to rely on the rainfall entering and using recognised greenfield rates and ignore the massive watershed which comes from the three lanes of the bypass which deposits water downhill into the site and at least doubles greenfield rates. He made the point that pooling will also occur due to the fact of the methods that the applicant is proposing to provide drainage with the roads being sited on top of clay and water does not dissolve in clay.

Mr Ward added that rear gardens are unusable every single year and to cope many residents have had to dig trenches along the side of their bungalows in order to prevent water from entering their properties and in significantly bad weather those steps have often proved to be insufficient.  He explained that a dyke which has been constructed on the Lancaster Way development has needed to be initiated in front of the houses since the development commenced due to the fact that the flooding was coming from New Road into the buildings.

Mr Ward expressed the view that the large 5 bedroomed house located behind his property will mean that his rear garden will be in shade for most of the day and he expressed the view that it will also impact his privacy, which he feels is unacceptable. He added that the orientation of the house means that the bungalows along the east side of Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item P109/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Pritchard, Patrick Humphris and Kate Humphris, objectors. Mr Humphris stated that he is representing a large number of residents from the village of Newton who object to the proposal and has three points that he wishes to highlight to the committee, stating that the application does not constitute infill development and is, therefore, contrary to policy LP3 of the Local Plan. He referred the committee to the advice and detailed policy analysis provided by an independent planning consultant that he has engaged along with the officer’s report which has concluded that it is not infill development.

Mr Humphris referred to the presentation screen and made the point that the photo shows sporadic housing on Rectory Road and the surrounding area which is green and beautiful countryside. He stated that his second point refers to the rural character of this part of Rectory Road which, in his view, would be harmed by the proposal and should make it contrary to policies LP12 and LP16 of the Local Plan.

Mr Humphris drew members attention to the aerial photo which clearly demonstrates, in his view, that the site is flat arable land and the surrounding area is mainly open fields, has sporadic dwellings and no linear development. He stated that he objects to the proposal because it will harm the rural character of Rectory Road and is contrary to planning policy.

Mr Humphris explained that the residents of the village overwhelmingly object to the development and strongly oppose the plan and have made their views clear through 42 letters of objection and by their attendance at every Parish Council Committee meeting. He expressed the view that he finds it baffling that some of the Parish Councillors have not listened to the views of residents or taken their concerns raised with regards to planning policy and material considerations seriously.

Mr Humphris added that, whilst it is recognised that a tension will always exist between how to keep Fenland growing without losing the uniqueness of Fenland, the Local Plan clearly sets out that Fenland has a unique character with its flat open landscape and big skies as well as complex networks of drainage channels and watercourses and he asked the committee to help to protect the balance and to refuse the application.

Mr Pritchard stated that the application site is landlocked and, therefore, a discharge pipe has been added which only just touches the corner of the whole field, diverting all of the water from the site and much of the remaining field into higher flood zone. He explained that the permission to discharge given by the Lead Local Flood Authority is subject to riparian rights and he owns the adjacent field and dyke which has those riparian rights.

Mr Pritchard stated that his land is already saturated and, in his view, he is being put at an increased risk of flooding so he does  ...  view the full minutes text for item P110/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens stated that the application seeks approval for the erection of three dwellings on the application site and subsequent biodiversity BNG metric would be produced as part of any future reserved matters application, which would address the mandatory 10% BNG requirement. He stated that the planning officer’s report at 1.2 makes reference to the fact that the proposal represents a form of development which fails to respect the built form of this part of the village, but he drew members attention to application F/YR24/0635/RM, which the committee approved for 24 two-storey dwellings, immediately to the north of the site, which goes further back behind Westfield Road than the current application before the committee.

Mr Bevens drew members attention to F/YR23/0337/F, which was for the erection of four dwellings, 2, two-storey three-bedroomed dwellings and two single-storey houses at land south of 37A Westfield Road, opposite the site, which was approved by the committee in August 2024. He added that both these applications offer development behind the main frontage of Westfield Road and made the point that if the application is approved then a full foul and surface water strategy will support a reserved matters application.

Mr Bevens referred to 1.3 of the officer’s report regarding the long nature of the access and he explained that details of external lighting would form part of the reserved matters application and there is no reason to assume that the lighting or the height of the dwellings will give rise to a detrimental impact on nearby dwellings. He explained that plot 1 is over 45 metres away from 104 Westfield Road and 40 metres away from 98 Westfield Road, with the properties orientated at 90 degrees to the houses fronting onto Westfield Road to avoid any loss of privacy or overlooking and, in his view, he cannot foresee how any long term disturbance will be caused other than the limited time to construct the development any more than the adjacent approved scheme for 24 dwellings.

