Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 7 January 2026.

The minutes of the meeting of 7 January 2026 were approved and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application

Hayleigh Parker-Haines presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney stated that the application is for an occupational dwelling, which supports a long established and multi-generation local business operated by the Humphrey family for over three generations. She continued that it is a business that is not only viable, but, in her view, one that provides an essential and often urgent service to Fenland District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and the wider community.

Ms Penney stated that Mr Humphrey is the principal call out for the Council when buildings are damaged, unsafe or require emergency works to prevent injury or potential loss of life, with his presence and rapid response being often critical. She expressed the opinion that this is not a business that operates during normal working hours, with call outs occurring at any time, often late at night, when immediate action is needed.

Ms Penney expressed the view that the nature of the work means that Mr Humphrey must be able to arrive on site without delay, collect plant and equipment and respond instantly to dangerous situations and living on site is not a convenience but essential to the functioning of the service provided. She continued that security is another key factor as it is a business that relies on heavy valuable machinery and specialist equipment and there have been repeated break ins and attempted thefts at the yard, all occurring at night, with CCTV showing vehicles entering the yard stealing significant quantities of goods and causing damage.

Ms Penney stated that these incidents have been formally reported to the Police and to the local authority and demonstrate a clear and ongoing security risk. She added that to effectively run the business and maintain the safety of the site Mr Humphrey and his family currently rent a dwelling to the north of the yard, however, this house is not tied to the business, is accessed separately and offers no direct surveillance of the yard or entrance and importantly it is rented meaning that the family has no long term security and cannot remain here indefinitely and when the lease ends their ability to run this essential service will be, in her view, seriously compromised.

Ms Penney expressed the view that a dwelling on the application site would allow proper oversight of the business, immediate response to security incidents and the ability to react quickly to emergency call outs, which she feels is a practical proportionate solution that supports community safety, reduces crime risk and enable the business to continue operating effectively. She expressed the opinion that the proposal is entirely in line with decisions the Council has previously made, with there being several clear precedents within the District for dwellings tied to essential local businesses, such as Sims Contract Furniture, Prospect House on Burrowmoor Road and Horse Creek Farm in Coldham, with in each case the Council recognising that certain businesses require a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P98/25

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated the site lies approximately half a mile from a primary school, convenience store and fish and chip shop. He made the point that the Environment Agency do not raise any objection to the proposal.

Mr Hall stated that various comments have been made about Bunkers House and the indicative proposal shows this property to be maintained, leaving it with a 25 metre long, 75 foot long garden and made the point that it is not Listed or in a Conservation Area and there has never been any proposal to demolish it, with one of the applicants living in the property. He added that the indicative proposal shows the intention to extend the existing footpath, which will help the properties that are at the front of this site and also the properties on the proposed site.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the officer’s report reads quite positively, with 9.34 and 9.35 reading positively on the amount of development proposed in relation to the surrounding area which is a low density per hectare. He made the point that further in the report it confirms at 9.31 that proposed residential development would be compatible with the prevailing character of nearby land use and would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on surrounding occupiers.

Mr Hall referred to the Google map on the presentation screen, which shows the site is surrounded by residential properties to the north east and to the south, with there being about 25-27 dwellings in this area and he agrees that beyond the site it is open countryside but, in his view, this proposal would round off the development in that area and it is not isolated. He referred to a slide on the presentation screen showing Wisbech St Mary Primary School figures from Cambridgeshire County Council that are forecast and in 2024/25 school year it is predicting 175 pupils but in 2029/30 it goes down to 152 and these figures can be affected by major changes in future house building, with the site being only half a mile from the primary school, with the indicative proposal that he has put forward showing that these dwellings are family homes and you would expect there to be children there.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the report confirms the site is compatible with the adjacent land use and prevailing character, low density matches in with the adjacent land use, there would be a footpath link extended, Highways have not objected on the principle, the proposal is for a far lesser dense development, it would round off this area of Bunkers Hill and Bunkers House is not proposed to be demolished.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to one of the reasons for refusal being on the sequential  ...  view the full minutes text for item P99/25

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 Councillor Steve Count, District Councillor. Councillor Count stated that there are some similarities and differences with the earlier applications that have been considered today, with the first difference being where security was raised but the nature of that business is very different to this one. He expressed the view that one of the main differences he sees on this application in terms of security is that this is at the end of a very long dead end and criminals might be lazy but they are not inherently stupid and it is known from the Police that they do not often choose to go to dead ends specifically when it is that remote and easy to close off.

