Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of 21 January 2026 and 4 February 2026.

The minutes of the meetings of 21 January and 4 February 2026 were approved and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers, including Andrew Connelly from Cambridgeshire County Council’s Transport Assessment Team, as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she was Chairman of MATs at the County Council from 2017 to 2025 where it was discussed for many years about a roundabout at Hostmoor and she also understands that around £350,000 was received from the Aldi site. She made the point that this site is in the middle of an industrial estate and if industrial units cannot be built here where can they be built. Andrew Connelly responded that he is not involved with the MATs scheme, but he does know they have moved away from the roundabout and are now looking for an all-movement signal junction as this requires less land and deals with the issue a bit easier and it is easier for the authority to deliver on the ground.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked what is the position with the traffic lights as this has been discussed for 8 years and she understands there is an issue with somebody who owns a strip of land and she does not know if this has been resolved? Andrew Connolly responded that to deliver an improvement here there is third party land that is needed and there would have to be a CPO at some point. He believes the issue currently is regarding funding, there was an initial pot of funding received and that has been spent elsewhere because these two junctions, Hostmoor and Peas Hill, are going to cost £8 million to deliver.

·       Councillor Marks asked with regard to the highways is it felt that the issue is traffic coming out of the end of the junction turning left or right or is it more of a bigger problem further along past the Aldi to the A141? Andrew Connolly responded that the issue is vehicles coming out of Hostmoor Avenue onto the A141, at the minute vehicles have to go south, it is not an all-movement junction and this puts a lot of U-turners at the Peas Hill roundabout and U-turners create a lot of capacity issues because they cut off all other arms.

·       Councillor Marks questioned that the capacity is there on the Hostmoor/Peas Hill roundabout? Andrew Connolly responded that the capacity is not there, otherwise they would not be objecting and there is a lot of committed development coming forward that puts a lot of pressure there, Aldi are looking to deliver a set of signals there and it is a very constrained part of the network. He stated that whilst there is a solution, the MATs scheme, that is underfunded currently and it is not known timescale wise when that will be funded.

·       Councillor Connor referred to the strip of land mentioned by Councillor Mrs French, which is probably a ransom strip and this issue has been in existence a long time now so asked why a CPO has not been submitted on this piece of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P111/25

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn.

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly 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 Nigel Davies, an objector. Mr Davies stated he is the owner of March Airfield and Chief Flying Instructor and whilst he has no objections to the application in principle it is just the location where the application is being proposed. He referred to a diagram on the presentation screen which shows to the northern end of the application site there is adequate room to put the same proposal without any disturbance, interference or safety risks to the airfield giving them a clear 500-foot safeguarding area which was put in place by the LPA and themselves in 2021.

Mr Davies referred to another diagram on the presentation screen which demonstrates, unlike the previous meeting where someone showed an approach to his airfield in a straight line which is incorrect information and more used by a normal airfield with heavier aircraft, with paragliding they have to come into a circuit off the circuit pattern around the airfield then they have to lose height prior to landing. He continued that as can be seen by the figure of eight diagrams this illustrates where currently they would undertake the figure of eights to lose height prior to landing in the field, making the point that they are a school, not just an airfield, so this happens regularly.

Mr Davies stated there is a predominant wind direction of a westerly direction for the UK so the majority of its flights would come in on this approach and if you take into consideration where the proposal is this is directly overhead of the proposed building, which is why if it is put to the north of the site it would be in a safe area unobstructed to themselves. He referred to the CAA letter that was received prior to the last meeting that will stop any heat or wind turbulence from the proposal being in the exact position it is put currently.

Mr Davies referred to the diagram on the presentation screen showing the circuit pattern around the school so when students take off they then increase height to do a circuit above 500-foot around the airfield prior to yet again coming back on the circuits doing figure of eights to lose height prior to landing, which is why they require the 500-foot safeguarding area. He stated that official Government legislation documents cap 738 of the CAA outlines the regulations and safety guidance that they have to apply to which is the 500-foot rule and this in the aviation industry is known as the 500-foot bubble, it is an area around an airfield, it is safeguarded and they cannot fly below 500-foot unless they take off or land and within that people, obstacles, vehicles or vessels cannot be flown over.

Mr Davies showed on the presentation screen the 500-foot legislation rule, which can also be found  ...  view the full minutes text for item P113/25

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 members will remember this application which was supported by the committee in 2023 for exactly the same proposal, a small scale development of four bungalows on a site set between existing properties, with it being seen on the Google image that there is a lot of development around it. He stated that he has submitted an ecology report and contamination report and there are no objections, with the site all being within Flood Zone 1.

