Agenda and minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and resolved that Councillor Connor be elected as Chairman of the Planning Committee for the municipal year.

It was proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and resolved that Councillor Marks be elected as Vice-Chairman of Planning Committee for the municipal year.

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 30 April 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of the 30 April 2025 were signed and agreed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked why this application has taken 5 years to come before committee? David Rowen responded that it is an application that has quite a lot of different elements within it in terms of the viability side and also the highway works. He continued that whilst officers aim to determine applications quicker than this there have been a number of delays, several of which do rest with the applicant in terms of providing the necessary information.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not see any recommendations or any discussions with any of the drainage boards and there are drains in this vicinity. She asked if it known if the applicant has been in discussion with the drainage boards? David Rowen responded that Middle Level were consulted but as members are aware it can be selective in the applications that it comments upon and it is not a statutory consultee and as a consequence no representation has been received. Councillor Mrs French stated that she does have a drainage board meeting tomorrow and she will raise this with them. She added that at a meeting last week they are working on a new policy and hopefully working with Fenland’s Planning Team to see if some of the issues can be resolved.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked about mitigation in terms of the sewage pumping station and the odour coming from this as it is 15 metres away and also an explanation on the covenant that restricts development to 10 dwellings? David Rowen responded that, in terms of the impact of the sewage pumping station, Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no concerns on any environmental effects, which is set out at 5.5 of the officer’s report. He continued that covenants are not a material planning consideration and is a separate legal issue for whoever imposed that covenant to deal with.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked for an explanation on how the viability study was carried out and that there is no affordable housing and how the Section 106 money came to that figure? David Rowen responded that the requirements of the legal agreement is set out at 10.37 of the officer’s report which is basically to secure a contribution of £300,000 to be split between the NHS receiving £13,755 and towards off-site affordable housing of £186,244. He continued that the application has undertaken a viability assessment and as intimated earlier in the response to Councillor Mrs French’s question this is one of the reasons why it has taken so long to get to the determination stage, with the background to this all within the report.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked who does the affordable housing money go to? David Rowen responded that this will be put in the ‘pot’ that the Council has to deliver affordable housing around the District. Councillor Gerstner asked at what stages will that money be paid? David Rowen responded that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item P4/25

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Steve Dubois, an objector. Mr Dubois stated that he lives at 31 Norfolk Street, the Listed Building that borders the proposed development and he opposes the proposal and welcomes the officer’s recommendation to refuse. He stated that whether or not committee agree with the heritage assessment, when it comes to evaluating the recommendation, everyone is bound by the same guiding principles in that great weight should be given to the assets conservation, that the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its settings, and whilst these are a matter for the committee, the NPPF also states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, as is the case with 31 Norfolk Street, this harm should be weighted against the public benefit of the proposal.

Mr Dubois questioned what the benefits of the proposal are, increased housing stock, opportunity to monetize an underdeveloped parcel of land and consideration of the key themes from the 23 letters of support, which need to be weighed against the harm to the Listed Building and the loss of green space. He expressed the opinion that there would an increased fire risk, it is a thatched property, and there would be a loss of privacy and there is a lack of community support as evidenced by the 78 letters of objection.

Mr Dubois stated that he appreciates that the Council is working on a new plan but as a designated growth village Wimblington has reached nearly three times its target set in 2014 and, in his view, there is no economic merit in building a further five homes and there is a significant development in Wimblington and the wider March area to keep much of the local construction industry busy for quite some time. He feels that building in what is an area favoured by older residents has no educational merit and the proposed development would do very little to address the undersubscription of the Thomas Eaton Primary School.

Mr Dubois expressed the view that the proposal also has no social merit, it has no affordable housing and potentially compounds already stretched medical services. He stated that he has lived in the village for 25 years and when he moved this house it could be seen from March Road, hedges were much lower and looking west he could see the big skies and Fen sunsets from his patio and that is the traditional context in which 31 Norfolk Street should be appreciated.