Mr Bevens circulated a hand out to members of the committee and stated that officers have referred to the application site as to being in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and he explained that it is only part of plot three that enters Flood Zone 2.  He stated that plots 1 and 2 are not located inside Flood Zones 2 or 3 and made the point that the Council has recently approved a number of schemes in the immediate proximity of the site and these are indicated on the circulated handout.

Mr Bevens added that these sites are located on a lower point than the proposed scheme which includes the four-bedroomed dwelling at Westwood Farm which was approved a few years ago, 2 four-bedroomed houses along Fallow Corner Drove and four-bedroomed dwellings at 106 and 110 Westfield Road. He explained that as part of the reserved  ...  view the full minutes text for item P111/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Deptford, the applicant, and Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson explained that the proposal is for an occupational dwelling for the applicant and his family to reside in to enable the applicant to be on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order for him to be able to maintain the local drainage system within the area. She explained that the second reason for refusal relates to visual impact and the perceived harm to the countryside and, in her view, this is subjective given the fact that the dwelling is proposed to be located next to the existing buildings and set against the backdrop of these buildings and located within a small cluster of development, in her view, the dwelling would not cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.

Mrs Jackson referred to the third reason for refusal which relates to flood risk and she made the point that given that there is an essential need for the dwelling to be in this specific location and that it will facilitate the maintenance of a local drainage system and that an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment has been provided the proposal passes both the sequential and exception tests.

Mr Deptford stated that he would like to refer to the first reason for refusal and explained that the dwelling is required to support his business, adding that he is a fourth generational farming business and his son has just returned to the family business to ensure that it continues. He explained that he has recently expanded the farming operations to approximately 890 hectares of owned, rented and contract farmland, and none of the land has any available housing.

Mr Deptford explained that he has farmed the land where the proposed dwelling is located since 1942 and originally there were three farms which his grandfather combined, and it had several dwellings on the farm and up until the 1970s there were five houses on the farm. He added that during the 1970s these houses were all demolished as they were badly built and suffered from significant subsidence, making the point that there is a history of housing on the farm.

Mr Deptford explained that he has a sustainable ongoing business and due to expansion, the demands to be on the farm in person have increased significantly over the last four or five years. He made the point that he has over 150 lorry movements a year, loading and unloading of produce as well as numerous stores which require constant checking along with the issues of theft, trespass and hare coursing.

Mr Deptford added that one of the reasons he needs to be located on the farm is due to the private drainage board which is one out of only six in the whole of the Middle Level and his is the largest which incorporates 340 hectares which  ...  view the full minutes text for item P112/24

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alex Bateman, the agent. Mr Bateman explained that there was outline planning permission on the site and for the neighbouring site for 13 dwellings and a reserved matters application was submitted which was close to determination and approval but had to be withdrawn due to the option expiring. He stated that three storey dwellings were proposed on his part of the site in the top left-hand corner and, therefore, where this development is now down to single storey, three storey units were proposed in the original scheme.

Mr Bateman stated that he attended meetings with officers in the summer of 2024 prior to determination but that was postponed due to the need for ecology surveys which were required. He explained that the application was then passed to a new case officer who was less supportive of the proposal but following a meeting with officers a positive route forward was achieved, however, he is surprised to have received the recommendation for refusal.

Mr Bateman referred to the presentation screen and provided images of his client’s other developments in Doddington and the images show two schemes which have now been sold. He made the point that he is pleased to see that the officer’s report supports the proposal in principle, and he referred to the report concerning the two three-storey units of plot 7 and 8 which are to be considered to be at significant odds with the scale.

Mr Bateman added that he finds this disappointing as it was not the conclusion reached at his meeting with officers in December as he was led to believe that there were no issues. He explained that unit 9 should be a two-storey dwelling stepping down to a three storey for unit 8 and that was embraced in the revised scheme and whilst the applicant has made the changes it would appear that unit 7 now has issues which he was not made aware of and the stepping up proposal is no longer acceptable which he feels is unjust and disappointing.

Mr Bateman made reference to the location of the dwellings at the termination of the development at the northern end and added that within the reserved matters application there are three 3-storey units in the same location, however, the two single-storey dwellings are not in that location. He explained that it is disappointing that these points were not picked up in his meeting with officers in December and it was embraced that the position chosen for the higher units meant that the development stepped up as you went through the scheme.

Mr Bateman explained that there is quite a substantial amount of vegetation at the front site which hides the single-storey units, and you go through the development to the bigger dwellings behind and there was no mention of bland and featureless elevations. He added that with regards to the bungalow there were concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item P113/24

To determine the application.

David Grant 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 the application is for planning in principle development to try and establish a principle of residential development at this site within the growth village of Manea. He added that the application complies with Policy LP3 and is for a small development.