Councillor Count hoped to bring out why the application should be refused in line with the officer’s recommendation, one of the obvious reasons is the sequential test for Flood Zone 3, which this fails on, and it is a simple and easy way to continue to say that this is unsuitable. He expressed the opinion that part of the reason this is in front of committee today is that there is a farming use assessment trying to justify the need for a dwelling but when the assessment is analysed it starts falling apart, with the need for security according to NPPF being very different to what is actually happening on the site, for example there is no livestock or envisaged livestock which is one of the core reasons it might be approved and security is shown in the assessment but this is no longer a substantial valid reason to approve.

Councillor Count expressed the view that there are no crime records for this site, which has been brought out by correspondence with the Police who have confirmed this by e-mail. He feels there are a number of planning policies this proposal contravenes including the one relevant to building in the open countryside and the officer’s report is correct in all respects but feels the Highways report from the County Council has fallen down as an application for the paddock which is on the same strip stated that there should be no further intensification of traffic on this road but they have not made those comments on this application.

Councillor Count expressed the opinion that a 2½ thousand tonne barn takes 337 vehicular movements to fill and unfill down a single track road bordered by a drain all the way along, with no passing places and there are paddocks along here and a livery yard around the corner on Flaggrass Hill and he is surprised that Highways did not put that comment into this application. He stated that Highways after submitting their no objection description did submit in a subsequent e-mail that they considered this for the storage of machinery only and did  ...  view the full minutes text for item P100/25

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney expressed the view that the application represents a sustainable and appropriate form of development contrary to the officer’s recommendation. She stated that the site benefits from extant Class Q prior approval for the conversion of an agricultural building into two dwellings, which, in her view, establishes a clear fallback position and this fallback is relevant as the current proposal also delivers two dwellings effectively achieving the same outcome and the principle of residential development is, therefore, already established, with this proposal provides a high quality replacement for the existing disused buildings.

Ms Penney expressed the opinion, in terms of visual amenity and landscape impact, the dwellings are well designed using timber cladding and slate roofs to respond to local distinctiveness and they are spaced thoughtfully with substantial separation to minimise visual impact and allow for wider views of the countryside. She feels this respects the aims of policies LP12 and LP16 which seek to the protect character of the countryside and provide high quality development.

Ms Penney expressed the view that by replacing redundant structures the development enhances the site’s setting without urbanising the open countryside. She feels it is important to note that there have been other residential approvals immediately to the south of the site demonstrating that development in this general location is considered acceptable and consistent with planning precedent.

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that the scheme passes the sequential test as it is effectively for replacement dwellings so no alternative sites need to be considered and the exceptions test can be passed by ensuring that the development is carried out to high levels of sustainable construction credentials. She feels that the proposal makes positive use of the site, delivers high quality homes, respects the rural character and is fully supported by the fallback position and local precedent and on this basis, in her view, the application should be approved.

Members asked questions of Ms Penney as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the site history with there being four applications that were approved and asked why they have not already been built? Ms Penney responded that she believes it is a timing issue and now is the time to undertake it.

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

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is correct, he has visited the site, it is in the middle of nowhere and feels it is an application in the wrong place at the wrong time.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is strange that the applicant has not come back with a barn conversion as the site is in the middle of nowhere and he agrees that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that looking at the timing of the previous approvals she feels that one should still be in time so they could  ...  view the full minutes text for item P101/25

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow 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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that the site already benefits from outline approval for four dwellings and this application is for a very similar proposal, four dwellings, three bedrooms, very similar location to the outline approval, a third garden area and adequate parking. He expressed the view that the dwellings match in with properties on Gibside Avenue, West Street and Fairway.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the officer’s report is excellent, and there are no technical objections to the application from Highways and Environmental Services, with a bin lorry being shown to go in and out of the site. He stated that he attended a Chatteris Town Council meeting on this application and spoke and also a resident, whose garden backs onto this site from West Street, spoke in favour of the application and consequently Chatteris Town Council support this application.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she was lobbied on this application and it was a lengthy objection and asked if the issues had been sorted with the objectors as she believes he was liaising with them? Mr Hall responded that they had not.

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

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the proposal fills a gap, it is built up around the site, and it was a piece of land that was always going to be built on so he fully supports it.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that this is about land usage, and this makes the best use of land, which is derelict at this time and the proposal will provide good homes for families. He stated that he is happy to support it.

·       Councillor Purser agreed that it is a piece of derelict waste ground, which is an ideal place for new homes, it fills in a gap and tidies the land nicely. He stated that he will be supporting it.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that he was portfolio holder at the time this land was sold and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon.)

(Councillor Mrs French registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she had been lobbied on this application.)