Mr Dubois referred to the presentation screen which shows the growth of housing and the erosion of green spaces within the heart of the village and he showed an aerial view of the proposed site as it stands today, the modern Morley Way development to the west, the green amenity to the north acting as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P5/25

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly 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 this is a Principle in Planning (PIP) application and he is pleased to see it recommended for approval. He referred to the points that the objectors have raised, where they are saying that trees are being removed but there are no trees being removed as part of this application, all the trees that can be seen in the photos surrounding the site are not even owned by this applicant and are owned by someone completely different.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the site is not in the open countryside, there are various built out and approved residential developments abutting this site and when he visited the site on Friday 23 May the new footpath that has been approved is being set at the moment linking in to the bypass. He referred to the plan on the presentation screen, which shows the site and other sites that have been approved or built out in the vicinity, making the point that the character of the area is changing all the time.

Mr Hall stated that he has submitted an indicative drawing to give members an idea of what might be proposed at the next stage if this application is approved, which shows low density development similar to the other sites at Eastwood End. He feels the officer’s report sums up the application very well, with good service being received from the officer and it is being recommended for approval and other applications in Eastwood End have been supported, in some instances by officers and some by members.

Mr Hall stated that the site lies in Flood Zone 1 and there is an existing access, which they are proposing to widen and improve, with the applicant owning the house immediately adjacent the access so it can be carried out, with there being no highway objection or other technical objections.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that this is a good application, others have been approved in this vicinity and this will probably be the last piece to complete that whole area. She stated that she supports it.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French, it is an on-going building out of the area, with this application just a PIP so there will more details come along which can be discussed at a further planning meeting if it comes to the committee.

·       Councillor Benney agreed, stating this is a PIP application, it is not known what the details will be and this will come forward in a later application and others have been passed in the area.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant is a customer of a business that he is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P6/25

To determine the application

Members agreed to defer this application for further information to be submitted and considered.

To determine the application.

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

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is a policy complaint application, it is a good solid proposal, with officers undertaking a good job working to get the conclusion before members today. He feels it does not need much debate.

·       Councillor Purser agreed, sheltered housing is needed, it is nice and tidy and harming nothing.

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

To determine the application.

Alan Davies 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 officer’s report highlights that there had been a previous approval for the conversion of the first floor to a residential flat and the proposal before the committee also includes that as well. He made the point that the application site is located in a built-up residential area and, in his opinion, that it will be classed as a town centre location.

Mr Hall explained that when he submitted the application as part of the submission, he included a list of public houses and clubs within March, and there are 14 other drinking establishments and clubs with Wetherspoons probably being the largest one which is located 170 metres away from the application site, with the business which used to operate from the application site having been closed for 12 months. He stated that he has reviewed some of the comments made by the local residents as the site is surrounded by residential properties and the site it is located right next door to people’s gardens.

Mr Hall explained that the existing parking space will be utilized as there is a space available and  the Highway Authority have not raised any objection and the existing bin storage will be kept and there have been no concerns highlighted. He referred to the first floor windows and the ground floor windows located to the front of the property where concerns have been raised are already in place and on the rear elevation there is a staircase and a door and the proposal plans to remove that due to the fact that when you stand on the staircase then you can see into three of the surrounding gardens.

Mr Hall stated that the former landlady is in support of the proposal, who was the landlady of the business for 14 years, and as stated in the officer’s report she has confirmed that the business closed as it was not viable to continue and was closed down prior to the applicant purchasing the building. He explained that there are no technical objections to the proposal from any of the consultees to the application and within the officer’s report it makes reference to space standards, but stated that the application is for a conversion and, therefore, he will be working with the existing structure and has no plans for it to be extended as there is very limited room, making the point that he intends to keep the outside of the building as it is.