Mr Hall explained that he has listened to the debate this afternoon concerning flood risk and none of the properties are located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 as they are all located in Flood Zone 1 as is the parking for the dwellings, along with the swale and turning area. He explained that the existing entrance to the site is in the flood zone and is not changing and the existing property which was on the site would still be left with a 40 metres long garden which is over half of the plot area which would be left to garden.

Mr Hall stated that the access to the site is going to be improved and will be 6 metres wide for the four properties, with there being no objections from Highways, and it is the front section of the access which is located in a flood zone as are nearly all the properties located in Fallow Corner Drove. He stated that there is mature vegetation along the northern boundary of the site which abuts where an application for 100 dwellings may be coming forward and the mature vegetation is within the ownership of the applicant and, therefore, the development would not be visible from the north or, in his view, from the street scene.

Mr Hall referred to 10.1 of the officers’ report where it states that the principle of development is acceptable under policy LP3, and he referred to the presentation screen where the map displayed identifies the adjacent approvals and, in his view, the application site is not in isolation. He made reference to an earlier application where the long driveway to that particular site is located and indicated to members where it is be located.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and made reference to some previous approvals, including a development in Westfield Road, where the five dwellings extend well back from the frontage development which was approved under delegated powers as was the site depicted in blue which was for three chalet bungalows and a bungalow which are almost completed. He explained that the site-coloured orange was a brownfield site which is a site for over 20 dwellings which has been approved, making the point that next to the entrance of that site an application came to the committee in February which was deferred and was in a flood zone and the properties also extended back and was also recommended for refusal by officers and was not frontage development and that the development extended  ...  view the full minutes text for item P114/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Savage, an objector. Mr Savage circulated a handout to members of the committee and explained that his property backs onto the land associated with the application, and he has been in business for over 40 years and lived behind the property for 30 years. He explained that his main work is groundwork and drainage, and, in his view, he believes that the application should not be passed.

Mr Savage stated that as a joint landowner with the Fox family, the applicant has not sought his permission for any drainage or surface water to cross his land to connect into the pipe in the middle of the field which is shown on the handout provided to the committee. He explained that the applicant has not obtained any permission from the dyke owner of the Darcy Lode which the pipe from the field discharges into and which he maintains, but agrees that the applicant may have permission from the local drainage board but to get the surface water to the drainage board system, they have to pass over three landowners’ properties and the IDB drain only starts two large fields away which is half a mile from the applicant’s site.

Mr Savage explained that apart from himself and Mr Fox, the only other right of way is for the use of the public footpath and there is no mention of any third-party owner, making the point that permission needs to be sought from himself and up to the present time, no contact from the applicant has ever been made. He expressed the view that his concern is that without any robust drainage strategy this could result in flooding issues not only in the local area but also elsewhere in Manea causing flooding not only to his property but to neighbouring ones too, including Cox Way which borders the site and was developed five years ago.

Mr Savage explained that ,when the site was developed, a dyke which runs adjacent to the applicant’s site was filled in and not piped which resulted in surface water being retained not only on the site but also filling the local network to the dyke on the road beside his property causing flooding. He added that his further concern is that further to the recent application on his own land, he was asked to introduce a holding pond by officers to alleviate any flooding and by allowing the seven properties in the application before the committee it could have an impact on his site by causing flooding to his own properties, with the agent for that application, Mr Hall, also being the Agent for his application two years ago.

Mr Savage state that at that time particular attention was given with regards to issues concerning potential flooding to both his and surrounding sites. He added that he would strongly request  ...  view the full minutes text for item P115/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the proposal at the site has been developed following various discussions with his client and various other schemes prior to making the application. He explained that there is a mixture of properties including semi-detached three-bedrooms, detached four-bedroomed dwellings and he added that they are not all the same and are not all boxes in a line, with along the frontage of the site there will be a footpath which will be adopted and then where it goes into the access to the field at the back which is in separate ownership.

Mr Hall made the point that the site already has outline approval which was supported by members in June 2023 and the current proposal is a detailed layout which follows on from that. He explained that there are no technical objections, and the archaeological excavation has already been carried out over the site and the County Council have visited the site.

Mr Hall stated that on site percolation testing has been undertaken and that proves that soakaways work at the site which is all located in Flood Zone 1. He explained that during the course of the application there have been various discussions with the Highway Authority, and he has undertaken a review of some of the objections to the proposal.

