To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 11 January 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting of 11 January 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record, subject to amendment to minute P93/22, fifth bullet point, Councillor Sutton’s comments in the member debate to read “He added that he does not want to criticise the agent…..”.

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillors John Clark and Skoulding, District Councillor objectors to the proposal.  Councillor Clark stated that he has no pecuniary interest in this application although he does own properties on the junction of St Peters Road and High Street and has lived in March all his life bringing up a family and running businesses in the town. He expressed the view that March has always being a bustling market town and he believes the people of March want it to stay that way, with all the towns in Fenland having a similar short stay parking facility in their town centres as do many other towns in the area. 

Councillor Clark made the point that Fenland District Council (FDC) secured the funding from the Government and they are responsible for its control and spending, with the Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) being a partner to deliver the improvements and FDC and CCC set up a Member Steering Group consisting of Councillors French, Purser, Gowing, Count and Skoulding.  He stated that Daniel Timms was engaged to prepare the proposed development who works as a consultant for Metro Dynamics of Manchester and queried whether someone closer who would have been more understanding of the needs of March could have been employed.

Councillor Clark referred to the CCC minutes which show the study examined a wide range of options developed from officer led workshops which were subsequently reviewed by the Member Steering Group so he feels that FDC would have had the power to influence and shape the town centre development and the comments by Councillor French that CCC do not have to take notice of FDC opinions on highways issues he believes is untrue in relation to this major project. He referred to the March Town Council meeting on 5 September 2022, where minute 86 states that “it is also believed that the total Broad Street project was open to legal challenge and possible judicial review because of the lack of meaningful consultation in the early stages of the scheme”, with March Town Council members unanimously agreeing that they would publicly oppose the project in its entirety with a view to getting the scheme aborted and a few weeks later an extraordinary meeting was held on 17 October, with minute 103 referring to a special motion proposed by Councillor Connor to be prepared and signed by councillors to amend the resolution of the Council meeting of 5 September to oppose the project, which was signed by 11 councillors, all March Town Council members except one, but does include Councillors French, Connor, Purser and Skoulding who sit on FDC Planning, to amend minute 86 point c, the fountain to be positioned as highlighted on the FDC artist’s impression adjacent to Malletts and councillors unanimously agreed to move the motion which made the decision to oppose  ...  view the full minutes text for item P99/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter 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 Councillor Skoulding, a District Councillor objector to the proposal. Councillor Skoulding stated that the toilet block is very necessary for March and he would personally like it to stay and be revamped but if it must go he feels it would make more sense to build the new toilet block before demolishing the current one. He expressed the view that if portaloos are used for about 18 months this is going to cost a fortune and he can imagine seeing these portaloos going down the river, with consideration required to be given to the needs of the disabled and the elderly so, in his view, it makes more sense to keep the current toilets until the new toilets are built. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillors Count and Mrs French, District Councillors in support of the proposal. Councillor Count expressed the opinion that one of the major jewels in the crown of the town of March, not just the Fountain, War Memorial and the Stone Cross, is the river coursing straight through the centre, which is not made enough of it is just accepted and people are used to it. He feels the proposal to move the toilet block and bus shelter to open up the area to provide seating to enhance the view of the river are all positives in his opinion and unlike others he cannot see the beauty in these buildings and cannot understand why people believe residents would want to embrace a view of a toilet block, with people entering and leaving, over a beautiful view of the wonderful river, which he recognises is a personal opinion.

Councillor Count expressed the view that when someone arrives in March that does not know the town he would want them to see and enjoy a beautiful river not people going in and out of the toilets but he does understand people talking about the need for toilets in a town centre location, with the initial proposals not having any public toilets and himself and Councillor Mrs French, amongst others, fought long and hard to have new ones included in the budget and to have them located in the town centre. He stated that he felt the toilets would be better off in the car park because the people that use them tend to drive to City Road car park and these are people that do long stay car parking but residents said otherwise, Councillor Mrs French said otherwise and it has been talked about listening to residents and this is one of those examples where the Council did listen to residents and he backed down on his thoughts and accepts that a town centre location is the best place for the toilets.