Mr Hall stated that the officer has pointed out that flat one and flat three are satisfactory but flat two is below standard and referred to another application for three flats in Norfolk Street in Wisbech from 2019 which was recommended for approval and was supported by members of the committee, with that proposal being for three new flats and flat one was 38  ...  view the full minutes text for item P9/25

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the proposal at the site is for a shed to expand the existing business and an occupational on-site dwelling, which is not a separate residential dwelling but is a dwelling tied to the exiting business which has been at the current location since 2004. He stated that originally the business was located off of Gaul Road at a Council depot which was sold and the business relocated to its current site, being a fabrication business which makes and repairs various steelwork products which are predominantly play equipment, gates and structural steelwork and the business also works with local businesses to carry out repairs to vans, lorries and trailers.

Mr Hall made the point that out of hours working does take place and on HGV repairs and trailers which can often be an emergency repair at any time, with the work being usually UK based for the play equipment, structural steelwork and gates with the occasional component sent abroad. He explained that the HGV and trailer repair work is generally local work for local businesses.

Mr Hall stated that the application is for an occupational dwelling tied to the existing building and they wish to remain at the same location as it is established at this site rather than move the entire business which is why other sites have not been looked at. He made the point that there are no technical objections and no local objections to the application and there has been support from local businesses including Fen View Motors, Rutterford Construction and Griffin Roses.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the application site which is located on the edge of the bypass along with an application he was involved with in 2013 which was for a dwelling in conjunction with an existing HGV repair business which has been built out and is located in Flood Zone 3. He explained that there is also a site on the map which was approved in 2020 by the committee and the agent for the application had advised members that it was for persons to live on site in conjunction with the existing business and that was also located in Flood Zone 3.

Mr Hall referred to the screen and stated that the site located at the south of the map was given approval by officers in 2024 and was for an occupational dwelling in conjunction with the existing rose business. He explained that all of the areas that he has highlighted to members are located on the fringes of the bypass and added that there are no objections to the application and the business wishes to expand further by introducing the shed and also to allow a person to live on the site as an occupational dwelling rather than off site and to allow an office on the site.

Mr Hall  ...  view the full minutes text for item P10/25

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Duncan and Sarah Worsley, the applicants. Mrs Worsley stated that the applications are similar to previous applications which have been made in 2024 which were due to come before the committee, however, due to some confusion the 2024 applications were declined in March 2025. She explained that in July 2024 she met with Sam Falco, the Conservation Officer, with the principles of the extension being discussed as well as reviewing the historic fabric of the house and various options were discussed with an extension on the left-hand side being discarded due to the requirements to leave a one metre gap between the neighbour’s extension and a lack of natural light in that area.

Mrs Worsley explained that at that time everyone’s preferred option is what has formed the application and is on the right-hand side of the house, with the current applications including more historic fabric being retained such as keeping the existing door in its current location and a smaller opening created into the new kitchen area. She explained that there are no local objections to the scheme from people who live close to the proposed extension and alterations and Chatteris Town Council have not objected to the proposal.

Mrs Worsley referred to the presentation screen which shows the scullery, and she added that the Conservation Officer report of 25 April 2025 states that the room has not had a 20^th century makeover yet. She explained that the ground floor shower room was approved by the Council and two thirds of the space was converted into a ground floor shower room back into 2016 and the work was completed, with the remains of the scullery no longer being fit for purpose, it is a damp dark space accessed via the shower room and it is not currently being used to the full benefit of the house due to its distance from the current kitchen.

Mrs Worsley explained that it has a modern portioned wall which splits the existing sash window and the window into the scullery bathroom cannot open. She explained that the next slide outlines the front elevation and that the extension will not be seen from the street and the rear elevation which demonstrates a mismatch of materials containing a mixture of brickwork, plastic casement windows and a poorly constructed conservatory and all of these aspects will be significantly improved by the proposed extension with the brickwork being repaired, windows replaced with in keeping sash timber windows and the conservatory will be removed.

Mrs Worsley explained that the next slide shows the proximity of the neighbours extension at 9 West Park Street which was approved in May 2022. She made the point that with the position of existing services and making better use of the existing floor plan, the proposed extension works appear to work better on the right-hand side of the rear elevation.

Mrs Worsley explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item P11/25