Mr Hall stated that he has purchased land registry documents, a highways boundary plan and he has had the site professionally measured and has received a good service from the Highway Authority, where he has demonstrated the extent of the footpath that can be provided. He made the point that the proposal allows for extra dwellings in Friday Bridge to help support local amenities and the Parish Council have been consulted twice on the application and have supported it on both occasions.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor asked whether there will be any provision of street lighting? Mr Hall stated that during the discussions with the Highway Authority concerning the footpath, radius kerbs and accesses he does not recall any mention of street lighting.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor asked officers to clarify the situation with regards to street lighting. David Rowen stated that if the footpath is to be adopted then it will need to be the standard that the County Council request and if that includes the need for street lighting then that will form part of the adoption.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a good application, and she will fully support it.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item P116/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Daniel Samuel, the applicant. Mr Samuel stated that the proposal is for up to nine self-build dwellings, which addresses strong demand and a lack of supply offering opportunities to build dream homes. He added that the plots may attract higher earners and executives boosting investment, creating jobs, supporting Manea train station, local builders and tradesmen along with local building material suppliers.

Mr Samuel made the point that the committee has previously supported self-build developments and he would hope that the committee will support his application. He stated that the officer’s recommendation of refusal lists five reasons, firstly that it is claimed that the development is situated outside the settlement of Manea and within open countryside, however, in his opinion, that assertion is incorrect as from the junction of Station Road located on the southern side of Wimblington Road there is an agricultural building with permission granted for conversion to housing, a skip hire yard, a commercial fishing lake with caravan, motor home and caravan facilities, a dwelling at the proposed site, an agricultural warehouse, a motorsports engineering workshop, a dog kennel operation and a further dwelling.

Mr Samuel stated that across from the site entrance there are three dwellings and a sizeable commercial establishment and, therefore, in his view, the application site is not isolated or undeveloped countryside, and he referred to Braintree District Council and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He referred to the second recommended reason for refusal where it states that the location is not ideal for walking and cycling due to the road speed limit and the absence of pavements and street lighting but made the point that these same conditions apply to the developments previously mentioned and, in his opinion, his application should be evaluated on the same basis.

Mr Samuel referred to the third recommended reason for refusal where it states that the property lies in Flood Zone 3 and made the point that a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment including surface water drainage strategy that he has just received indicates that only 50% of the site is at medium flood risk. He added that in the event of a flood from a combined breach of defences, the water depth would reach just 25cm without fast flowing currents which will pose a low hazard and the likelihood of such a breach is minimal and most of the dwellings can avoid flood risk zones and those within such areas can be safely elevated to mitigate loss.

Mr Samuel expressed the view that members highly value the IDB’s management of flood defences and water systems leading to the committee’s approval of developments in flood risk areas particularly large and self-build homes. He added that a recent example was the approval of a self-build home at Honeybank, Second Drove, Chatteris which was contrary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P117/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is for a single dwelling which abuts the developed footprint as per the policy LP12(a) of the Local Plan, where it states that any extensions to a village should abut the built form. He explained that Wisbech St Mary is a growth village and has all the facilities that would be expected in such a village.

Mr Humphrey added that over the years there has been three approvals for 36 caravans beyond the application site out of the village which demonstrates that it is acceptable in the area for development. He made the point that whilst the site is located in Flood Zone 3, it is identical to the adjacent recently approved dwelling currently under construction and the sequential test shows that there are no plots available.

Mr Humphrey added that three plots were identified, and he has spoken to all three owners and none of them are available. He explained that his client, Mr Curtis Woods, is currently living in a caravan in the village whilst waiting to find himself a self-build plot and he lives with his partner and daughter who is registered at the local school.

Mr Humphrey added that the applicant works for his family’s engineering business TAM Engineering who are based on Leverington Common, and they have their site located approximately one mile from the application site. He stated that TAM Engineering are often on call 24 hours a day sometimes to the Council, North Level Internal Drainage Board, Barhale and McCain and, therefore, the closer the applicant can live to his place of work will enhance his quality of live, with there being no house or room to build one on his work site.

Mr Humphrey stated that he would like to remind members of the committee that housing has been approved on four different roads into the village, Station Road, High Road adjacent to the Vicarage, Bevis Lane and Sandbank have all seen growth along the existing built form and, in his view, Sandbank would be no different. He stated that Mr Woods is desperate to do a self-build home for himself and his family and the application site would deliver a self-build custom-built plot, and it should be supported as per policy LP5(C).

Mr Humphrey made the point that there have been 12 letters of support and none against with no objections from the North Level IDB, Highways, Environmental Health, Environment Agency and the Parish Council fully support the application. He asked the committee to support the applicant in his venture to build a self-build house for his family so that he can move closer to his business.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked whether the applicant owns TAM Engineering? Mr Humphrey stated that the application is for Mr Curtis Woods, who is Mr Woods son, and they run  ...  view the full minutes text for item P118/24

Andre Dudley presented the report to members.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses.

Members agreed the recommendations in the report.

(Members resolved to exclude the public for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972)