(Councillor Murphy registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning. He further declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with  ...  view the full minutes text for item P102/25

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and advised that a further two letters had been received from objectors to the scheme after the publication of update reports, with the letters reiterating comments relating to the existing road surface, noise pollution, street lights, bin collection and the scale of development and it is considered that these concerns have been addressed within the committee report and through the recommended conditions.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ashley Savage, an objector. Mr Savage advised committee that he lives at 5 May Meadows immediately adjoining the application site and he is also an experienced property developer, mentioning this to make it clear that his objection is not anti-development as he fully understands the need for housing and how schemes are delivered. He stated that his concern is whether the proposal represents appropriate development in this location when judged against policy, evidence and the site’s physical constraints.

Mr Savage acknowledged that the application has been amended following the dismissal of the appeal, with it being reduced to one dwelling and repositioned within the site, however, he disagrees that the fundamental issues identified by the Planning Inspector have been fully resolved and he asked members to apply their own planning judgement rather than relying solely on the recommendation. He referred to residential amenity which remains a key concern, the Planning Inspector concluded that the previous proposal would result in an overbearing impact on 4 May Meadows and stated that even a single-storey dwelling in close proximity could give rise to unacceptable harm, with this finding based on the relationship between buildings, including citing depth and mass, not simply on separation distances.

Mr Savage made the point that the current proposal is now for a three-storey dwelling with a ridge height of approximately 10.2 metres, which is taller than the surrounding dwellings along May Meadows and while the building has been moved further south, in his view, it remains a large and visibly dominant form of development behind existing homes. He feels that members may reasonably question whether increased separation alone genuinely overcomes the Inspector’s concerns or whether the scale and height of this building would still feel intrusive when experienced from neighbouring gardens and rear elevations.

Mr Savage referred to the access, with the officer reporting that the access into May Meadows is approximately 6 metres wide, but he has personally measured Turf Fen Lane, which is the sole vehicular access to May Meadows, and the surface width is approximately 3.57 metres and even allowing for minor variation this is a significant difference and in practice this road functions as a single-track access, not a two-way carriageway, which is relevant when considering everyday use, construction traffic, service vehicles, refuse collection and emergency access. He stated his intention is not to challenge the Highway Authority but simply to ensure members are making their decision based on an accurate understanding of the physical constraints residents experience daily.

Mr Savage asked members  ...  view the full minutes text for item P103/25

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Marks referred to the reasons for refusal, in particular the impact on the street scene and character of the area and failure to protect and enhance heritage assets, and queried if this is the building front which this sign has covered over, which he feels is protecting heritage assets. He stated that he is still of the same opinion as last time, especially as things have changed in the town centre since September with the demolition of Barclay’s Bank, the toilets being built and the hoarding removed around them showing the impact on the town centre and permission has also been given to an illuminated barber’s pole. Councillor Marks made the point that there is an illuminated sign that now has permission, which is since this sign was last considered, and various other things that have happened within March town centre that he believes has changed the heritage within the town centre.

·       Councillor Connor referred to the photos of the premises on the screen and further up the street illuminated signs can be seen. Councillor Marks stated that he can see illuminated signs both ways, USA Chicken and the barber’s, but Domino’s has not got an illuminated sign, but he thinks another one does further along. Councillor Connor feels it is clear to see that since this application was last debated, although the application in itself has not changed, the surroundings have, USA Chicken, the barber’s pole and this premises are all lit up in darkness. He agrees with Councillor Marks that the vista has definitely changed.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he fully supported this last time and was amazed that it was refused. He made the point that March Broad Street has changed, the fountain has been moved, Barclay’s bank has disappeared, the barbers has an illuminated sign and he sees nothing wrong with this sign whatsoever. Councillor Benney expressed the view that a high street changes all the time, nothing is cast in stone and in another 50 years this sign would not be there, something else will and, in his view, the structure of the building is not being damaged, the feature is not being taken away and is just covered, protecting it. He stated that he supported it before and will be supporting the application again today.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that the bakers has moved since the last application so it is organic with the high street changing almost monthly so there is a difference to what was there 3 months ago. He expressed the opinion that he cannot see what is wrong with this sign and appreciates that heritage should be preserved but heritage changes as well.

·       Councillor Connor stated he was not present when the application was considered last time but does feel that had he had been present he would have supported it.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he voted against this when  ...  view the full minutes text for item P104/25

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney referred to the access issue and referred members to Paragraph 5.5 of the officer’s report, which shows that the Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal and has confirmed it is an outline application with all matters reserved so access is not for approval at this stage and they have also noted that the current drawing does not provide detailed information on access but crucially they have confirmed that these matters will be fully considered at the Reserved Matters stage. She feels this alludes to the fact that they raise no objection in principle and confirms that any potential concerns can and will be resolved later so this should not prevent the committee from supporting the principle of development.

