Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 17 September 2025.

The minutes of the 17 September 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Alan Davies 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 Councillor Brenda Barber, District and Ward Councillor. Councillor Barber explained that last week she had attended a meeting where hundreds of residents of Barton Road and other roads in Wisbech St Mary packed the biggest hall available in Wisbech, and it was standing room only, making the point that the residents have had to put up with so much disruption already over the almost permanent closure of Barton Road. She explained that the current date for the road to be reopened is not until March 2026, but this date is not guaranteed because Anglian Water have been honest enough to admit that there could be further problems which would delay the reopening even further and Anglian Water have now stated that they have found disturbed asbestos in the ground.

Councillor Barber explained that the residents of Barton Road are experiencing ongoing damage to boundaries, fencing, garages and their buildings and are asking when will the problems end. She added that the very long diversion avoiding Barton Road includes Station Road in Wisbech St Mary, which is a smaller road with housing on both sides, and it has seen many problems with road erosion and many potholes since the diversion, making the point that there has been damage caused to housing which has not been rectified and the diversion is also ignored by many who are using much smaller roads including HGV’S and lorries and as a result these roads are also being damaged.

Councillor Barber made the point that the planned building of another 42 homes with access from Barton Road is clearly a bad mistake and, in her opinion, should at the very least be suspended until the road has been completely repaired and the associated problems with it have been proved to have not been passed on to the next piece of land. She stated that Anglian Water have already come up against many problems since the sewer collapse including the discovery of an underground water course which they had not known about and if they manage to divert it or bridge it, how can the residents be sure that the problem will not affect the new builds resulting in the closure of the road yet again.

Councillor Barber added that the residents of Grove Park are already experiencing problems as the land is moving underneath and this has caused damage to their homes. She expressed the view that this amount of planning applications currently being considered in the same area amounts to over development.

Councillor Barber referred to LP13 of the Local Plan which states that planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is or will be sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all of the requirements arising from the proposed development and, in her view, conditions or planning obligations  ...  view the full minutes text for item P50/25

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 stated that the pub at ground floor level was closed in December 2023, meaning that the facility has been lost for nearly 2 years, with the building on the second and third floors being used as a house of multiple occupancy and that use ceased just before the application was submitted, but it could be restarted. He explained that there is no loss of employment associated with the application as the pub/hotel ceased operation nearly 2 years ago and when he visited the site earlier in the year there were people sleeping rough in the rear section of the building in a single storey wing.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal allows for a very prominent building to be brought back into use right in the centre of Wisbech, making reference to the planning history of the site laid out in the officer’s report which states that there was a refusal in 2017 and 2018 to change the building into a snooker hall and leisure entertainment centre and the current application is for change of use into residential with an officer’s recommendation of refusal and he questioned what else the building can be used for. He added that all of the technical consultees support the application along with Wisbech Town Council who fully support the application and there have been no objections to the proposal.

Mr Hall stated that the Conservation Officer has raised an objection and during the process of the application officers allowed some revised drawings to be submitted which did go some way to alleviating the Conservation Officer’s concerns. He made the point that the proposal would not result in the loss of the only pub in Wisbech as there are seven other pubs and two further hotels with bars all within 700 metres of the application site, with the other establishments being down the same road and there is a further one in the adjacent road.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the application site is right in the centre of Wisbech and not in a rural location and is unique as it has a large car parking area at the rear, its own access and is an ideal town centre location for quality residential development. He explained that one of the reasons for refusal is due to some of the flats falling short of space standards, however, there have been other applications approved by the committee and under delegated powers recently that have also fallen short of space standards, including the Buffs Club which was approved in March along with a recent application in Dartford Road in March above a shop where approval was given for five flats and some of those were short of space standards and there is also a former school next to his office where there is a conversion to 20 flats and over  ...  view the full minutes text for item P51/25