Councillor Count stated that he supports the removal  ...  view the full minutes text for item P100/22

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members asked questions of Shane Luck, the Highways Officer, as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that on the site visit members were concerned about where the footpath is situated as it is on the opposite side of the road to the development, which means when they are affordable houses there will be children who will have to cross the road to get to school, cross the road to get to the village and it was felt it was possibly better to have the footpath link on the same side as the development. Mr Luck responded that in engineering feasibility terms, due to constraint on the width of highway available and the number and nature of direct frontages and their individual access on the north side, a footway on that side of the road is not feasible as it does not fit within the available space and will create visibility conflicts with those driveways. He added that instead of providing or attempting to provide a footway on the north side which would be sub-standard the applicant is proposing a crossing point from the access to a widen and extended footway on the south side of the road, which in the context of the NPPF and highway safety a footway on the south side of the road including a crossing point is acceptable and safe in highways terms.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that her concerns were the same as Councillor Mrs Mayor as lorries access this road to go to IPL and when a crossing point is mentioned is this going to be a dedicated crossing point? Mr Luck responded that it would be a dedicated uncontrolled crossing point so a dropped kerb as based on the nature of the road and volume of usage a controlled crossing would be deemed to be more unsafe due to the infrequency with which it would be used so drivers who drive regularly along the road become used to it not being used as a crossing point and on the occasion it is used it takes them by surprise. He added that controlled crossings need to have a certain volume of usage for it to be considered safe.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked if this meant a tactile lower kerb feature? Mr Luck responded that it would be a dropped kerb with tactile paving.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Marc Hourigan, the agent. Mr Hourigan stated that this is a site that has long been identified for residential development and has the benefit of an outline permission until as recently as 1 May 2021 and it is also a site that is proposed to be allocated for new homes in the Council’s emerging  ...  view the full minutes text for item P101/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Bryant, an objector. Mr Bryant stated that he was representing more than a third of the properties on this adopted highway who oppose the application and despite appearances this is not nimbyism but is a local community asking the Council to uphold the Local Plan, NPPF and previous application and appeal decisions. He made the point that in April 2022 the committee unanimously rejected the previous application on multiple grounds, with the applicant trying to make this application different by including a turning head but the Local Highway Authority (LHA) state “it does not benefit for LHA to adopt this turning head” so any supposed benefits fall away and the application becomes identical to that which was refused in April.

Mr Bryant referred to the decision notice for planning application F/YR21/1536/O making it clear that no modification to the application could overcome the fundamental planning based problems showing this informative on the presentation screen so with or without the turning head the application, in his view, still fails to comply with the Local Plan and must be refused. He referred to the supporter comments which do not address the planning problems in the application but expressed the opinion that it is wrong for a site to gain a planning benefit because owners have let it become an eyesore and apparently used it to start dumping their building waste as given that this plot was previously a wildlife haven fronted by an ancient hedge, it would be particularly egregious for it to gain planning benefit having now been laid to waste by owners.

Mr Bryant made the point that half of the support live outside the hamlet and not one of the remaining supporters live on the adopted highway in the vicinity of the plot. He expressed the view that the emerging Local Plan is irrelevant but in any case this application lies outside the proposed settlement boundary and, therefore, would invite automatic refusal.

Mr Bryant stated that traffic safety perceptions differ and living in the area is very different from driving through referring to two recent incidents, with him having to thump a vehicle trailer twice and shout at the driver to prevent it reversing into him as he stood on his driveway and a resident who lives opposite the site had to take urgent avoiding action to prevent a collision whilst entering the lane as a car was travelling too fast around the corner and although the other car took avoiding action it then only narrowly avoided striking the property opposite. He expressed the view that these close shaves are not uncommon and a further property roughly opposite would increase this hazard level substantially.

Mr Bryant made the point that the Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item P102/22

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Conchie, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Conchie stated that Bellway Homes are a five-star house builder who prides itself on delivering high quality contemporary development that its customers are proud to live in and understands that every site is unique and design the scheme accordingly, with the site in Wimblington being no different. He expressed the view that the development has been designed to draw on its traditional Fenland vernacular using a simple palette of high-quality materials that includes a variation of facing bricks, roof tiles, weather boarding and render with detailed fenestration and roofscapes.

Mr Conchie expressed the opinion that the design seeks to define the distinct character that responds sensitively to its location and connects the lower and high-density areas along March Road. He feels the exceptional landscaping plays an integral role in defining the appearance of the scheme, the tree-lined streets marking the main routes connecting to the new trees and the fantastic area of public open space to the north of the site, which includes an equipped play space, with the hard and soft landscaping creating a setting for the buildings and featuring a number of trees, shrubs and planting species and the existing arable field margins are retained to ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain.

Mr Conchie stated that the scheme has been designed to be sustainable and energy efficient and electric car charging points will be installed to every property. He expressed the view that throughout the determination of the application they have worked collaboratively with planning officers to make amendments to the scheme to improve its design as well as responding to comments from local residents, with changes to the scheme including significantly setting back the homes that front onto March Road that enable additional tree and shrub planting to be incorporated, windows have been inserted into the side elevation of these plots to address the public highway and provide a well-designed scheme that reflects the existing character along March Road.

