Agenda item

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 provide a countryside view from Bridge Lane, therefore, although the Bellway site is situated south of the access to Bridge Lane, it is not impacting on the characteristic’s environment along the lane.

Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that Councillor Benney’s personal opinion that the character and appearance of Bridge Lane has changed is not a material consideration and is not a valid reason but local planning policies LP3, LP12 and LP16 are and the decision (reason 1) to refuse planning application FYR23/0241/O is still a valid material consideration.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent and Ben Love, the applicant. Ms Penney stated that the application was deferred by the Planning Committee in April 2025, with the minutes from that meeting suggesting that the only issue of concern for members related to surface water drainage and that was the reason for deferral. She explained that she has worked closely with the drainage consultant, and the officer’s report confirms that there are no outstanding issues with regards to surface water drainage and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has confirmed that the proposal will result in an improvement to surface water drainage within the wider area.

Ms Penney explained that the only issue that remains relates to the character and appearance of the area, referring to the presentation screen highlighting the bright yellow site outlined on the map has planning permission which comprises in depth development, which she feels is significant when viewing the application within its context as it demonstrates that the character of the area has now changed to that of a housing area. She explained that a previous application was refused on the site in 2024 for reasons of form and character but this situation has now changed from the previous application because at that time outline planning permission under F/YR19/0405, for up to 30 dwellings on the land to the southwest of the site, would have formed the consideration when the 2024 application was determined.

Ms Penney stated that since then the site which was under planning reference F/YR19/0405 has been granted planning permission for up to 45 under F/YR23/0206, which was granted in August 2025 and having 45 dwellings on the site to the southwest of the application site rather than 30 has significantly increased the housing density in the locality and has reinforced the residential character of the area. She expressed the view that the backdrop of 45 dwellings results in the change to the circumstances of the area and the proposal would not be out of keeping with its surroundings.

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that the site does not appear as a gap given the fact that the view from Bridge Road frontage would be of a backdrop of housing which will now appear particularly denser in view of the newly granted permission for 45 dwellings. She referred to the presentation screen and stated that it clearly shows that this part of Wimblington is a built-up residential area which is reinforced by the large site which is currently being developed on the corner with March Road, with the committee having discussed on many occasions in the past whether Bridge Lane forms part of Wimblington village and, in her opinion, the map clearly indicates that is does.

Ms Penney stated that the site would effectively comprise of infill development of housing within an established residential area and, in her view, makes sense in policy terms, with Wimblington being a growth village and policy LP3 allows for village extensions in such locations. She added that the proposal would comply with that policy given that it would extend the existing built form in this area and, in her view, the proposal is acceptable in principle in accordance with policies LP3, LP12 and LP16.

Ms Penney added that it would result in residential development within a residential part of Wimblington which adheres to the form and character of the area with particular reference to the impact resulting from the newly approved development for 45 dwellings approved under reference F/YR23/206.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that when it was discussed in April, the only issue that the committee had with the application was one of significant concern with regards to flooding and she is pleased to see that Ms Penney has recognised those concerns and has gone away and undertaken some work to alleviate those concerns. She stated that there is a public right of way located there, and she asked whether that will be retained? Mr Love explained that the intention is to widen the public right of way so that two prams are able to pass each other which is not the case at the current time.

·       Councillor Connor asked what the plans for the small drain beside the public right of way are? Mr Love explained that he does cut it back to appease the footpath officer at the County Council and the dyke will have to be ditched out so that the drain can flow into the ditch and then further into the system. He added that where the existing dyke has been filled in, much of it will be excavated which provides an environmental gain and means that part of the pipe work cannot get blocked anymore. Mr Love stated that he does not want to develop next door to a mess and has proposed a different type of fence alongside the footpath as opposed to a barbed wire fence.

·        Councillor Mrs French asked whether the Internal Drainage Board has been consulted as part of the proposal and questioned whether it is a riparian dyke? Mr Love confirmed that it will be maintained.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is disappointing that the application has come back with an officer recommendation of refusal when the agent and applicant have addressed the issues raised by the committee in April, and yet officers still deem the proposal as being a large scale development when it is only nine dwellings. David Rowen stated that there is not a committee decision with regards to the terms of the acceptability of the character or not and as a consequence while one of the reasons for refusal has fallen away, the character reason which was previously recommended and was previously accepted by the committee when determining a very similar application on the site has to come forward and it remains the view of officers that this is an unacceptable development in terms of the impact on the character. He made reference to the point made by the Agent with regards to the site to the south and the fact that there has now been a planning permission granted there for 45 dwellings rather than 30 dwellings which was in place at the time that the previous decision was made by the committee, making the point that it has very limited impact with regards to whether this is a harmful development or not and, in his opinion, the view that the committee needs to take from that is that the site to the south had got planning permission in place for residential development and still has. David Rowen added that there has been no change in circumstances since the previous decision to refuse planning permission for nine dwellings on this particular site was taken by the committee in February 2024.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that the character of Bridge Lane has changed beyond belief over the period of time that he has been a member of the Planning Committee, questioning what the character of Bridge Lane is as it was very open when the 88 dwellings were approved. He expressed the view that the land is ripe for development, and the land will be filled in at some point and there is a lot of space before the bypass is reached, which is a natural barrier. Councillor Benney added that it is a good use of land and with all of the local development taking place around the site he can see no reason for the application to be refused. He made the point that it is not the open countryside, and the area is becoming urbanised, and the application should be approved, with the technical difficulties raised previously having been overcome and he will support the proposal.

·       Councillor Marks stated that Wimblington is evolving, and he referred to the presentation screen and added that the slide does not demonstrate all of the other development taking place on the other side of the bypass near to Data Shredders which is also going to see further development. He expressed the view that houses need to go somewhere, and, in his view, it is a good use of land, and it should be approved, otherwise the next application that comes back could be for 40, 50 or 60 dwellings.

·       David Rowen stated that the issue about the previous decision by the committee to refuse planning permission on the site is a significant material consideration.

·       The Legal Officer stated that she entirely concurs with the points made by officers and she added that the previous decision is a material consideration given that it is the same application site and the same proposed development on the site. She added that if members are looking to make a different decision to the one they made previously then it would be helpful to be really clear and spell out what the actual change in the material considerations are that have taken place since they decided two years ago which now leads them to form a different view. The Legal Officer explained that it maybe the intensification point raised by the applicant but, in her view, it would be helpful to explain why the committee are taking a different view or may take a different view two years on. She added that it is important to spell out what has materially changed since the previous decision.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is a very old slide which has been shown on the presentations screen compared to what there is today. He added that F/YR23/1235 is almost built out now and the slides shown appear to be out of date because there is significant change down there now including erected fences and the area is becoming more urbanised which to him is a material change which can be seen from the last decision.

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

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that since the previous application was refused the character of Bridge Lane has changed, the area is ripe for development, the frontage no longer exists in Wimblington as it is being filled in, they do not consider the proposal to be large scale development and they do not consider the visual gap to be one of any importance. Members added that a sequential test has now been undertaken, and improvement works will be undertaken to the ditch which they feel brings a great improvement and will stop any future flooding.

(All members present declared that they know Councillor Mrs Davis as a fellow councillor but are not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillors Connor and Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)