Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of 11 December 2024 and 8 January 2025.

The minutes of the meetings of 11 December 2024 and 8 January 2025 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mark Codona, the applicant. Mr Codona stated that he owns the whole site, currently lives on the site and made the point that it is not Flood Zone 3 but Flood Zone 2 on the actual area where the caravans will be sited. He stated that the application is to extend the existing site providing a transit site for the local area, which will show, especially when the gymkhana is completed later this year, a need for more pitches and transit pitches in the area.

Mr Codona expressed the view that he has satisfied all the issues raised by the Highways Authority and whilst the Parish Council has objected it has only done this in relation to the objections which have been satisfied. He stated that the proposal will be family owned and family run for which they have got 50 years’ experience of running sites and they are a well-known gypsy and traveller family within Fenland, working closely with the Council and locals.

Mr Codona referred to some members being on the committee when the previous application was approved and they have completely transformed the area, it used to be a prolific fly tipping area and it has been made into a nice presentable home. He stated that they are going to continue what they have been doing, having been in this area for 6 years settling well into the local area, with the locals accepting them as part of the community and he feels that rather than there being unauthorised encampments within the area it is going to be key to have an authorised transit site within Fenland which is also gypsy run as opposed to Council run as gypsy and travellers feel more comfortable going on other gypsy run properties rather than local authority ones.

Mr Codona expressed the view that as well as helping their own community they will be helping the local area, wanting to work with the Council and not against them. He hopes it will be successful, having overcome all the objections raised and he is happy to accept conditions so that it is to the Council’s acceptance.

Members asked questions of Mr Codona as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he visited the site and it was a very bad area for fly tipping and the area has been cleared up. He referred to Elm Parish Council raising an objection as they state the access to the site being of poor quality and not fit for purpose and asked for his comments on this. Mr Codona responded that the site is going to be accessed through the existing site, it is not a new access and is fully acceptable to the Highways Authority, with it having no objection to the condition or location of the access. He made the point that Newbridge Lane is a highway which has been closed off at one end,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P87/24

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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the proposal is for 5 executive style bungalows, with large gardens, double garages and all served off a private drive. He stated that previous applications on this site for 14 two-storey dwellings, 10 dwellings and 9 dwellings were all refused but were from a different landowner, the 7 dwellings was withdrawn and this proposal is for 5 bungalows with an officer recommendation to approve.

Mr Hall made the point that the Highways Authority has raised no objections and made recommendations throughout the application which they have taken into account. He stated that the previous appeal carried out on this site by others was not refused on highway grounds by the Inspector for an application for 9 and this proposal is for 5.

Mr Hall stated that all of the site is in Flood Zone 1, the LLFA have raised no objection and drainage details have been submitted as part of the application. He expressed the view that there has been a lot of work that has been undertaken on this application both by officers and his office and they have taken on board the Highway Officer comments, officer recommendations on the design and number of dwellings and also worked with the LLFA and Refuse Team at the Council.

Mr Hall referred to a Google Map on the presentation screen, which shows, in his view, that this is the last piece of land of this size in the middle of Eastrea to be developed and it could be classed as infill development, which is what it is referred to in the officer’s report at 10.10. He reiterated that there are no technical objections and the application has a recommendation for approval.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks referred to pinch point of 3.7 metres as you come into the site for quite some distance and asked if this 3.7 metres is from the bungalow to the edge or is that with leaving a metre from the bungalow? Mr Hall responded that originally they showed that access where it has been reduced to 3.7 metres as wider at 5 metres as that width is available still leaving a fence and grass strip either side but highways in December last year requested it be reduced to the 3.7 metres probably to leave a grass strip either side then the fence to neighbouring properties.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that it is a good-looking application but she has concerns about the access and the narrowness of the access road because not only is there cars but there are potentially cars and pedestrians walking down that very narrow access road. She stated that she knows the road very well and there have been accidents along this road, there are cars parked on  ...  view the full minutes text for item P88/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from James Burton, the agent. Mr Burton stated that this is a reserved matters application for Mr and Mrs Pitman, with Mrs Pitman having lived in Parson Drove her whole life and being joined by her husband 16 years ago. He added that they are a young growing family that wish to continue living in their home village.

