Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 7 August 2024.

The minutes of the meeting of the 7 August were agreed and signed.

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn.

To determine the application.

Tim Williams presented the report to members.

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

(Councillor Benney registered that he has been involved with this application by virtue of being a member of the Investment Board and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French stated that whilst the application deals with a Fenland District Council asset, she has not been involved with any element of the project and, therefore, is not pre-determined)

To determine the application.

Tim Williams 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 Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards explained that the site is a continuation of the developed line of Glendon Gardens and Sutton Meadows as well as the further development of agricultural buildings to the north. He added that the proposal uses all the land owned by the applicant with no third-party land other than the public footpath and the verge which is in the ownership of the County Council.

Mr Edwards stated that part of the site is within Flood Zone 1 and part of it falls within Flood Zone 3, pointing out that parts of the Flood Zone 3 land is actually higher than the Flood Zone 1. He made the point that the application site is located over 500 metres from the River Nene and the recently commenced development of 221 dwellings and the river.

Mr Edwards referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the development site shown on the slide is located mostly in Flood Zone 3 and has been referred to on numerous occasions by members of the Planning Committee. He stated that the sequential test and exception tests have been undertaken on the site for Leverington and the site has passed as there are no other sites available that can meet the number of dwellings proposed.

Mr Edwards explained that he has also offered a reduced timeframe for the reserved matters for the exception test to pass and Leverington has been used for the sequential search as that is the postal address and it is Leverington Parish Council who have been consulted on the application and he added that the officer’s reports states that the site is located in the Parish of Leverington. He added that the commitment to reduce the timeframes for the reserved matters demonstrates the commitment of bringing the site forward as soon as possible.

Mr Edwards made the point that the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authority, North Level Internal Drainage Board and Anglian Water also support the proposal albeit subject to the relevant applications to them all and mitigation measures. He stated that the plan shows the indicative layout and will be subject to change if it comes forward at a reserved matters stage and as the officer’s report states the indicative proposal would not generate serious concerns of loss of privacy or over dominance.

Mr Edwards made the point that the site area has been restricted to that which the applicant owns which has led to the opportunity of creating a priority lane which will act as a speed restrictor and will still provide the continuous footpath link through the site. He added that this part of the road is wider than half of the estate road and will, therefore, allow for both service and emergency vehicles to move through the site with adequate turning space so  ...  view the full minutes text for item P37/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Mrs Maureen Davis, speaking on behalf of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Mrs Davis thanked the committee for giving her the opportunity to represent Wimblington and Stonea Parish Council by speaking against the application. She explained that her understanding of  a Planning in Principle (PIP) application is to assess whether a site is suitable for development and, therefore, she explained that her presentation would be limited to the three considerations of stage one, location, use and amount of development proposed. 

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the location of the proposed site lies off the southeast corner of Eastwood End and is on a narrow country lane without any pedestrian footpaths or verges to allow pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders to use as a place of safety, with passing vehicles having very little room to manoeuvre and large vehicles finding it necessary to ride the verges. She stated that the site is not within the curtilage of the village settlement area as defined in the emerging Council’s Local Plan as well as the emerging Wimblington and Stonea Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that dwellings to not run in the linear design that is present along Eastwood End and most dwellings have open frontages to the road whereas the application proposes that dwellings will be set into the countryside off Eastwood End into two separate dead-end roads. She explained that the access points are located with one being on a tight left-hand bend and the other opposite the proposed access for a PIP application for nine dwellings, with the location causing a road hazard and congestion whilst excluding access to views out over the open countryside and it will change the historic heritage character of the area.

Councillor Mrs Davis stated that with regards to the use of the land it has been used as a small residential home and a small agricultural business in keeping with the character and heritage of the village. She added that there is one perfectly good bungalow and a number of outbuildings and, in her opinion, it is also one of the only open countryside views left of Eastwood End and the proposed dwellings would mean changing the use and character of the site, demolition of existing buildings and closure of any open views.

