Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of  19 November 2025 and 10 December 2025.

The minutes from the previous meetings of 19 November and 10 December 2025 were approved and signed as accurate records.

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker–Haines presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney stated that the application is for 15 dwellings, and a previous scheme was presented to the committee last year which was for 18 dwellings alongside balancing ponds and areas of public open space. She explained that the application was refused for two reasons including a failure to satisfy a sequential test in terms of flood risk and the absence of the biodiversity net gain information but that the principle of development, the overall design approach and matters relating to surface water drainage were all found to be acceptable.

Ms Penney added that the reasons for refusal have been considered, and a revised scheme has been submitted which addresses the concerns highlighted, making the point that the development is located entirely in Flood Zone 1 removing the requirement for a sequential test and ensuring the full compliance with both the local and national flood risk policies. She explained that both the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency have raised no objections which, in her view, means that flood risk matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

Ms Penney explained that the application has also been accompanied by a preliminary ecological appraisal and a biodiversity net gain report and metric which have been reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist and have been accepted with appropriate conditions recommended, therefore, the previous reason for refusal relating to biodiversity has now been fully overcome. She added that all outstanding issues arising from the earlier refusal have now been resolved and the application is capable of being supported and will deliver much needed housing in a primary market town with excellent sustainable transport links and the prospect of imminent delivery.

Members asked Ms Penney the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed concern that there is a lack of Section 106 contributions and no affordable housing attributed to the application and she questioned who is going to contribute towards the schools and GP services? She added that there are likely to be at least 35 residents plus children who will requires education facilities as well as doctors and dentists and she questioned who is going to pay for those services? Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not think it is fair for the Local Authority to have to pick up the additional costs when the applicant will be making money. Ms Penney stated that she appreciates and understands the point made by Councillor Mrs French, however, the difficulty is that as the parcel of land is very large, and due to the flood risk constraints, only a third of the piece of land is developable which is making the proposal as only just being viable. She expressed the view that it should not be a cost for the Local Authority to have to pick up but there are no funds available which is regrettable.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P84/25

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines 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 an application was refused on this site in 2025, but since that time, he has reduced the size of the annexe significantly and reduced the amount of extended residential curtilage. He made the point that he is not applying for a separate dwelling as it is an annexe in conjunction with the existing dwelling, which can be conditioned as such.

Mr Hall added that, at the present time, the applicant lives on site with her husband and children in a static caravan to the side of the existing property, which they have lived in for 14 years and the applicants’ parents live in the host property at the front but the static caravan is leaking and is in a poor condition so something needs to be done. He stated that the applicant’s mother is struggling with mental health so the applicant is living on site to assist and they do eat together as a family in the host property during the week at times and the applicant runs the Willows Day Nursery in Chatteris and the after-school club at Westwood School as well as the day nursery at Knights End Road.

Mr Hall explained that there are no objections to this application from any of the consultees or from members of the public. He stated that as the officer has stated a previous Planning Committee did approve an annexe on this site which was a permanently built one which also extended the curtilage more than this current application, with it being approved by the committee about 3 years ago and was also in Flood Zone 3, which was not constructed due to the actual cost of doing so, but also given the uncertainty with regards to the land use type for the land that is to the north and the northwest next to this site so it was put on hold and it has just expired.

Mr Hall made the point that during a previous planning committee 3 years ago, with regards to a previous annexe, located right next door to this site there is already an annexe located in Flood Zone 3 with no justification on the Public Access system and that was approved under delegated powers. He stated that this application is for a residential annexe, not a separate dwelling and there is a caravan on site now that has been there 14 years that the applicant's family live in.

Mr Hall explained that should approval be given then the existing caravan will be removed and a new caravan will be sited further to the rear of the site which is in Flood Zone 3 just like the existing and it will be built out of the ground. Mr Hall explained that the Environment Agency have not objected to the application which is for the betterment of the family.

Members asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item P85/25

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines 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 in the officer’s report it states that this is an elsewhere location but since the application was refused planning approval has been given by the committee for three plots directly to the north of the site shown on the map on the presentation screen which also highlights some change in the character of the area. He added that when he looked at this, he recalled an application for which he was the agent for in 2018 under delegated powers which was 380 metres to the west and the bungalow was much further out of Dodington but on the same side of the road on Benwick Road and that was given approval, which was not a replacement and was considered under delegated approval.