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to the mention of the exceptions test for flood risk results in conflict with national and local flood policies and stated that Turves lies all within Flood Zone 3 so how can anyone go against this policy if they wanted to build in Turves as it means that no more building will ever happen in Turves. Matthew Leigh responded that each application is determined upon its own merits, and the exception test is clear that there needs to be public benefits that outweigh the harm and that housing as a principle alone is not public benefit. He referred to the first application, where approval was recommended based on the exception test because of the benefits of the scheme was the quantum of affordable housing units, the provision of older people’s housing and the provision of single access accommodation that would be able to accommodate wheelchair users so there needs to be a selection of ‘goodies’ so that the benefits outweigh the harm. Matthew Leigh continued that these benefits could be ecological benefits, renewable energy and it is about providing a mix but this application apart from housing is providing no real benefits and, therefore, the exceptions test would be very difficult to pass.

·       Councillor Marks stated that in a local area bringing three more families into the area when there is a pub that is trying to remain open is that not a benefit and then three more properties in Fenland that people are paying rates for. Matthew Leigh responded that people paying rates is not a material planning consideration but also the guidance from Government is clear that housing alone is not something that passes the exceptions test irrespective of what someone’s personal opinion is. He added that the exceptions test has been looked at as detailed in the officer’s report, the various benefits have been looked at and they are not considered to outweigh the harm.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with officers on this application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that Fenland villages have always had houses built initially on the side of the road, this proposal is not looking to build behind other houses but on the roadside. He referred to Flood Zone 3, which means that there will no further building in Turves so there would be a problem keeping the pub open and other services such as the bus service if people are not allowed to build. Councillor Marks made the point that there is already an approval for three on the land adjacent, this was also in Flood Zone 3 and there was obviously a need for these, and, in his view, there is a need for these three as well as if not the developer would not been bringing them forward. He stated that across the road there are all new properties or they have  ...  view the full minutes text for item P52/25

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jonathan Kirby, on behalf of Nigel Davies, an objector. Mr Kirby stated that is a training flying instructor and experienced pilot at March Airfield speaking on behalf of Nigel Davies, the owner and chief flying instructor. He stated that they have been put in a situation to lodge an objection to safeguard the future of the business regarding the proposal of buildings and structures at the end of their main runway, with March Airfield being predominantly a paramotor training school and all of its students have a set syllabus which means they have to undertake a minimum of 25 flights to be signed off as a paramotor pilot, however, some pilots take longer than this.

Mr Kirby advised that flying tasks including take off, climb outs, circuit training, emergency engines offs and in-flight restarts, emergency spot landings, are all within a 25 metre circle from various heights and all this occurs within 1 mile of the airfield. He continued that once these are completed there are two cross country navigation flights to complete and each flight has a landing which will include losing height on the base leg part of the circuit over the proposed development by means of figure of eight turns until a height is achieved that the pilots can turn in on their final approach to land at the airfield, which is where the concerns and hazards lie with regards to thermic turbulence at low level as they lose height for approach to land.

Mr Kirby stated that in April 2021 they were advised to send to the LPA and FDC a safeguarding drawing for the airfield as requested by the Airfield Advisory Team, a safety division of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), where the previous owner of this pasture applied for planning permission for a development also at the end of their runway. He stated that this safeguarding allows them to stay legal within the UK air law of the 500-foot rule which states aircraft must be 500 feet away from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures apart from taking off and landing.

Mr Kirby expressed the view that the proposal of the structures and buildings would fall within their agreed no-fly zones and safeguarded 500 feet area around the airfield, which means they would be in breach of the 500-foot rule when in low level circuit flying when training. He understands that safeguarding in place with the LPA and FDC would safeguard their business from further proposals to Planning keeping their aviation training school legal and safe due to the 500-foot rule of the CAA.

Mr Kirby stated as an airfield they are not just able to up sticks and move to any location and the current location has had full planning permission for the last 12 years. He made the point in principle they have no objection to the application, however, they do object to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P53/25

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent and Sam Taylor and Caroline Symonda, the applicants. Mr Taylor stated that he is the further generation of his family who still work the land from season to season and farm to farm keeping within his Romany tradition. He added that in recent months his family circumstances have changed as he has been given verbal notice to leave the current yard which his family current rents and as the family have nowhere else to go this has caused a great deal of stress.