Councillor Mrs Davis made reference to the amount of development proposed and stated that Wimblington has a number of developments under construction and many of these are not yet finished or even sold including 88 dwellings off March Road, 21 dwellings off Willow Gardens and 2 lots of 3 dwellings in Eastwood End which are all under construction. She added that there are also 2 lots of 9 dwellings which are also in Eastwood End as well as 48 off Eaton Estate which have planning permission, but development has yet to commence.

Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item P38/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the site has been under the same ownership of the applicant for 15 years and has not been agricultural land in that time, with part of the site already being built over with residential dwellings and the site is located within the built-up form of Doddington. He explained that the proposal will include some flood mitigation measures to match in with floor levels of the adjacent already built properties that were approved in 2016, with the properties floor levels being brought into Flood Zone 1, however, he explained that the applicant has confirmed that the site has never encountered any flooding episodes since his ownership.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the houses shown which depict 2 out of the 3 already approved in 2016 which have been built up out of the ground and they are located directly opposite the application site and are under the same ownership. He referred to the presentation screen which displayed the Environment Agency Flood Map and made reference to the three dwellings shown earlier in the presentation and explained that the bottom plot to the south where half of the dwelling is located in Flood Zone 3 and at least another third located in Flood Zone 2.

Mr Hall explained that the middle plot, which is yet to be built, is located partially in Flood Zone 3 and partly in Flood Zone 2, leaving the nearest one to the north being located in the Flood Zone 2 line. He made the point that those three properties are also accessible from the same drive which is located in Flood Zones 1 and 3.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the Environment Agency, Environmental Health or Highways to the proposal and floor levels have been shown to match in with those dwellings that were approved in 2016 to bring them into the Flood Zone 1 area. He explained that the access is already in place as well as sewer connections and utilities and the proposal would finish off the development in this area as there is no other land that this could be built on.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to the planning permission, which was granted in 2016, and asked whether there was any flood mitigation measures included at all? Mr Hall stated that he was not involved with that development, however, currently there is a Flood Risk Assessment for the site which has not raised any concern from the Environment Agency, and they do not believe that the possible flooding at the site is from rivers or sea, and they recommend that comments of the Internal Drainage Board are sought. He stated that it is his understanding that there was no Flood Risk Assessment submitted for the site in 2016.

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item P39/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated. 

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Connor stated that historically this location has suffered from anti-social behaviour (ASB), and he would hope that the new facilities do not suffer from the same issues again. He added that the proposal looks very good, but he would like to know what precautions are going to be included in the application such as extra lighting and CCTV to go towards alleviating any ASB problems. David Rowen stated that as part of the application, the Cambridgeshire Constabulary Designing Out Crime Officers were consulted, and their comments are contained in the officer’s report. He explained that CCTV and lighting are proposed, and he referred to the presentation screen and highlighted the annotations on the proposed design. David Rowen added that the issue of ASB partly comes down to a management issue rather than a planning consideration and he would hope that as it is a Council asset it will be managed in an appropriate manner. He expressed the view than from a planning perspective there are measures included such as the lighting and CCTV which will go some way towards dealing with those issues and whilst there have been issues allegedly at that site in the past, they do form part of a wider issue such as the policing of the town centre and, therefore, there is separation between that of planning and other bodies who hold that area of responsibility.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the steps being taken to include the extra lighting and CCTV gives him extra comfort when considering the application.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned whether any consent letter has been received from the Middle Level Commissioners? David Rowen stated that there is no consent letter, however, the applicant has advised officers that the relevant application has been made to Middle Level and that will be dealt with as a separate consenting process that they operate.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that it is a much-needed facility and is located in the vicinity of the old toilet block and does not look out of character. He added that he is aware that a resident does have concerns with regards to the impact on his property, however, the facilities are needed for the town of March, and he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it is imperative that the toilets are provided for the town centre and the proposal will provide up to date facilities and it is essential for the application to be supported in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

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

(Councillors Mrs French, Benney and Hicks had left the meeting prior to this item and did not return for the duration of the rest of the meeting)