Mr Hall explained that all of this site is in Flood Zone 1 and he has considered the Cambridge County Council Highway’s comments who have no objection to the application, he has discussed them with the applicant and should the application be approved, like with the other applications there, it will be a requirement to provide a passing place, and they agree that it can be provided within the highway verge. He stated that should the application be approved then that passing place would have to be included and would form part of the technical part of the application and the applicant is aware that some improvements need to be undertaken.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that since the first application was refused three years ago there are material planning changes and the actual site area red line has been reduced by about a quarter, and it brings it away from some of the back gardens in Askham Row. He explained that he knows it is indicative but he has also increased the number of dwellings because on the first application that was refused he was told it was under development and he made the point that the second reason for refusal in the officer’s report is incorrect because it says the proposal is for three dwellings but on the application form and the indicative drawings submitted it states four.

Mr Hall added that directly to the north of this site, further plots have been approved, and the application site has not been used for agricultural use for at least 10 years. He referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the application site in relation to the other sites and made the point that there are lots of approvals that have been given in the vicinity since about 2020 and he does not consider this not part of Doddington.

Mr Hall explained that to the north of the site Mega Plants is located and there are numerous planning approvals, some of those are already built out, some sold and some of them are being built. He added that to the east  ...  view the full minutes text for item P86/25

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks asked how officers can state that the ecological test has failed because, in his opinion, it cannot have failed, it just has not taken place at the right time and questioned whether the application should be deferred. Hayleigh Parker-Haines responded that insufficient ecological information has been submitted and, therefore, that does form a reason for refusal.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the time to do the survey would have been through the breeding season from March and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application before it can be completed.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he recalls that officers did advise members previously, recommending to the committee that the breeding season was from March to September, but the committee placed a three-month timeframe on the application which was incompatible with the breeding season. He made the point that as a result the applicant is unable to undertake the survey as it does not fit in with the prescribed timescale anyway.

·       Councillor Marks stated that as it appears that there is a grey area he would suggest that the application is deferred for another six months.

·       Councillor Connor stated that it is evident that there is nothing new from the last application and the committee are in the same position as they were when the application was last considered and he asked the committee whether they agree to further defer the application.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that if the application is deferred then it is likely that it will be considered under the new planning rules, which means it will not come back before the committee. Matthew Leigh stated that, as it currently stands, he does not know as at the current time there is no legislation at the moment, it normally takes over two months for secondary legislation to be laid, and the transitional arrangements are not yet known. He made the point that it is also not yet clear how the transitional arrangements will work.

·       Councillor Benney stated that if the application is going to be deferred there are two reasons for refusal and if the application is deferred for an ecological report that may never come back to the committee then that would then be down to officers to decide on the reason for refusal in relation to Flood Zone 3. He questioned whether the application is deferred on both points or should the committee consider the Flood Zone element now.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen, pointing out the applications which have already been given permission in Flood Zone 3, and he presumes that an ecology report would have already been undertaken. He asked when the other dwellings were given approval? Hayleigh Parker-Haines confirmed that it was in 2023 and any ecological report that was submitted as part of that application would be out of date  ...  view the full minutes text for item P87/25

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 all of this site is in Flood Zone 1, just like the land that was given approval three months ago directly to the west of the application site and it does abut residential development to the north and is situated, in his opinion, within the development footprint of Wimblington which is a growth village under LP3 allowing for a small village extension and the application is for up to seven dwellings. He expressed the opinion that the site is within the development footprint of Wimblington and he referred to the map on the presentation screen which shows that it is immediately adjacent to an approval that was given 3 months ago to the west.

Mr Hall stated that he has discussed the Highways comments with the applicant himself and if the application is approved, there will be the need to be some highway improvements, with the site directly to the west having to also do some highway improvements which include a layby shown in the highway verge on this side of Bridge Lane which can be achieved and the applicant knows if this goes forward and if it is approved at the technical matters application stage, the highway improvements would need to be shown. He referred to the adjacent site to the west that was approved three months ago by members, with that site also being in-depth development and there was no reason for refusal on that one for it being located back from the public highway, but on this site, there is, and the application is not going as deep in-depth development as that site there.