Mr Conchie referred to the layout of the scheme and number 40 March Road, with the site containing a number of constraints which the scheme has been designed around such as a 6 metre wide surface water sewage easement that runs from the northwest corner of the site to the eastern boundary and a 9 metre wide maintenance access strip running along the eastern boundary, which has enabled them to deliver a generous amount of open space to the north which incorporates the sewage easement providing a green buffer to existing homes on the northern side of Bridge Lane expanding the front to front relationship between properties as well as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P103/22

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Peter Humphrey, the agent, had registered to speak under the public participation procedures but indicated that he supported the officer’s recommendation and would answer any questions members had. 

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

·        Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site well, and whilst she knows there is nothing that can be done about it the proposal has no parking on the site and it will be interesting to see what happens when civil parking is eventually brought in.

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

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Purser and Skoulding registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

(Councillor Meekins had left the meeting prior to determination of this application and the remaining agenda items)

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Peter Humphrey, the Agent, had registered to speak under the public participation procedures but indicated that he did not wish to exercise this right and would answer any questions members had. 

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

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Purser and Skoulding registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

To determine the application.

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

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent, and Mr Grainger, the applicant. Mr Humphrey referred to the current Local Plan where it was alluded that there would be freedom, a bit more tolerance, a bit more allowance of discretion for members and agents and no village boundaries but unfortunately, in his opinion, officers are more stringent, which then leads this site to being the perfect site as the Local Plan was written for in 2014. He feels it is a perfect edge of village development site, it has a main County drain opposite which, in his opinion, is clearly not only the County boundary but the boundary for the village, with there being houses beyond this site.

Mr Humphrey stated the sequential test carried out was village wide only, unfortunately there is no specific guidance on the sequential test so it is up to the discretion of the planning officers on whether it should be a district-wide or a village-wide test. He stated that the application site is within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, which for a very flat site he feels is ironic but that is the way that the Environment Agency have allocated it.

Mr Humphrey notes from Parish Council correspondence that they are looking for up to 7 more houses within the village and this proposal could offer two or three. He stated that all highway issues have been agreed with highways and, in his view, the site is adjacent to the built form of the village and when you look at the site plan that the officer displayed members will see it is adjacent to an existing bungalow.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that there have been footpaths/walkways that his client owns linking these plots to the middle of the village which is within comfortable walking distance to the church, shop and more importantly the public house with also the golf course within walking distance in the other direction so this proposal is more accessible to most village amenities than most of the village. He added that the description for this application is for the erection of up to 3 houses so it could be 2 but it has been shown that the site will accommodate 3 and requested that members considered this application in accordance with spirit of the 2014 Local Plan when it was first written.

Mr Grainger stated that the view that members saw when you approach Cats Lane was not the view that used to be there it was just literally an overgrown mess and dumping site so the work that has been undertaken has been done by his family.

Members asked questions of Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item P106/22

The purpose of this report is to advise members of the current situation in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Shallon, Cats Lane, Tydd St Giles.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to there being two trees of different varieties, with one not being native to the UK and asked if the TPO could be split so one could be confirmed and not two? David Rowen responded that it is unusual but if members wanted to make different decisions on different trees they could do this. Councillor Marks stated that he can understand protecting an Oak, but he does not see why a Norway Maple needs to be protected as it is not a native species. Nick Harding responded that the TPO legislation does not make any distinction between native and non-native species, it is all about what the condition and life expectancy is of a tree and whether or not that tree is beneficial to public amenity.

·       Councillor Skoulding referred to the tree that is closest to the house and asked if there is any problems with the roots and the foundations of the house? David Rowen responded that the request for the TPO has come from the owners of the property and when assessing the potential for a TPO the Arboricultural Officer will look at issues such as potential future implications of the roots on foundations and the recommendation of the Arboricultural Officer is that the tree should be protected.

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

·       Councillor Connor made the point that officers think these trees are worthy of a TPO and he thinks it would be silly if this advice was not taken.

Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that TPO 04/2022 be CONFIRMED in respect of 1 No. Norway Maple and 1 No. Oak.

(All members present declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this item)

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Garnett, the agent. Mr Garnett thanked the planning and conservation officers for working proactively with them to achieve a scheme that is recommended for approval and where they have been able to address in full all technical planning matters that have been raised by consultees. He stated that this site is a prominent location in the heart of the town centre and Wisbech Conservation Area, with the former post office being Grade II Listed and the former telephone exchange having been vacant for some years, some parts since 2009, and, in his opinion, this proposal represents an opportunity to bring the buildings back into beneficial use.