Ms Penney stated that the site is currently a working farm generating movements of vehicles of all sizes at any time, with the retained farmhouse already accommodating this and it is submitted that the introduction of 9 dwellings would not harmfully increase traffic over and above the existing situation and this further reinforces the acceptability of the access arrangements. She expressed the view, from a location perspective, the site is adjacent to the built-up area of March, a market town under Policy LP3, and it falls within the West March strategic allocation, which has an approved Broad Concept Plan.

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that the site is self-contained, identified for residential development and its development would not affect the wider allocation, with the principle of development, therefore, being fully acceptable supported by policies LP3, LP7 and LP9. She feels that nearby approvals to the south further demonstrate that residential development in this location is suitable and well established.

Ms Penney stated that design, layout and scale will be considered at Reserved Matters stage to ensure fully compliance with policies LP12 and LP16, protecting visual amenity and the character of the area, with the submitted drawings showing how this can easily the proposal can accommodated within the site. She expressed the view that this is a suitable, well located and sustainable residential development with access matters entirely resolved at the next stage and there are no objections from technical consultees, asking the committee to support the outline application.

Members asked questions of Ms Penney as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the site would be connected to main sewage? Ms Penney responded that her understanding is that it would be, but this is still up for debate.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that drains run along here, and she can see that the Drainage Board has been contacted but there has been no response, which is normal because they are not a statutory consultee. She would expect, if this is approved, that the agent speaks to Drainage Board about the Reserved Matters.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the farmhouse is still in the ownership of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item P105/25

To determine the application.

Alan Davies 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 the building was vacant for approximately 7 years before the applicant took on the premises, having now occupied it for 3 months under a 10-year lease and Chloe’s Jewellers has been operating for more than 90 years and has branches at Thetford, Melton Mowbray, Royston and Wisbech. He added that the applicant is in talks with possible shops in Newmarket and Sudbury.

Mr Hall referred to 5.3 of the officer’s report where the crime officer states that the site is in an area of medium to high risk to vulnerability of crime. He stated that on 16 January this property was broken into, the external shutter was present as a deterrent, but a hole was cut through the roof to gain access, the Police were called, but he does not have a crime number or e-mail, which resulted in a loss of £23,000.

Mr Hall made the point that this is not the only commercial property in March Conservation Area that has an external roller shutter, with two other jewellers in the Conservation Area both having these, the pawn brokers at 6 High Street and opposite this site at Malletts. He feels that there are also shutters at various other premises, Anne’s Thai Kitchen on the adjacent street which can be seen from this site, Amical Vets directly opposite a Grade II Listed Building and on shops down Fenland Walk, with the shops being outside of the Conservation Area but the walkway being in the Conservation Area and whilst he appreciates these have all been there a while they are part of the character of the area.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the public to this application, March Town Council support it as does the Designing Out Crime Officer and two other businesses in the same trade in the Conservation Area both have shutters as well.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that the roller shutters look at little stark and if planning consent is given asked if they would consider them being painted? Mr Hall responded that Malletts has been spray painted the same colour as the shop surround and he could agree to this, it would be black as in the surround around the shop and it would not be orange.

·       David Rowen requested clarification that when the shop was broken into the break in took place through the roof. Mr Hall responded that it was on 16 January the break in took place, the shutter was down and the thieves cut a hole through the roof. David Rowen stated that the reason he asked that question was because the break in took place after the shutter was in situ and the shutter is not effective as a deterrent from preventing crime and the solid shutter exasperates the crime as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P106/25

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall referred to the Google image on the presentation screen which shows a residential dwelling was approved on the opposite side of the road, down a track, in 2021 by committee and believes this has been built out. He stated that opposite to this site and adjacent there are residential dwellings, which were seen on the photos, and opposite this site there is a bus stop, which gives further links to the surrounding villages and towns and the majority of people in this area, Primrose Hill, own cars.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal would not be on mains drains so there would be no additional pressure on the foul water system in Doddington and there is further land to the rear of this site if anyone required it for paddocks, etc. He referred to concern being raised with regards to the access but made the point that there is no objection from Highways.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that this is not the only site that has been approved by members, he has already mentioned the one on the opposite side of the road, where the report has stated that the proposal is beyond the built up form of Doddington, with two dwellings being approved on Benwick Road in 2023 and the officer’s report stated that that proposal was 1.3km from the built up form of Doddington, far greater than this proposal. He acknowledged that the plan is an indicative plan and conditions cannot be placed on it if it is approved but they have shown residential dwellings with annexes.