Mr Burton referred to photos on the screen which show Parson Drove is a village with a varied character and mix of dwellings, with two and half storey dwellings forming part of the character with both older and newer properties adopting this form. He notes the comments regarding the scheme being incongruous and consider this is subjective given there is no consistency with regards to the architectural style or sizes of properties within the area.

Mr Burton expressed the opinion that the scheme is a high-quality bespoke dwelling providing quality variation and character within the street scene whilst meeting the needs of a local family and their associated business. He referred to another photo on the presentation screen which is located in the neighbouring village of Murrow, being approved in August 2023, although he appreciates that each site is to be considered on its own merits it is felt this is a significant precedent and this proposal is significantly larger than this proposal and set within a street scene of bungalows and modest two-storey dwellings.

Mr Burton expressed the view that this demonstrates how an aspirational high-quality executive home can be successfully integrated into an existing varied street scene, something that he believes this proposal will also achieve whilst having a better relationship with neighbouring properties due to the reduced scale, retained landscaping and existing street scene. He expressed the opinion that this proposal is an aspirational dwelling that represents the applicants dream forever home that will allow them to continue to reside and operate the business from the yard adjacent and their other site in the village.

Mr Burton made the point that there are no technical consultee objections, no neighbour objections including from the next-door neighbour, 15 letters of support and support from the Parish Council, who the applicants stated commented at the meeting it would be a lovely addition to the village in a lovely looking house. He stated that comments were received late in the application process in relation to the height of the proposal which the applicant has sought to address, with the applicant having been keen to work with officers and to compromise as far as they are able to secure a positive decision and have proposed a significant reduction in footprint and overall height, which is the scheme before committee.

Mr Burton showed on a plan how the original depth and width have been significantly reduced, moving the side elevation further from the neighbouring boundary and the height has been reduced by 1.4 metres. He stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P89/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Pritchard, an objector. Mr Pritchard stated that he is representing those who object to this development, which they feels contravenes the Local Plan 2014, it is not an infill development as it has more than 2 properties and it was based on up to 6 properties being built in principle but the proposal is now for 9. He expressed the view that new development would only be supported where it demonstrates that it contributes to sustainability of the settlement, which this development does not.

Mr Pritchard expressed the opinion that the proposal will result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land and comprehensive evidence should be provided and it has not been seen. He stated that the Newton Plan also defines Newton as a small rural village and this number of properties is not required.

Mr Pritchard stated that the Fenland Local Plan defines Newton as a small village requiring only an additional 6 dwellings and these have already been accommodated with current planning approvals and since then several other multi developments have been granted planning and are in the process of being built. He feels there are other brownfield sites in the village which could be developed.

Mr Pritchard stated that without the Emerging Local Plan more high-grade agricultural land will be permanently lost and would be lost here. He expressed the view that there is a pressure on habitat species and the ecosystem, with Cambridgeshire being very flat there is significant risk of flood water as a result of intense rainfalls and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations should also be used for this development but there have been no assessments undertaken particularly those relating to Flood Zone 3 and high-grade agricultural land being lost.

Mr Pritchard referred to the Rural and Environmental Protection Act 2006 and asked if this has been considered with this application. He expressed the opinion that the initial permission in principle was for up to 6 dwellings, the subsequent planning for 9 was rejected and this is for a new development of 9 which does not have planning in principle.

Mr Pritchard referred to documents uploaded to the portal and the flood risk states that the floor levels are going to be 300mm above the adjacent areas, there is a level 3.5 in the middle of the High Road which means the floor levels are going to be 3.84 which in the worst case is nearly 1.2 metres above the existing ground, which will elevate the buildings making them much more higher than the adjacent bungalows and making this an imposing and dominant feature. He made the point that these properties may be raised and safe from flooding but what about all the surrounding properties.

Mr Pritchard reiterated that the site is in Flood Zone 3, the greatest risk of flooding and neighbouring residents say that the dyke at the front backs up and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P90/24

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Sally Church, the applicant, and Rebecca White, the agent. Mrs White stated that she acknowledges the officer’s comments regarding the constrained nature of the site and the proximity of the bungalow to the back edge of the footway, however, she highlighted that the proposed development aims to make efficient use of the available space while ensuring it fits in with its surroundings. She made the point that the site currently features a 6-foot close boarded fence along the back edge of the highway and this application will remove this unattractive feature and that in itself she feels must be considered as having a positive impact on the street scene along Orchard Way.

