Agenda and minutes

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Karl Timberlake, Director of V10 Homes, a supporter of the proposal. Mr Timberlake stated that V10 is an affordable homes developer and they partner with landowners, build contractors and housing associations to fund and construct affordable homes utilising Homes England grant. He added that V10 has been responsible for creating over 1,250 new affordable homes, which has helped around 3,000 people on low to middle incomes, including key workers, to obtain a safe and secure home to rent at an affordable level or realise their homeowner aspirations through shared ownership.

Mr Timberlake stated that having worked with Fenland’s Housing Enabling Team they are aware of the level of need in the district, which at the end of July this year there were 1,690 households on the Housing Register in Fenland and almost 50% needing categories A and B. He expressed the view that within Fenland, March has the second highest recorded need behind Wisbech and the current projected delivery of affordable housing in the District for the current year is 239 homes or just 14% of the overall level of need so 86% of those who need a home locally will not get one this year.

Mr Timberlake stated that, as of 8 August, the Council had 89 households in temporary accommodation and in respect of shared ownership properties there is no similar data available but a recent release of 40 shared ownership properties in Fenland received 579 enquiries. He expressed the view that the demand for all types of affordable homes in Fenland is overwhelming and compelling.

Mr Timberlake stated that V10 is partnering with Platform Housing Group, and United Livings Lowrise Construction, with representatives in attendance today, to bring about the supply of those vitally needed additional affordable homes. He made the point that Platform is a fully funded strategic partner to Homes England and is already investing tens of millions of pounds in Fenland, referring to a recent article in the Wisbech Standard regarding their 100% affordable housing scheme which has just been launched for 137 homes in Wisbech, with Platform’s Chief Executive being quoted as saying “this is the first time we have worked with Fenland District Council and we are absolutely delighted to see this development come to fruition providing local people with a place to call home, we are committed to providing more such homes in the area and look forward to strengthening our partnerships in the region”.

Mr Timberlake expressed the opinion that with the committee’s support today the project at Barkers Lane would be Platform’s second 100% affordable homes development in Fenland, which will be built out in one single operation. He stated that after working closely with the Housing Team to align the local need with the delivery of the right type of housing and tenure, Platform expect to submit a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P49/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 George Wilkinson, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Wilkinson stated that the reserved matters application was submitted in May 2024 and is for the details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following the grant of outline planning permission in January 2024. He expressed the view that the development will provide 110 new homes including a minimum of 20% affordable housing in a sustainable location making a notable contribution to the housing land supply and affordable provision in Fenland of a mix of one to four bed properties, with Fenland’s affordable housing officers involved in ensuring the affordable mix meets local needs.

Mr Wilkinson stated that throughout the last six months Allison Homes has worked constructively with officers and key statutory consultees including the LLFA, Local Highways Authority and affordable housing officers to address all concerns raised. He stated that amendments through planning include the introduction of vertical and horizontal vehicle deflection to reduce traffic speeds, the inclusion of permeable paving to help control the discharge rate of surface water as well as providing a form of water treatment and a 3 metre easement has also been provided along the entire length of the eastern ditch outside of plot gardens.

Mr Wilkson advised that the development would provide 2.2 acres of publicly accessible open space, providing areas of play and habitat creation throughout the site and enhancements to the public right of way to the south of the site along with financial contributions to improve the bridleway running north-south along the western boundary, which would also allow for improved connection to existing development. He stated that the scheme will provide energy efficient homes with all homes achieving an EPC rating of B or higher, with every house having an electric charging point, solar panels and air source heat pumps to provide sustainable homes.

Mr Wilkinson made the point that Allison Homes has worked closely with the Planning Authority and consultees to positively address all comments raised and the proposal has no objections raised by technical statutory consultees. He feels the proposal represents a high-quality development and he hopes that members are able to support the officer’s recommendations, thanking the officer for his comprehensive report and Gavin for his presentation today.