Mr Garnett expressed the view that there is an increasing number of vacant buildings in central Wisbech reflecting low property values and the economic impacts since the Covid-19 pandemic. He stated that his client specialises in the refurbishment and conversion of historic buildings and this project represents a substantial investment in the town, contributing to the vitality and viability of the town centre through the retained commercial element and increasing the number of people living in the town centre and relying on the local services.

Mr Garnett expressed the opinion that the key planning issues are clearly set out in the officer’s report, namely the principle of development, the impacts on a heritage asset, residential amenity, parking, highways and flood risk. He made the point that this is a brownfield site in one of Fenland’s main towns where the Local Plan seeks to focus housing development and to achieve the efficient use of land.

Mr Garnett stated that officers conclude that the change of use is acceptable as a matter of principle, there will be no harm to the Listed Building or Conservation Area as evidenced by the comprehensive comments made by the Conservation specialist who notes the public benefits of the scheme. He stated that a number of detailed points have been addressed raised by the Wisbech Society about the historic fabric of the building and officers conclude that the level of residential amenity will be acceptable for future residents.

Mr Garnett noted some consultee comments about the preference for two and three bedroom apartments but the economic reality is that such a scheme would not be financially viable when resultant values are compared to the cost of conversion and made the point that the Council does not have any minimum space standards in either its existing or emerging Local Plan and in Paragraph 13.37 of the draft Local Plan it states there is strong evidence to indicate that the viability of development would be compromised if such standards were imposed on development. He expressed the view that the scheme will provide good quality accommodation  ...  view the full minutes text for item P108/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Harrison, an objector. Mr Harrison stated that he lives at 89 Upwell Road so this application concerns him more than most people and from Cavalry Drive roundabout to this site the majority of properties on Upwell Road are bungalows, on the south side there are 20 and on the north side there are 16 and there is Upwell Park which are bungalows at the back of some other bungalows so he queried how the applicant can think there can be houses behind bungalows. He expressed the view that it is going to affect his wife and himself for the rest of their lives if these properties are allowed to be built as if they look out of their back windows or are in their garden all they are going to see is a 25 foot brick wall, which can oversee the neighbours gardens as well as his and also the property opposite, Plot 1, will be able to look into his garden so he will have no privacy at all.

Mr Harrison expressed the opinion that with all the surrounding bungalows it would be a better option for this proposal to be bungalows, which would enable him to keep his privacy.

Members asked questions to Mr Harrison as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked Mr Harrison to confirm what number property he lived at. Mr Harrison responded 89 and when he put plans in for his property, which is an H shape bungalow, the middle of the trusses on the roof were supposed to have been higher but the Council told him that he had got to have this the same as the outside of the roof so his had to be lower which this proposal for houses now contradicts what he had to do.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey made the point that the site has an existing outline planning permission granted in July 2021 for 6 dwellings, a Reserved Matters application was put in and changed during the course of the application due to the attenuation pond being outside the boundary although it was included in the outline planning permission and from discussions with the officer it was felt the best way forward was to amend the application from a Reserved Matters to a Full application. He reiterated that the site has valid outline permission and lies in Flood Zone 1 in a town centre location, with March Town Council recommending approval and Highways, Environmental Services, Environmental Health, Natural England and the Wildlife Officer having no objection.

Mr Humphrey referred to a late letter from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) on 19 January which has been sent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P109/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler referred to the slide on the presentation screen which shows on the top picture an image of the proposed street scene and the bottom picture is taken directly opposite the entrance to the proposed site. He expressed the view that the artist impression matches the street scene provided within the application, with the image at the bottom taken opposite showing that the proposal is not at odds with the street scene which is the first reason for refusal.

Mr Gowler referred to the second slide which shows the same dwellings opposite and their relationship in an aerial view, with the bungalow on the left with three cars parking at an angle has what appears to be a very large single-storey extension to the rear very close to boundary and it extends some distance past the wall of the bungalow and although this has a flat roof the wall height would be the same as this proposal using the chalet bungalow style they have. He made the point that there are two chalet bungalows in the picture with very large side dormer windows overlooking and, in his opinion, this proposed chalet has been carefully designed so that these are not required.

Mr Gowler referred to this third slide which indicates houses opposite slightly further along the road approximately 50 metres along Wimblington Road, which shows how extremely close and large some properties are along this stretch of road and whilst it is appreciated that there are no windows affected this does show, in his view, the street scene along this part of the road. He expressed the view that on the final slide the side plan on the left is shown at roof level and the right-hand side is shown at ground floor, which he feels show the better separation between the two proposed dwellings.