Mr Hall stated that having travelled along this road last week there were no other dwellings that he could see that were vacant or for sale in this section of Primrose Hill. He continued that the indicative proposal is for dwellings with annexes, and he feels there are examples of this sort of development, such as Charlemont Drive in Manea, and there is a need for these types of dwellings.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal would allow high quality homes with tied residential annexes, although it is an indicative layout, to allow various generations to live together and he undertakes many jobs where people want to convert buildings to be annexes so feels there is a need for them.

Councillor Connor made the point that some of the agent’s presentation was not relevant as the proposal is only a PIP application.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to the built-up form of Doddington and, looking at the Google map, he had not realised if a straight line is drawn from the site across it is still Doddington because the postal address is PE15 0TB and he would say this is still as far out as the built-up area and asked if he agreed? Mr Hall responded that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P107/25

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall referred to the various concerns in the report, with one being about ecology but the majority of the hedge would be kept, although he acknowledges that this is a PIP, for a single access which Highways have agreed with, and they would have to provide an ecology report. He stated that the last application was about 2½ years ago but that was for 9 dwellings and it has now been changed to 4 dwellings so that a footpath can be included within the red line.

Mr Hall acknowledged that the plan is indicative but, in his opinion, there is material planning change from when the previous application was refused. He referred to the Google map which shows immediately to the east this site abuts residential development and that is continuous all the way along into Doddington and feels that members will be aware along Primrose Hill and Newgate Street there have been numerous approvals over the years and development is all heading towards the west of Doddington, which is where this site is.

Mr Hall stated that within the officer’s report it does state that this site is close to a bus stop, there is a footpath link which they are proposing to improve, it provides good transport links to Chatteris and Doddington, there is a shop, post office, school and pub. He referred to 10.5 of the officer’s report where it states that the land is classified as Grade 3 agricultural land, not Grade 1, and he would not disagree with this and he does not believe that it has been cropped for 10-15 years, having been grassland or paddock land for many years.

Mr Hall appreciates the plan is indicative, but he produces these drawings to give members an idea if approved what could be built on the site and it shows a full adoptable footpath along the front of this site in the red line. He expressed the view that he believes all the dwellings are in Flood Zone 1 but if not at least 3 are and there are no Highways objections.

Councillor Connor asked members to disregard the footpath as this is not part of the application and it is only land use that is being considered.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that it is land usage that is being looked at, with members having just approved the ones further out of Doddington, and he feels this is suitable and good use of land.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that this application probably has more benefit than the last application and it is being said that this site lies mostly in Flood Zone 1. He stated that he can never remember the field being cropped apart from hay and it has been heard that the majority of the hedge  ...  view the full minutes text for item P108/25

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated his comments are the same as for application F/YR25/0726/PIP, however, on the indicative layout that he submitted the 2 houses are, in his opinion, in Flood Zone 1, with other parts of the site being in Flood Zones 2 and 3. He referred to the previous application where he said that the houses would be in Flood Zone 1 but for clarification did not say the whole site was in Flood Zone 1.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to officers saying that the road goes down Dykemoor Road and asked how far the entrance will be down what officers say is a fairly rough road? Mr Hall responded that the access is shown on the indicative plan, the frontage of the site has a large group of trees which is not in the site’s ownership, which is why an access has not be shown out onto Primrose Hill and he estimated that the distance from Primrose Hill to the site’s entrance is about 20 metres.

·       Councillor Marks stated that a bit further down there is Henry Shepherd’s Transport yard and asked how much further down is the entrance to this site from the proposal? Mr Hall responded approximately 50-75 metres but he has not measured it and is only going from what he can see on the OS plan.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that Dykemoor Road is mostly a concrete slab road that has been tarmacked over and he does have lots of issues over that road breaking up. He added that it was undertaken by workers for the war effort to make it easier for produce to be transported.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Connor asked if the houses will be in Flood Zone 1? David Grant responded that the indicative plan shows no part of the housing within Flood Zone 1, however, when officers assess through the three criteria, location, use and quantum, they are assessing it along the entirety of the site within the red line boundary and, therefore, with the site partially being in Flood Zones 2 and 3 a sequential test is required and no such test has been submitted and, therefore, when the location is looked at from a flood risk point of view officers deem this site is unsuitable.

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

·       Councillor Benney referred to the Government flood maps, which shows a 1 in a 1,000 chance of where the houses being sited flooding. David Grant responded that this is looking at surface water flooding and not Flood Zones 2 or 3, with the rear of site being within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Councillor Benney acknowledged this, but where the houses are going to be built is in Flood Zone 1. David Grant responded that the plan is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P109/25