Members asked questions of Mr Wilkinson and Ms McCrae as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the open space and the habitat, which sounds lovely on paper, and asked who will manage this because on the Whittlesey application they wanted the Town Council to manage it and is there anyone in place to manage these areas? Ms McCrae responded that the management of the public open space is already secured through the Section 106 Agreement so on this site it is a residents management company and residents will be made aware of this before purchasing their properties, with Allison Homes managing  ...  view the full minutes text for item P50/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens made the point that this site has an extant permission for up to nine dwellings approved in January 2022 and whilst the layout was not committed it showed larger detached housing on site with a roadway that will not work. He stated that given the location of the site and the adjacent Persimmon scheme his client felt this was the wrong approach, particularly as he is completing a scheme of nine two and three bedroom houses elsewhere in Chatteris for rent and these dwellings will be for rent too.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that there is a strong demand for two and three bedroom homes in Chatteris, both for rent and buy, and with recent new companies coming to Chatteris, like Aerotron, and companies, like Metalcraft, expanding a better mix of housing is required. He stated that the scheme was designed with early engagement with Highways who were helpful and satisfied with the road layout, this helped inform the layout particularly with the narrow entry section from Doddington Road.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that they have always tried to engage with officers at the earliest opportunity and be proactive to address any concerns and it has only been in the last few weeks that this has taken place. He expressed the opinion that they have addressed biodiversity concerns and this has been satisfied with credits being purchased to achieve the 10% gain, new native species trees will be planted as well as new hedgerows.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that his client has spent thousands of pounds exploring and resolving the drainage concerns, infiltration tests confirm that surface water cannot discharge via infiltration and the next step in the drainage hierarchy is to discharge surface water to an existing water course or ditch and this solution suggested taking it to the Slade End roundabout but Highways believe this is Highways owned and will not allow discharge. He stated that their consultants, MTC, have now confirmed that surface water can be discharged to an IDB ditch further along the Isle of Ely Way so, in his opinion, the drainage hierarchy has been met and they have a solution that the LLFA will accept and are happy to have a surface and foul water condition applied to the scheme.

Mr Bevens expressed the opinion that the proposed density of the scheme is comparable with that of the adjacent Persimmon development with both schemes achieving about 37 dwellings to the hectare. He referred to the reasons for refusal and using the presentation slide showed that, in his view, plot 1 does have a prominent front elevation to the street as you enter the site but he would argue that the side elevation is not as prominent in the development, with plot 1 not having  ...  view the full minutes text for item P51/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shaun Lee, an objector. Mr Lee stated that a high level of 82.3% of the responses received oppose the application, with the proposal outlining the development to erect a number of 4-bed double storey detached properties which will apparently mirror the adjacent properties but, in his view, the adjacent properties are primarily 2-bed semi-detached single storey homes. He expressed the opinion that the application references missing information and highlights that the photograph of the proposed access road is that of Knights End Road and not Peas Hill Road.

Mr Lee stated that, whilst it is agreed that the Local Plan 2014 Policy LP9 outlines both strategic allocations and the broad locations for growth, it can very loosely indicate that any development east of the bypass is acceptable, however, digesting the specific details and key diagram the area east of the bypass and north of Gaul Road towards Wisbech Road is not included within this. He expressed the view that the policies map defines the settlement boundary and it clearly shows that the proposed development is in an area that is outside of the settlement boundary and is, therefore, defined as countryside development, with policies LP12 and LP18 not applying also.

Mr Lee expressed the view that the impact of noise pollution, given the proximity of the bypass, cannot be underestimated, with the proposed location being well below road level and having no substantial fence or natural soundproofing that could logically be applied and the obvious effect of noise funnelling and the increase in noise levels for the adjacent properties cannot be ignored. He made the point that as outlined by the Environment Agency the area is within Flood Zone 3 and as a result has a high risk of flooding, with the northern edge of the site, where the access road is proposed, having regular occurrences of stagnant water and flooding.