Mr Gowler stated that the officer’s report refers to 1.7 metres separation, however, in his view, the dimensions shown on the right-hand side show there is actually much more when you do not take into account the roof overhangs. He expressed the opinion that the dwelling has been purposedly designed to be a chalet bungalow style to avoid any large expanse of brickwork next to both neighbours, the left-hand side being owned by the applicant and the bungalow to the south has no windows in the elevation facing the proposed site and there will be no loss of light to the garden due to the orientation of north-south.

Mr Gowler stated that although the proposed dwelling extends beyond the existing bungalow on the right it is on the northern side and, in his opinion, the sun will not shade this property. He stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item P110/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that this is an outline application with all matters reserved following an earlier committee decision to approve the application which comes back to committee following points made by Councillor Sutton. He expressed the opinion that the application being to replace two holiday lets that have an extant permission with no restrictions so could be occupied all year, which were to be single-storey structure of a temporary nature in Flood Zone 3 and formed part of the previous owner’s farm diversification.

Mr Edwards advised that the proposal is for two-storey dwellings, which will have sleeping accommodation on the first floor along with safe refuge which is not the case with the holiday accommodation so, in his view, provides a betterment. He stated that the applicant purchased the farm with the extant permission along with the agricultural land, farmhouse and buildings to expand the farming enterprise for both themselves and family and are continually looking at various forms of additional businesses and opportunities to diversify and expand.

Mr Edwards stated that as the report states the applicant has two daughters that are solely employed in the applicant’s family businesses along with himself and his wife, with one daughter along with her husband and child living at Allenby Farm with the applicant and the other daughter lives within Fenland but travels to the farm daily. He stated that the applicant’s proposal is that each daughter is to be gifted a plot to self-build their own family home so they have independent living that is close to the family farm and farming enterprise as they look again to expand this part of the business along with further diversification and as everyone will be aware that if you stand still in the business world you are going backwards.

Mr Edwards reiterated that it is the intention for the daughters to self-build their dwelling as their principal residence as is the case for many individual plots in the area due to the rise in land, labour and material costs this has proven to be a popular choice, although from previous experience not necessarily the quickest option. He referred to a number of points being made since committee’s earlier approval of the application that the report outlines, with various toing and froing of communications and it is not known who has made these points but in essence these are dwellings to be occupied by the applicant’s daughters who are an intrinsic part of the running of the applicant’s businesses for now and very much for the future.

Mr Edwards stated they are not solely employed in agriculture but are in the family businesses that operate largely from Allenby Farm but have other locations in Fenland. He made the point that the applicant is with him today should members have any points they wish to clarify on the family businesses and proposals  ...  view the full minutes text for item P111/22

To advise Members on the requirements of the National Planning Policy Guidance in respect of the requirement and procedure to update the Council's Local Validation List.

David Rowen presented the updated Council’s Local Validation List.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that this has been raised before but asked at 2.1 where it refers to identifying features on location plans to include a road name could it also include a postcode. He made the point that whilst the last item was being debated he looked at Google Maps to find Broad Drove West to get a better idea of where it is but was unable to find it so it would help and he believes members have asked previously for postcodes on the Site Inspection visits.

·       Councillor Connor endorsed these comments as it would be better to include a postcode, it is used for other things so why can it not be used on planning applications.

·       Councillor Marks made the point about Three Words, which is used on the Council’s website when flytipping etc is reported, so why cannot this be used as it puts the location to within 3 metres whereas a postcode covers quite a big area.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis agreed with Councillor Marks as many times she has driven somewhere with her Sat Nav just using a postcode and it says you have reached your destination and you can be about 5 miles away so postcodes can be very vast but Three Words marks the location. She stated that if you have ever gone out on your own to do a site visit and you are driving up and down the road because you cannot find the actual plot you wish someone would tell you exactly where it is.

·       David Rowen stated that it is fully accepted that a postcode or What Three Words would make identifying sites a lot easier, however, that is not something that can be asked for on a submitted location plan as part of a planning application. He explained that the plan has to be ordnance survey based, with the purpose being the red line boundary identifying the land in question and the point of having a road name on the plan is to provide a little bit further clarity from the OS base so issues around postcodes or What Three Words cannot really be incorporated onto a site location plan.

·       Councillor Sutton reminded members that Councillor Mrs Bligh did ask the Portfolio Holder at Full Council if What Three Words could be looked into and she did say she would look into it but nothing has been heard since.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that listening to what David Rowen has just said she understands that it cannot be part of the validation requirements so she wonders whether when officers draw up their reports What Three Words could be used in this, which would assist members greatly.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the new Local Validation List be adopted with effect from 1 April 2023.