Mr Hall explained that, if approved, the application would also eventually lead to the shed on site being demolished. He referred to the presentation screen, and pointed out that in this area of Wimblington, there has been numerous approvals in the last six years and a lot of those are being built out and some of them have been built out to the north and directly to the west.

Mr Hall made the point that those applications are off Bridge Lane, Eaton Estate, March Road, with the character and the area having changed and is changing. He stated that all of the site is in Flood Zone 1 on the Environment Agency's map and it is within the built-up form of Wimblington, with there being numerous other approvals in very close proximity and a lot of those have started.

Mr Hall made the point that the applicant is fully aware about the highway improvements having spoken to the applicant about that and, in his opinion, he does not believe that the site could be classed as overdevelopment either as the proposal is for up to seven dwellings which all have at least a third garden area. He added that he knows it is indicative, but it  ...  view the full minutes text for item P88/25

To determine the application.

David Grant 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 there have been numerous approvals given in this location since 2019, one of those was under delegated powers, and there have been 17 dwellings approved at the location already which, in his view, proves that the area forms part of Chatteris due to the number of adjacent approvals. He added that some of the dwellings on the site have been completed and are occupied and some are under construction.

Mr Hall explained that he is working on some of the development at the current time and it is at the building regulation stage as people have purchased them as they want to move to the area. He referred to the Google map and added that the development could be considered as infill between the Four-Seasons Garden Centre and the dwelling next door.

Mr Hall explained that all of the site is in Flood Zone 1 and there are no objections from the Town Council or from members of the public. He referred to the presentation screen indicating the application site, explaining that all of the other approvals in this area in the last six years include those that are built, lived in and sold which, in his view, demonstrates that there is a need.

Mr Hall explained that southwest of the application site is the Four Seasons Grden Centre and café which needs the support to succeed. He expressed the opinion that the area is part of Chatteris so the character of the area has changed and continues to do so.

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

·       Councillor Marks stated that it has been mentioned that there is no pavement, however, a new garden centre has been built, and people like to walk to a garden centre more than they like to walk to their houses. He added that he agrees with the point made by Mr Hall that the proposal could be almost classed as infill and made the point that the Chatteris boundary seems to move further to the bottom of Ferry Hill as you come round the corner where the Chatteris sign is. Councillor Marks explained that he is aware that it is in a 50mph area, but Chatteris Town Council are looking to apply for a speed reduction. He added that several self-build properties on Stocking Drove have been approved behind Ferry Farm and there is a footpath there but there is not one along Stocking Drove which is a busy road, and he will look to support the application.

·       Councillor Benney stated that members keep being told that this location is not within Chatteris but, in his opinion, if you travel to the bottom of Ferry Hill, there is a sign which says ‘Welcome to Chatteris and Welcome to Fenland’ so Chatteris starts at the bottom of Ferry Hill rather than where the new  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/25

To determine the application.

Tracy Ranger presented the report to members

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent, and Archie Hirson, the applicant. Mr Hall stated that the applicants have lived in Manea for 30 years and there is a material planning change with the application due to the fact the proposed dwellings are smaller 2 and 3 bedroomed properties which are more affordable rather than the larger dwellings which were applied for and refused previously. He made the point that smaller properties have been approved previously, such as Lavender Mill Bungalow at Fallow Corner in the last 18 months, which are in Flood Zone 3.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the Highway Authority, Environment Agency or Ecology and all of the buildings will be located outside of the Middle Level Commissioners 9 metre strip. He explained that the application site is located within 390 metres of easy walking distance to the train station and there is an adoptable footpath from the site all the way to the north.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and identified other planning permissions which have been approved in Manea and are located in Flood Zone 3, located both to the north and the south of the site, with the map demonstrating that there are a lot of properties to the north, east and south of the site and the proposal is not in an elsewhere location which the officer has also confirmed in their report. He made the point that in the officer’s report it states that the principle of development is acceptable given its location and the proposal complies with LP15 and LP16 and, in his opinion, there have been other planning approvals given to dwellings much further out and to those adjacent to the site.

Mr Hirson explained that he has lived in Manea for the last 30 years and planted the hedge on the Wimblington Road and whilst both himself and his brother are not developers they wish to seek an opportunity to give back to the community. He stated that it is a modest development in an area of Manea which suits this type of development and will bring the opportunity forward for families to live together which suits the village of Manea as it is a multigenerational area.