Mr Lee stated that the western edge has a shallow dyke, which acts as a natural drain for the bypass and, in his opinion, any development on this site would create concentration of rainwater from the rooftops and existing issues would worsen. He expressed the view that the area has existing sewerage constraints, there are nearby septic tanks in use and limited options for main sewerage, with the Government, just over a year ago, updating the waste management guidelines and for all new discharges if it is deemed not reasonable to connect to a public sewer then the installation of a sewage treatment system would be needed which in turn disperses liquid into or onto the surrounding area and this risks additional saturation.

Mr Lee expressed the opinion that the access roads are very narrow and raise concerns for safety, not only for the local children when playing nearby but it also restricts options for emergency vehicles, with any new development exaggerating the current issues. He expressed concern regarding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P52/24

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent. Mrs Patrick stated the development offers much needed traveller accommodation, which she feels will positively contribute to the needs of the Council and furthermore the proposal’s design and scale is appropriate for a small self-build development. She advised that the applicant already resides on site so this is a retrospective application but they are a small family unit, they have a baby on the way, and asked members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Mrs Patrick stated that Mill Road, opposite to the east of the site, was a very similar application to this, which came to committee and was approved by members.

Members asked questions of Mrs Patrick as follows:

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the proposal being retrospective and that the papers say the scheme has been carried out in its entirety already and asked if this is correct? Mrs Patrick responded that the family are already residing on site and the access has already been widened.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked how long the occupants have been on site and do they own the property? Mrs Patrick responded that they do own the property and referred to the applicant to how long they have been there. The applicant responded since the middle of February. Councillor Imafidon questioned why the application was not submitted at this point and has been undertaken retrospectively? Mrs Patrick responded that the applicant has been in the area a long time with their family, the family has expanded and they have had to move and reside in the nearest piece of land that was available to them. Councillor Connor reminded members that the same weight needs to be given to a retrospective application as any other application. Councillor Imafidon made the point that he has visited the site and it was very well kept and tidy and he was impressed by what he saw.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked when the Council is going to get its Gypsy and Traveller Policy as she has been asking for this for years? Matthew Leigh responded that he was asked about this prior to the committee but was unable to action it and would provide information to members in the next couple of days.

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

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to a similar application to this considered a while ago where there was a young family on a site that did not have planning permission, it was initially deferred, it came back and it was approved as committee did not want to make a young family homeless. He stated that he will be supporting this application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees and fully supports the application.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P53/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Wimblington Parish Council read out by Member Services. Wimblington Parish Council stated that it was in agreement with the Planning Officer’s recommendation of refusal as per the Parish Council’s previous comments, which are still relevant, the ‘high quality residential environmental design’ under LP16 and as raised in the Design Guidance and Codes adopted by the Parish, would be compromised in the busy location of the proposed site. They stated that although the Highway Authority now consider its concerns to have been adequately addressed the local community and parish’s concerns regarding the congestion around the location of the site have not been adequately addressed.

Wimblington Parish Council expressed the opinion that the change of use to ‘7 residential dwellings’ is not within the village settlement area as per LP3, LP4 and LP12 and shown in the development draft Neighbourhood Plan and it is also not meeting local housing needs as per LP5 and LP13 and shown in the Housing Needs Assessment adopted by the Parish, in the growth of Wimblington village. They expressed the view that the support representation raises points but fails to address the fact that the location will cause additional amounts of traffic at the junction area, the present site access is only used intermittently by customers and present residents.

Wimblington Parish Council stated that the village has superseded the built expectation for a growth village, larger developments have taken the residential growth over the predicted growth, access to the village from the proposed site involves crossing the busy Manea Road and then A141.

Member received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that this site is not in the open countryside and is part of the built-up, established form of Wimblington, with it not being agricultural field, paddock land or undeveloped land. He stated presently a large part of the site is occupied by a dog grooming and kennel business, which has been in existence for about 6-7 years, with the business hours being Monday to Saturday 6am to 7pm for the kennels and 8.30am to 5.30pm for the grooming, with the site having a licence for up to 45 dogs.