Mr Taylor explained that the added stress is not helping his father who is still recovering from open heart surgery and finds himself not well enough to travel anymore meaning he needs a permanent place to reside so that he can attend medical appointments, and the simpler tasks are harder for his father to achieve. He explained that he has purchased a plot of land and has submitted a planning application and followed the due process and has funded the whole application themselves as a family, with the aim being to maintain a home for the family and to have the basic living standards which everybody is entitled to.

Mr Taylor explained that the orchard will be kept, and the trees will be maintained and pruned and cropped, with the vintage pieces of machinery which they own also being restored on the site and they used to belong to local Wisbech farmers.

Ms Symonds stated that the application is for a mobile home and two touring caravans so that her family can continue a nomadic way of life within the Romany tradition of which they are rightly proud, with the family having been part of the community of Wisbech St Mary for many years and her son attended the local primary and secondary school. She explained that they work locally for the agricultural sector and have a great respect for the local community and the letters of support from the local community demonstrate that her family are equally respected.

Ms Symonds stated that her husband has recently had open heart surgery and is recuperating and has to attend medical appointments. She explained that currently they are renting an area in a local yard but have been given notice to vacate as the site is needed by the owner’s daughter meaning that they will be effectively homeless which is a very scary prospect.

Ms Symonds explained that they have purchased the acre of land and have followed the planning application process fully and as a result it was remarked on and welcomed by the Parish Council. She made the point that at the present time the Council’s list for pitches, sites and plots for travellers is long and could mean that eventually her family could be forced out of the area.

Ms Symonds added that she appreciates the concerns raised by the Environment Agency with  ...  view the full minutes text for item P54/25

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow 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 presentation from Alan Faulkener, the agent. Mr Faulkener stated that the Planning Officer and Member Services had suggested to him that he may wish to email the slides which he will be referring to in his presentation to members of the committee which he has done. He added that there is a long history of garden infill in the immediate vicinity of the site with Linden Drive, Eden Crescent, Numbers 20 a, b c and d London Road and the former Travis Perkins site now known as Fortrey Court, which have all been built in the grounds of existing properties within the Chatteris Conservation Area, with Fortrey Court being developed within the curtilage of a Grade 2 Listed Building.

Mr Faulkener stated that since the application was validated in March 2024, he has worked with officers on house design and site layout to address all their concerns and has responded to relevant comments raised by neighbouring properties, with the only outstanding matter being the reason the application is before the committee in respect to the Conservation Officer’s comments. He explained that at the request of officers in May 2025 following comments from the Conservation Officer, he commissioned an independent heritage statement which was delivered in June 2025 from Artifacts Conservation, which concluded that the proposal has been carefully designed to minimise any perceived harm on the rural aspect of the setting on number 16 and this section of the Chatteris Conservation area.

Mr Faulkener explained that the existing landscaping has been retained, and the necessary widening of the access track and the required visibility splays have been kept towards the southern boundary and softened with planting. He made the point that the tree views to the wider land holding have been retained, and the new development will be kept out of the sight line.

Mr Faulkener added that the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the Listed Building and will preserve the character and appearance of the Chatteris Conservation Area and will achieve public benefit in provision of residential accommodation. He referred to page 2 of the Conservation Officer’s report from 2025 where they have provided a response, stating that the host building was Listed with a wide frontage, but made the point that there was no mention of this in the Historic England official listing for the property which simply states that a Mid-19^th Century house of gault brick, hipped slate roof and dentile eaves and cornice.

Mr Faulkener stated that it is a 2-storey building and the road frontage has four window ranges of hung sashes with glazing bars in flat moulded arches and on the ground floor there are four full length casements with fixed headed lights and louvered shutters and a side entry which has a gothic arch to the porch.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P55/25

To determine the application.

Dannielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Member Services read out a written representation on behalf of Councillor Mrs Davis, a District and Ward Councillor. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the initial application F/YR23/0241/O was registered on 17 March 2023 and refused on 7 March 2024 for the reasons of “the proposal would result in large scale in-depth development in an area rural in character and characterised mainly by frontage development and would erode an important visual gap and area of separation between this part of Bridge Lane and the main built form of Wimblington.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies LP3, LP12 and LP16 of the adopted Fenland Local Plan”, with Councillor Benney proposing at the Planning Committee meeting that the application be refused, seconded by Councillor Connor, as per the officer's recommendation. 

Councillor Mrs Davis referred to F/YR25/ 0058/O, which was registered on 23 January 2025 and had 23 objections from local residents, with this application going before the Planning Committee on 30 April 2025 and comments minuted as follows:

“David Rowen reminded members that an outline application for 9 dwellings on this site was refused in 2023 on the grounds of the character of the area, the in-depth nature of the development, which is essentially the same scheme in front of committee now. He continued that the character of Bridge Lane has not changed dramatically in the last 2 years and questioned what has changed since March 2023.

Councillor Benney stated that the building work and the 88 Reason Homes at the top had not started then and now they are underway they are part of the character so that is what changes it and the fact that other development has been allowed in the vicinity is good reason to only defer it on the drainage.

David Rowen stated that he believes the Bellway site had commenced in 2023 and even if it had not there then was a permission in place of 88 dwellings on that site, so nothing has changed since then.

Matthew Leigh advised members that the Council’s decision for the adjoining site is also a material consideration and that is still so recent that the applicant could submit an appeal. He continued that whoever makes the decision there should be consistent and the adjoining sites decision and an application previously refused on this site would be significant material considerations in determination of this application.”

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the Parish Council's objection is raised in regard to the above comments, with the first application F/YR14/0232/O for 80 dwellings (max) on land east of 38 March Road being 'granted' on 25th September 2015, therefore, this development was well underway before the Members proposed to support the planning officer’s decision to refuse application F/YR23/0241/O.  She feels that if members were to view the site plan it shows that the northern boundary, the one abutting Bridge Lane, is predominantly open green space and has hard landscaping of trees proposed to continue to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P56/25

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 Councillor Charlie Marks, District and Manea Parish Councillor. Councillor Marks stated that he has worked very closely with the developers in the last 6 months since this was considered at committee previously and these developers have worked tirelessly with the local residents to try and resolve any issues that have arisen since they have been building the 29 properties. He made the point that the 5 properties being proposed remove a dated and in places damaged bungalow and bring 5 more affordable homes into the village as opposed to one bungalow which does need demolishing resulting, in his view, in a good use of land.

Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is not imposing by the way it stands, if you drive along that road there are a number of larger properties that are elevated and at the bottom there is a farmhouse that had to be built up due to flooding issues and on the corner there is a two storey building that is about 2½ to 3 metres out of the ground due to flooding issues, but there have not been any flooding issues at this end of the village. He made the point that the developer has worked tirelessly with Cambridgeshire County Council Highways and spent a fortune at the beginning of the road coming to the property entrance, they have had numerous incidents of coming across issues that were not either on plan or alternatively Highways wanted extra work, which they have paid for financially themselves and the benefit to the village is to stop flooding and, in his view, the flooding issue here with the foul water drainage will be overcome.

Councillor Marks stated that this application and this site needs this bungalow to be removed, the affordable homes are needed and going forward he believes this application should give what is required, whilst there are other issues there, he feels they are not insurmountable. He requested the application be approved.

Members asked questions of Councillor Marks as follows:

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to the mention that the foul water issue has been resolved but why does it say in the officer’s report that it has not been? Councillor Marks responded that the developer has tried working with the planning officer and there are still some matters that need to be overcome but he has no doubt seeing how these developers have dealt with issues already, which is a breath of fresh air in Manea, that they will be resolved. He referred to roadway at the top of Westfield Road and the corner of this road there is all new tarmac and new gullies and there was a lot of illegal discharge onto the site of the 29 houses and the developer worked tirelessly, finding it to be a Highways problem, however, Highways at  ...  view the full minutes text for item P57/25

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 Nicholas Underwood, the applicant. Mr Underwood stated that the proposal matches the character of River Drive in terms of its block massing and is comparable in scale to the adjacent properties in Cotswold Close even though the proposal is slightly smaller and narrower, with it following the existing precedent set by the other corner plots such as 1 and 2. He explained that the street scene slide demonstrates that the height has been reduced to be comparable with adjacent buildings and the outlook from Cotswold Close falls well below the BRE 25 guidance even when standing at their rear fence which dispels any claims of prominence.