Mr Hirson stated that the proposal is the ideal opportunity to bring honest housing forward for honest people at a time where it is fundamentally and crucially needed in a location where it benefits from the infrastructure invested in Manea Train Station and the surrounding area.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there had been two previous applications, one in March 2024 for four dwellings refused and November 2022 for four dwellings which was also refused and she asked for clarification as to what has changed since the last application was refused in 2024, particularly now the number of dwellings has doubled. Mr Hall explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P90/25

To determine the application.

This application was withdrawn.

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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site has been in the ownership of the family for over 50 years and they farm 750 acres of land. He added that a yield map was submitted for the application site but unfortunately was not submitted on time, however, officers have included it to demonstrate the part of the field where the black grass is grown is of a poor yield compared to the rest of the field.

Mr Hall stated that Manea is a growth village under Policy LP3, where a small extension may be appropriate and the application site, in his opinion, abuts permanent development to the west, and he stated that over half of the objections are not from Fenland residents whereas all of the supporters are from Manea residents. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that to the north of the application site there is continuous residential development comprising of large individual houses and the hatched areas demonstrate the approvals given with some of them being in flood zones, with the dwellings located to the east being far closer to the Ouse Washes and pointing out that the blue hatched area received planning in principle approval for 5 dwellings, and the outline application has been submitted.

Mr Hall stated that he appreciates that there needs to be an ecology report submitted as there must be biodiversity net gain. He explained that along one side of Fallow Corner Drove to the west there have been properties which have already been built out and referred to the presentation screen, pointing out a hatched area in green located in the corner which was approved by the committee and that in 2018 a large dwelling was built out of the ground by 1.82 metres, with landscaped surroundings, which, in his view, looks extremely nice where it has been built on Fallow Corner Drove.

Mr Hall stated that Anglian Water and the Environment Agency raise no objections to the application, and he added that the applicants are members of Drainage Boards and are, therefore, aware of their responsibilities with regards to drainage. He added that houses along Fallow Corner Drove have septic tanks and treatment plants and the application site is a large site and it is expected that it will also be on the same method of disposal to negate extra pressure on Anglian Waters foul water treatment plant in Manea.

Mr Hall explained that on the indicative plan which was submitted he has not shown the layout of houses, but he has included all the large highway verge and there has been no objection from the Highway Authority. He explained that it will allow for some community benefit such as the widening of Fallow Corner Drove or the introduction of a large layby if the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item P92/25

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 Councillor Lorena Hodgson of Gorefield Parish Council. Councillor Hodgson explained that she is the Chairman of Gorefield Parish Council and she has lived in the village for 25 years whilst other councillors have lived there all their lives. She stated that the Parish Council support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as per the executive summary in relation to location, land and the number of dwellings.

Councillor Hodgson stated that the location is in the open countryside and Hassock Hill Drove is a 60mph road, with the site having been a horse field for at least the last 25 years since she has known it, with flooding in that end and there is always a big pool there. She stated that the site is located outside of the Council’s own Local Plan and is located in the highest flood level, with Anglian Water having commented on sewage and surface water and, in her view, it relates to the flood zone, and the water needs to go somewhere.

Councillor Hodgson referred to the issue of individual cess pits, which if you have got 14 houses means there will be a lot of tractors coming to collect a lot of sewage and the waste plants attributed to the houses are going to be small and will require regular emptying. She stated that the reason the application is before the committee is due to the letters of support and they refer to the proposal improving the street scene, infill, vitality, viability and the local economy, but at 9.4 of the report there is no previous improvement when that has been brought up in the past and those who are supporting the application are not supporting it with any planning consideration as referenced earlier.

Councillor Hodgson made the point that Gorefield is a small village in the Local Plan and the threshold has already been breached from 33 dwellings and now there are 85 already further into the village nearby with the five that are being built now which are already causing problems as they are large houses and access is already a problem as well as speeding cars. She explained that was approved last year and the Parish Council also objected to that application for the same reasons as today and they were disappointed with that decision last year because they have seen that the problems that they had objected to have now come true.

Councillor Hodgson made the point that the application is for nine dwellings but with the inclusion of the other five dwellings that will mean that there are 14 dwellings. She expressed the view that the sequential test should be district wide, but it is not and, in her view, that makes a difference as there are plenty of other places that can take development.

Councillor Hodgson added that she  ...  view the full minutes text for item P93/25