Mrs White stated that the application has received 8 letters of support from local residents including the direct neighbours and has had no objections from statutory consultees. She acknowledges that the bungalow is closer to the highway than that of 6 Orchard Way but not as close as 2 High Street and, in her view, if the bungalow was able to be set back at the same distance as 6 Orchard Way it would look at odds against 2 High Street.

Mrs White stated that 6 Orchard Way is set 1 metre closer to the highway than that of 8 Orchard Way which is creating a staggered look along the street elevation and if a building line is pulled along the front of 6 Orchard Way the position of the new bungalow actually meets this line, therefore, in her opinion, they have developed a solution that strikes a balance between the two adjacent buildings whilst ensuring its compliance with all relevant planning policies including the private amenity space, parking and quality of living for future occupiers. She referred to the bungalow creating an incongruous and unattractive feature, which she challenges as the architectural design incorporates elements that reflect the character and style of the existing neighbourhood, with the use of sympathetic materials and a complimentary colour palette ensuring that the bungalow will blend in and also enhance the visual appeal of the area.

Mrs White expressed the view that the bungalow design includes landscape features within the small front garden which softens the building’s appearance contributing positively to the overall street scene elevation. She referred to Policy LP16 of the Local Plan and believes the proposal does make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness and character, the bungalows design respects the scale and form of nearby properties and introduces a modern yet sympathetic addition to the neighbourhood.

Mrs White stated that she hoped the committee will consider the broader benefits of this proposal and the potential for the positive impact it holds.

Mrs Church stated that she is the owner of 2 High Street and the main purpose of this application is to build a bungalow within the grounds of the property so they can provide a home close  ...  view the full minutes text for item P91/24

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Simon Hamilton-Bing, an objector. Mr Hamilton-Bing expressed the opinion that this small compact development squeezed into the end of the back garden lacks the volume and grandeur of its near neighbours and lacks any aspect that could be tied in to the general Victorian feel of the local area making it look out of place. He stated that the one slight nod to the Victorian features is that the bay windows would not be completely ineffective but only highlight the differences between the old and the new by different construction materials and proportions, which is sadly very evident in the newer but much larger property of a similar style that lies opposite the site.

Mr Hamilton-Bing stated that he has read the public comments in favour of the application and from those quite close to the proposal and those further afield and he does have some sympathy for those neighbours that look directly onto the wall and old brick building but he feels the lack of maintenance in recent years should not be a reason to demolish or remodel these period features which sit wholly within the Bowthorpe Conservation Area and he would hope that any future owner is given encouragement and support to restore these features to their former glory, with the wall having been built in 1878. He expressed the view that if the proposal was supported it would be contrary to the intent of the Bowthorpe Conservation Area and consideration should be given in future to include the 3 Victorian properties that lay along the south side of Tavistock Road.

Mr Hamilton-Bing stated that granting this application would give little incentive to those that strive to maintain their properties. He finds it gratifying to read that his initial objections were in tune with those of the Conservation Officer’s recent report and that this proposal is out of keeping with the local area.

Members asked questions of Mr Hamilton-Bing as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the wall is listed? Mr Hamilton-Bing responded that it is in a Conservation Area but not listed.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for the construction of a new dwelling within Wisbech and is before committee with support from Wisbech Town Council and 8 members of the community. She expressed the opinion that the application site is in arguably one of most sustainable locations within the District given that it is within the built up area of a primary market town, which is something that is supported by Policy LP3 of the Local Plan.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the site is on land within Flood Zone 1 and windfall sites such as this are a rare occurrence now within Fenland. She stated that she is aware the site lies within Bowthorpe Conservation Area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P92/24

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rebecca White, the agent. Mrs White stated that this is a brownfield site and would provide a much needed dwelling within the settlement of March offering excellent access to local amenities. She expressed the view that the development will help prevent anti-social behaviour on the site and unauthorised use by others, with the site previously being used as a car park for the dental practice, however, this arrangement ended in 2019 and the applicant has not received any indication from the dental practice that they require further parking thus leaving the site as a maintenance liability on the Council.

Mrs White expressed the opinion that the proposal will improve the area along the public footpath thereby ensuring a safer and more comfortable connection route through to Upwell Road for local residents. She stated the vision for this development is carefully aligned with the unique characteristics of the surrounding area, with the new dwelling being one-storey in height a design choice that they firmly believe is appropriate and beneficial for the community.