Mr Underwood stated that at the previous committee the officer’s report refers to comments made by the Inspector in the appeal decision but the comments all relate to the previous scheme and not the revised current proposal which has been completely changed to address each objection. He explained that the Inspector’s comment with regards to harm to character related to the previous design being a 2-storey building being next to a single storey, the scale and prominence of the dormas and concern over potential overlooking at a garden of 29 Cotswold Close from the bedrooms, making the point that the second storey has been amended, and the issues are no longer applicable, and references made to linear form and cramped related to the impact of a carport.

Mr Underwood referred to the presentation screen which showed the elongation of the building massing right up to the right hand side of the south east boundary, explaining that this has also been omitted, and the buildings overall length has been reduced by a third to match the smaller plot size of River Drive and allow an increase in separation to all boundaries. He stated that the previous claims of overdevelopment and contrived layout related to the amount of private amenity space being provided but were dismissed at appeal by the Inspector who also went on to praise the layout as being a novel and innovative approach, adding that the Inspector also stated that the quality and usability of the resulting spaces, the reduction below the one third guideline was appropriate for the development and fully compliant with all local policies.

Mr Underwood explained that, in the previous application, the Inspector had previously accepted 60 square metres for a three bedroomed house whereas now there is the provision of 82 square metres for a one bedroomed bungalow which meets the one third guidance. He added that it is disappointing to see that the officer claims that the design is out of character as the Inspector specifically highlighted that there is not prevailing architectural style in the area and that it is evident that many of the buildings in the area have been poorly modified and altered over  ...  view the full minutes text for item P58/25

To determine the application.

Matthew Leigh and David Grant presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The Legal Officer advised that the thrust of the contemplated challenge and of the advice received is that there are particular matters that committee now needs to turn their minds to when it comes to making a final decision, with some matters already having been carefully considered by committee. She stated that the particular issue which needs to be addressed is the importance and materiality of the Inspector’s decision when he dismissed the appeal against the enforcement and upheld the Council’s previous enforcement action.

The Legal Officer stated that members will be aware that generally planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations suggest otherwise and officers have set out their view on the extent to which this application accords with the development plan and in particular on the issues of the impact on the character and appearance of the area and also on the impact of residential amenity for neighbouring properties. She made the point that when the appeal went before the Inspector, the Inspector gave clear views on those matters and he felt that the application was contrary to the Local Plan policies on these two particular issues of character and residential amenity.

The Legal Officer stated that when the committee considered the application previously they appeared to form a different view but did not directly address enough the Inspector’s findings at the time, how material they are to the committee’s deliberations now and what has changed in terms of the material considerations between the Inspector’s earlier decision and today. She continued that is the framework that matters should be considered today and when members are thinking about the report that they have received from officers, asking questions of officers and the debate it would be worth reflecting on the Inspector’s consideration of those issues, when and in what context that the Inspector’s findings were made, what has changed since then both in terms of the scheme proposed as there have been changes to some of the buildings, the massing and extent of some of those buildings which may be material considerations and there have been further documents submitted by the applicant which may influence the thinking particularly around landscaping where members may want to explore with officers to what extent that there have been changes.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to landscaping and asked for direction as she knows the building is large but if there is a condition that there has to be landscaping and it overcomes the concerns of the neighbours then, in her view, landscaping is the way forward. Matthew Leigh responded that members are aware of the appeal decision and the Inspector did not consider that landscaping would be acceptable to overcome the harm, however, members indicated at the previous meeting when this was considered that there was potential for  ...  view the full minutes text for item P59/25