Mr Hall made the point that the previous application expired mid to late 2025 and there has been a lot of interest in the site. He feels the officer’s report sums up the situation well and it is recommended for approval.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if Mr Hall had been to the site recently as she visited the site and thought someone had thrown a bomb in the road. She asked if there are any plans to do something with Flaggrass Hill Road? Mr Hall responded that he was at the site three weeks ago, but this application does not include any improvements to Flaggrass Hill Road.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that from being down Flaggrass Hill Road in relation to an application at last month’s committee to visiting this site for this application the road has deteriorated significantly in the past month and asked if he could find something in the budget to fill the holes in. Councillor Connor interjected that Mr Hall did not have to answer this as it is a highway issue.

·       Councillor Purser asked if there is a reason why the site has not been developed within the timeframe? Mr Hall responded that there was a lot of interest in the site and there was, to his knowledge, at least 2 parties, not from this area, who progressed quite a long way and then one dropped away due to not being able to secure the funding and the other just dropped away. He added that one of them wanted the applicant to sign an agreement to stage payments based on profit, which they would not do, with this taking ages and it just expired.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that it has already received planning permission which has unfortunately run out, and she does not see anything different on this application, and it should be approved.

·       Councillor Purser agreed.

Proposed by Councillor Purser, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillors Mrs French registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct  ...  view the full minutes text for item P114/25

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he can see why the business wants to change the frontage, he tried to do this with his shop but it was not favourably looked on by the Council, as if you have the door in the centre from a shop perspective it is a waste of space either side of the door and Savers is also a shop that always put their counters to one side so by moving the door over it will increase the sales area of the shop and it will improve the customer flow around the shop. He added that he knows that people use doorways to sleep in or as a toilet if it is set back and if the door is flat to the front it helps. Councillor Benney expressed the view that this proposal makes perfect sense for the shop, he visited Wisbech and wandered around the Market Place and it is full of empty shops and it looks derelict, the buildings are in a poor state of repair, it is a rundown area and if anyone is going to spend any money to improve it he would be fully supportive. He feels that if more shops or businesses could spend money on their shops it would improve the area, the Market Place has been refurbished but it has a lot of empty shops and a bad feel about it. Councillor Benney stated that although it is a Listed Building he does not feel the proposal will bring any significant harm to the building and businesses need to protect and safeguard their premises so roller shutters are required, when the shop is open the shutters will be up and he thinks it is a good application from a retail point of view, it is in a retail area and the committee should be supporting it.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she visited the site and had not been to Wisbech for some time being amazed at the number of empty shops. She feels the owners of this shop deserve a medal wanting to invest into the shop rather than shut down and she will be supporting the proposal.

·       Councillor Imafidon agreed with the comments of Councillors Benney and Mrs French, he will be supporting the application as he lives in Wisbech and goes into town on a daily basis and he knows the impact that vandalism has on shop fronts, with a number of shops having their windows smashed. He stated that he is Portfolio Holder for Heritage but at the same time the high street needs to be protected by allowing businesses to stay open, with there being too many empty shops in Wisbech and another one should not be encouraged.

·       Councillor Purser echoed the comments of the other councillors, businesses should be encouraged, with the proposal cleaning and tidying the shop front up and it encourages people to go  ...  view the full minutes text for item P115/25

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent, read by Member Services. Ms Patrick stated that she believes the recommendation for refusal on this site is based on a subjective “feeling” rather than a consistent application of policy. She expressed the opinion that the officer’s verdict is that the space is “oppressive”, but quality of life is not defined by a tape measure alone, it is defined by light, layout and functionality.

Ms Patrick expressed the view that the proposal has designed a purposeful, high-quality home intended for a single occupant or a young professional, a demographic that is currently underserved in Wisbech. She disagrees with the “oppressive” label due to the Council’s recent decision at the former wool shop in Wisbech with the Council approving a flat with a nearly identical floor area with the space deemed to provide a high level of amenity.

Ms Patrick referred also to the Hare and Hounds, with the committee recognising that site specific context and clever design often outweigh strict square footage requirements. She added that a shop to residential conversion has also been approved next door, so it is already established that this row is suitable for homes.