Mrs White stated that after appraising the area it is evident that a single-storey dwelling would be more reflective of the scale of nearby properties and this choice ensures that the development remains sympathetic with the existing neighbourhood fabric. She referred to the Planning Officer expressing concerns suggesting the proposal results in a development that is at odds with the prevailing form of two-storey dwellings but in the Design and Access Statement they have included a detailed diagram that demonstrates that approximately 70% of the properties within close proximity to the application site are single-storey, which supports the decision for a bungalow.

Mrs White emphasised that the integration of a bungalow will reduce the impact on neighbouring properties ensuring minimal overshadowing and overlooking and preserving the privacy and amenity of adjacent residents in contrast to the effect of a two-storey dwelling. She feels it will also reflect the single-storey element of 84 Upwell Road and this careful design choice is not only considerate of the existing streetscape but also ensures minimal disruption to the adjacent properties and demonstrates their commitment to making a positive contribution to the character of the area.

Mrs White made the point that the construction has begun on the site opposite for a new three-bedroom bungalow after recently being granted planning approval and whilst she appreciates the ridge height is much higher than this proposal this precedent further validates their findings and reinforces that a single-storey dwelling is a suitable and accepted form of development within this area. She expressed the opinion that the proposal aligns with the predominant single-storey development pattern in the area and respects the character of the surrounding properties, they are confident that this bungalow will make a positive contribution to the community by providing a sympathetic and attractive feature that aligns with Policy LP16 of the Local Plan, the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item P93/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to officers.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent, and Kenny Shepherd, the applicant. Mrs Jackson stated that the application seeks planning permission for a single dwelling, it is submitted in outline with all matters reserved and is before committee with support from Chatteris Town Council and 13 members of the community, being located at Second Drove, Chatteris within a cluster of existing buildings. She made the point that the proposal has been recommended for refusal in terms of principle stating that the scheme is contrary to Policy LP3, with Policy LP3 being a directional housing policy which steers new development to town and village centres and the supporting text at 3.3.11 of LP3 states that ‘it is Government policy that the countryside be recognised for its intrinsic character and beauty while supporting thriving communities within it’ and further states that ‘by identifying the settlement hierarchy and distinguishing between settlements in the countryside the policy restricts development in the countryside’, which indicates to her that the aim of Policy LP3 is to protect the countryside and to prevent merge between countryside and defined settlement.

Mrs Jackson drew members attention to the location of the site, it is positioned within the centre of a cluster of existing buildings and, in her view, is effectively infill development and would in no way result in encroachment of the countryside. She expressed the opinion that whilst the site may not be within Chatteris Town Centre it is within a small satellite community and for this reason she suggests there is no conflict with the overarching aims of Policy LP3.

Mrs Jackson stated that concerns have been raised with regards to the sequential test and she referred committee to Paragraph 175 of the NPPF which states that the sequential test is not required if a flood risk assessment demonstrates that the site is safe and, in her opinion, their Flood Risk Assessment does confirm the site is safe from flooding and she would argue that the sequential test is not necessary. She stated that for completeness she can advise that the sequential test has been addressed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, which concludes that the site is technically safe from flooding given the excellent flood defences within the area, therefore, the actual risk of flooding is low and, in her view, the site can be considered as being in a sequentially preferable location.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that, with the passing of the sequential test, the exception test must be applied in accordance with Paragraph 178 of the NPPF and on the basis that the Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the proposal is technically safe from flooding and as it will result in new housing which will support an existing community she would argue that there are benefits to be had by the proposal which satisfy the requirements of the exception test. She notes the concerns with regard to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P94/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent, and Heval Sevhat, the applicant. Mr Walford stated that they are seeking outline planning permission for four building plots, with the site falling within the built form and the settlement of Guyhirn. He added that the site is located within the village sign and they consider it a logical development that continues the existing linear form seen the entire length of Gull Road right up to the junction with the A47.

Mr Walford expressed the view that Gull Road has had a transformation over the last 10-15 years and it is very linear so they see this application as continuing this form, although it is in outline. He stated that the site connects to an existing footway network which runs into the village giving access to all of the village amenities including the primary school and there is also a bus stop approximately 90 metres south of the site and, therefore, consider the site to be highly sustainable.

