Agenda item

To determine the application.

Appendix 3 to this report comprises exempt information - to exclude the public (including the press) from a meeting of a committee it is necessary for the following proposition to be moved and adopted: “that the public be excluded from the meeting for Items which would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Matthew Leigh explained that the application was presented to the committee originally on 28 May 2025 and only those members who were present at that meeting can take part in any discussion or voting.

Tom Donnelly presented an overview of the application to the committee.

Matthew Leigh explained that a letter has been received in relation to the debate and the decision that members made at meeting in May and with this in mind the item has been returned to the committee for consideration. He explained that the officer’s report provides some of the key considerations in relation to heritage and legislation as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning Policy Guidance along with the actual consultation response and the applicants statement which have been attached as appendices. Matthew Leigh made the point that officers are conscious of the current situation and whilst members can make an informed decision based on the planning merits of the scheme, the report highlights the various considerations that members need to be aware of when making a decision on the application. He asked members to reconsider their position and decide whether they still consider that the granting of planning permission is still appropriate.

Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that the committee need to reflect on the officer’s report and there are a couple of salient points which require a debate in order that the committee can ascertain further steps with the two points being taken into consideration.

The Legal Officer explained that she is not going to refer to the advice which the committee have received on the specific application as that has been included in the confidential appendices. She made the point that she wishes to set out the procedure and the process which the committee needs to work through in order to reach their determination.

The Legal Officer explained that the starting point is Section 66 of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, with that legislation stating that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Building or its setting, the Local Planning Authority should have special regards to the desirability of preserving the building or its settings or any features of special architectural or historical interest. She explained that case law has subsequently clarified that what that means is that the Planning Committee must give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the Listed Building and that is a point for the committee to note that there is an obligation to attach considerable weight to the significance of the Listed Building and to the preservation of it.

The Legal Officer made the point that with regards to how the committee go about determining an application, members should initially consider Paragraph 213 of the NPPF, which states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset then great weight should be given to the assets conservation and that really reflects the statutory requirement. She added that it then goes on to say that this is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total harm or less than substantial harm to its significance, with the NPPF then diverging depending on where you come down on the significance of the harm to the heritage asset.

The Legal Officer added that the first aspect she would suggests that the committee consider is how significant they consider the harm to be to the heritage asset in question, with there being four options to consider which include total loss of the asset, substantial harm, less than substantial harm or the committee can conclude that there is no harm at all. She added that case law clarifies that what amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm inevitably is very fact specific, with it coming down to the individual circumstances in a particular application and it is inevitably a matter of fact, degree and a matter for the committee’s judgement.

The Legal Officer explained to the committee that once they have settled on the significance of the harm, the committee then need to balance the harm against the public benefits associated with the development. She advised the committee that there are subtly different tests that apply depending on the level of harm that the committee conclude and she advised the committee that they need to firstly take into consideration, the weight to be attached to the significance of the asset and the potential of harm to it.

The Legal Officer stated that whether the committee considers that this application would result in the total loss of the Listed Building, substantial harm to the Listed Building or its setting, less than substantial harm to the Listed Building or its setting or not harm at all to the building or its setting.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that when the application came before the committee previously, she supported the officer’s recommendation although it was a difficult decision following a lengthy debate and she added that at that time several points were raised with regards to the harm. She added that she has considered the points made by the Legal Officer and also considered the photograph shown on the presentation screen and, in her opinion, she feels that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Listed Building. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is still going to go with her original decision which was to go with the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that members have all had the opportunity to consider the confidential aspect of the officer’s report and acknowledged that listed buildings do need to be looked after but the setting is an important factor to be considered and, in his view, the setting of the building is not going to change the status of the Grade 2 Listed Building. He expressed the opinion that he does not see that there is any harm at all regardless of whether it is substantial or minimal, it will not harm the setting of the Grade 2 Listed building as it is on its own land and is not encroaching onto its land. Councillor Benney added that the distance from the houses is 32 to 36 metres at its nearest point, and the house will remain, and its gardens and grounds will remain the same. He added that in the pre-meeting the example was provided by officers who explained that if it was a castle it would be different, however, this is not a castle it is one house in Wimblington. Councillor Benney made the point that he does feel that the proposal affects the setting of the Listed Building at all.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Benney and added that if the Listed Building was the other way around then she would not support it. She made the point that she will support the approval of the application as she does not believe that there is any substantial harm which is going to be caused to the Listed Building.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and expressed the opinion that the fence could be erected at any time and as a result the view would be blocked from the property, with it being actually the back of the house not the front which is shown in the photograph. He added that if you look from the front then there are other properties which can be seen both to the left and the right. Councillor Marks added that he does not see any harm at all and if the fence was erected and the houses were not there then the view would still be taken away. He made the point that the properties themselves are going to be located between 32 and 36 metres away from the actual dwelling itself and he does not see any harm which is going to be caused.

·         The Legal Officer asked the committee to clarify whether their decision is that the there is less than substantial harm or no harm at all in order than she can provide further guidance. 

·         Councillor Benney expressed the opinion it does no harm. Councillor Mrs French agreed.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view it is less than substantial harm.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view it does no harm.

·         The Legal Officer stated if the majority of the committee believes that there is no harm at all to the heritage asset then there is no need to turn to consider the public benefits as the Section 66 duty is only engaged in circumstances where there would be harm to the Listed Building or its setting. She added that it really draws and concludes the consideration of the heritage impacts to a close.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application before the committee brings forward homes and he added that there have been other applications which the committee have considered which have included Listed Buildings and those applications have been approved, making the point that the committee are only having to revisit the application again due to the fact that the Council have received a letter. He expressed the opinion that as a councillor he does not like to be threatened and whilst people are quite entitled to challenge him on his views, a threat will not change his opinion and he will not take it as such and will stand by the decision he made before as there is no new information which has been provided which would make him reconsider his original decision and he will still vote to approve the application for the construction of the five dwellings.  

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with Councillor Benney, and she made the point that to receive a letter of threat is not acceptable. She explained that she has been a member of the Planning Committee for many years and whilst the committee might not agree with what officers have stated but for members to be threatened, in her view, is totally unacceptable.

·         Councillor Benney stated that a threat of a Judicial Review is a legal process, and a decision notice will be required to commence the Judicial Review which he is aware can be a very costly exercise. He added that should a Judicial Review be taken against the Council then it will deal with that accordingly. 

·         Councillor Marks stated that it is his understanding that whatever decision the committee make today then officers will issue the decision notice.

·         Matthew Leigh explained that as a letter was received it is the Council’s responsibility to inform the committee as it may be something which would change their opinion. He added that should the committee come to the same conclusion then that decision has been made by the committee considering all the information provided to them.

It was proposed by Councillor Sennitt Clough to refuse planning permission, however, that proposal was not supported by the committee and therefore failed.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officers’ recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel it will not detrimentally harm the setting of the Listed Building, and they feel it does not need any public benefit with there being sufficient space around it.

(Appendix 3 to the report involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended))

(Councillor Connor took no part in the item in its entirety as he was not present at the meeting when the application was originally determined. Councillor Marks chaired this item)