Ms Patrick expressed the view that this proposal completes the transition of this building and is consistent with the character of the street and consistent with precedents that have already been set.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he visited the site, retail is disappearing from people’s way of life and questioned what retail could go into the building as a shop, with there being empty shops all throughout Wisbech and turning the ones on the periphery into accommodation, in his view, makes perfect sense. He added that it pushes the retail there is more into the centre of Wisbech, which he feels would help Wisbech. Councillor Benney acknowledged that it is a small property but made the point that there was a gentleman sleeping in a shop doorway when he visited the area and he is sure he would be grateful for this rather than sleeping in the open air. He made the point that there is a housing problem in Fenland and if this produces a home for somebody, it may not be a perfect home, but it is a stepping stone. Councillor Benney stated that whilst this proposal is not ideal, it is ideal for what is there and he will be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he called this into committee as he thought it would be of interest to committee and on Agenda Item No.12 he received some information from Dan Horn, a director at Fenland, saying there are 491 households on the waiting list at Fenland. He acknowledged the proposal is not ideal but feels it would be suitable for a single person and he will be supporting this application as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P116/25

To advise members of the current situation and determine an appropriate course of action.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and stated that Chatteris Town Council have notified the Council that they support the TPO.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Donna Barwell, an objector to the TPO. Ms Barwell stated that her objection is straightforward, the Eucalyptus tree at 23 Station Street is unsafe, unsuitable for its location and the temporary TPO was issued, in her view, without the necessary evidence or assessment. She expressed the view that the provisional TPO was imposed without an arboricultural inspection, there was no assessment of the tree’s structural condition, its risk level, its life expectancy or its suitability for long-term retention.

Ms Barwell expressed the opinion that a TPO should only be confirmed when a tree provides significant public amenity and when it is expedient to protect it and neither requirement has been met. She feels the tree has multiple well-documented structural defects, it has had previous branch failures, it has visible decay and extensive bark loss, it has a pronounced lean of around 45 degrees and its species typically has shallow rooting and brittle wood.

Ms Barwell stated that one of the most important points is the species behaviour of sudden limb drop, with Eucalyptus trees being known for shedding large branches without warning, even in calm weather. She added that following an incident of this nature, which was reported to the Council in June 2025, they were advised to make the tree safe and her concern is, therefore, not theoretical as several branches have already fallen from this tree and it has been fortunate that these have been inside the boundary of her property, as if those should have fallen in the opposite direction it would have landed where children walk to the local primary school and where vehicles regularly pass, which demonstrates a real risk.

Ms Barwell made the point that Eucalyptus trees are not native, the grow very fast and have shallow spreading roots that can affect drains and structures and they are prone to structural failure. She expressed the view that in a confined high traffic urban setting she does not believe this tree is suitable for long-term retention and it also offers limited ecological value compared with native alternatives.

Ms Barwell expressed the opinion that given the tree’s condition, its species characteristics and its location, she does not believe it can be reasonably considered suitable for long-term protection. She feels the TPO was issued reactively following a felling application and not based on evidence, with the statutory test of amenity value or expediency not being observed.

Ms Barwell expressed the view that protecting a hazardous tree in a high-risk location is not in the public interest. She made the point that removing the tree is not in her aesthetic interest as at present this tree screens the properties across the road and its removal would open up that view and she also has other trees on her property that include a Cherry and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P117/25

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if there is public open space or play equipment on the site as she is thinking about Pride of Place funding which is coming on board. She referred to Councillor Connor mentioning on a previous application about 491 people being on the waiting list across Fenland, but she believes this to be Chatteris only as there used to be 3,000 for the whole of Fenland and it does say at 1.2 there are 491 registered within the Council in Chatteris. Councillor Connor stated the information provided to him by Dan Horn stated that the numbers fluctuate daily as it is a live database, at the time of writing the report there are 491 households registered with the Council looking for affordable rent with Chatteris as their preference.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to the affordable housing and questioned affordable to whom? Matthew Leigh responded that this is defined in the NPPF. Councillor Imafidon asked if these homes could be allocated to Fenland residents only. Matthew Leigh responded that they will be let through the allocations policy, so it is normally through a connection. Councillor Connor added that the allocations will be made to the properties through the Council’s approved Housing Lettings Policy.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed his disappointment that the site is not going to be for market housing but recognised there is a need for affordable housing. He stated that his only concern is that priority should be given to local people. David Rowen stated that the nomination rights are set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report so the Council would be receiving nominations rights to all but five of the dwellings.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated her main question was on play equipment and there will be a Pride in Place report going to Cabinet in March, with each town being given a set amount of money for play areas and she will speak to Phil Hughes on this as these houses keep being built, with only contributions given. Matthew Leigh stated that paragraph 8.11 states that the open space contribution was secured for off-site improvement or provision of facilities in the area of Chatteris as the site is too small to require anything on site and there is very limited open space in the development, with the reserved matters plan showing there is no play equipment being provided on site, which is why the £38,000 is still seen as necessary to off set the harm from the development.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he would have liked to have seen some play equipment on the site itself, there are 50 affordable homes on the site so there is going to be children, and he would press to get equipment on site.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that Pride in Place funding has probably been missed but there is the Inspire! project as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P118/25