Mr Hall stated that the applicant has advised him that vehicles to this site vary depending on the time of year, however, in the Summer months this can be up to 50 cars a day between the grooming and kennel businesses and there are also work vans on the applicant’s site for his job which is groundworks and civil engineering. He expressed the view that the proposal for up to 7 properties, it can be less, is likely to see a decrease in the amount of vehicles entering and exiting this site and Highways have not objected.

Mr Hall stated that the site is all located in Flood Zone 1 and there have been  ...  view the full minutes text for item P54/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson reminded members that they will recall this application which has been before committee previously where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the application is before committee again as the agreement has not been finalised. She feels it is unfair that the previously proposed reasons for refusal have been carried forward as she understood that committee was happy with the application in general.

Mrs Jackson stated that having consulted their own highway engineer it has transpired that the situation in terms of requiring the appropriate visibility can be achieved if the speed limit for the area is reduced to 30mph and by reducing the speed limit they can achieve the required 2.4 x 43 metre visibility splays all within highways and the applicant’s land. She continued that as they had an opportunity to reduce the speed limit in the area they felt they should embrace it as the proposal would then provide a benefit to the wider community.

Mrs Jackson made the point that reducing the speed limit takes quite a while but as this is providing such a benefit she is also sure members would agree that it is worth the wait. She stated that she has spoken to their highway consultant this afternoon and he has confirmed that they are in the depths of the legal process but the signs and the feedback that have been received from the pre-consultation is that there is full support from everyone including Cambridgeshire Constabulary who are the main stakeholder for this type of proposal.

Mrs Jackson stated that the designs for the work are complete but they need to follow the due legal process so whilst it is regrettable that the situation has taken so long to be resolved she assured members that they are committed to resolving the situation. She requested that they be allowed to continue to secure the highway improvements and rather than refuse the application allow them a further extension of time.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what length of time is being requested? Mrs Jackson responded that she has been informed by the highway engineer that it will be 2-4 months as with a legal agreement it has to go through so many different processes.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that committee went against officer’s recommendation and approved the application subject to the splays and that was hopefully going to be achieved. He asked why the committee’s decision is not being followed and this application is back before committee? Mrs Jackson responded that when they asked the highway engineer to have a look at it to get the visibility splays drawn up because there were some ambiguity over the ownership of the land, they were advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item P55/24

To consider revisions to the Council’s Local Validation List.

Matthew Leigh presented revisions to the Council’s Local Validation List for adoption.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that members have been asking for this for years, it will strengthen validation and stop wasting officer’s time with incomplete applications.  She would, however, like to include other benefits in the Section 106 requests. Matthew Leigh stated that he is happy to add community infrastructure in this element.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has made various observations that he needs to feed back and he feels that there should be a meeting with Matthew to go through the list line by line but he is aware that Matthew is keen to get the document adopted and in place for 1 November 2024 but there are things in the document that he feels need more tweaking. He would like it to be considered at the next planning committee in 14 days’ time.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she has read the document, but it has been tagged on to a lengthy meeting and it needs more time for appropriate discussion.

·         Councillor Connor questioned about it being deferred and brought back to the meeting on 13 November 2024. David Rowen responded that there is already a number of items for that meeting and members may be in a similar position at that meeting.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the document, whilst it has changed in character and appearance, contains mainly the same requirements as the current list and he is not sure if it is good use of officer’s and members time to go through the document line by line. He asked if it could be delegated to certain members and himself to have a meeting to formally discuss it as a formal committee would not be an appropriate forum.

·         Councillor Connor agreed that it could be undertaken with 2-3 members and the rest of the committee could feed back their comments.

·         Councillor Mrs French suggested that it be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to have the discussion, she has read it and has waited for it for years.

Members agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to make changes and approve the Local Validation List.