Mr Walford stated that the sites is within Flood Zone 1 and they have support from the local Parish Council, Highways and Environmental Health Officer. He expressed the view that the site is locally known as a pit, it is defined as made land, it was a larger pond that has been backfilled with concrete and rubble and as such they consider it to be brownfield and a prime location for redevelopment.

Mr Walford made the point that both national and local policy favour redevelopment of brownfield areas, especially those that are within the built form of the village which he considers this to be. He stated that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the reports they have submitted with the application regarding land contamination are satisfactory and confirm that the site is suitable for residential development with the appropriate remediation conditions.

Mr Walford expressed the opinion that the site is also defined as brownfield across various documents including Fenland’s own Emerging Local Plan and within the document the site is allocated as favourable for up to 15 dwellings, with the site reference LP61-01 indicating that it is in accordance with the Council’s Growth Strategy and will seek to deliver proportionate growth across the settlement of deliverable sites, although he appreciates it is a draft plan he feels the thought process is the same that this is a favourable site for development within the village. He expressed the view that officers are defining this site as an important green space but based on the site’s history, the classification within the Emerging Local Plan and the logical development that this scheme will deliver for the local housing need he strongly believes that members should consider supporting the application.

Mr Walford stated that they had a specialist ecology report undertaken but they could not get access to one of the water courses to undertake an E, D  ...  view the full minutes text for item P95/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alan Melton on behalf of Manea Parish Council read out by Member Services. Mr Melton stated that Manea Parish Council resolved to support the application consisting of the demolition of Lavender Bungalow and its replacement with 5 dwellings. He advised that the Parish Council recognises that there is a need for this type of dwelling, which offers an affordable alternative to buying a detached or semi-detached property.

Mr Melton stated that although the Parish Council noted the planning officer comments regarding lack of open space and garden area, the level of open space is consistent with their comments regarding the affordability of these dwellings. He notes that the Highway Authority has no objection and the comments regarding the preservation of ecology matters, but the Parish Council feels that sensible mitigation measures can overcome these issues.

Mr Melton advised that the Parish Council agrees that Anglian Water has failed to invest significantly in the foul water discharge in Manea and with Manea recognised as a ‘growth settlement’ Fenland Planning and the Environment Agency should urge Anglian Water to invest significantly in Manea.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Charlie Marks, the District Councillor. Councillor Marks stated he is the District Councillor for Manea and lives in Manea and over the last 3-4 years has worked tirelessly with the developer, Manea Parish Council and the local neighbouring properties regarding this development. He stated that the previous development was a run-down mill, it was demolished by the previous owners who had promised Section 106 money of £110-115,000 to come back into the village but after demolishing the mill they came back and this money was removed so no money was received into the village.

Councillor Marks stated that the new owners have worked tirelessly with the Parish Council, with the current bungalow on the site being in a poor condition, it is built on a hillside and was a worker’s cottage for the mill, with no money being spent on it for a number of years and the best thing that can happen to it is to be demolished. He referred to the current proposal for 5 dwellings and stated that the scale on the four joining properties, whilst it might be slightly larger looking at other properties within the Manea area such as Station Road there are a multitude of different, large properties so he does not believe for the scale of property being described here would affect the street scene but would make it look better on an entrance to what is going to be 29 bungalows, which are desperately needed in Manea.

Councillor Marks expressed the view that this area has not flooded and in relation to ecology whilst there may be bats there, they are more likely to be in the old mill across the road because the current bungalow on site  ...  view the full minutes text for item P96/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent, and Mr Brownlow, the applicant. Mrs Jackson stated that this application is for an occupational dwelling to be used to be used to support Mr and Mrs Brownlow’s existing agricultural enterprise and the site is located on land within the existing agricultural holding. She stated that it has been specifically chosen as it is the land closest to the centre of Gorefield and is positioned amongst other buildings, with the dwelling providing a long-term solution for Mr and Mrs Brownlow when they retire being close to the village with its associated amenities.

Mrs Jackson advised that Mr Brownlow is currently actively working on the farm and is in the process of moving his family into the business to secure the long-term viability of the farm, with the new dwelling allowing Mr Brownlow to continue working until he retires whilst allowing his family to move into the existing farmhouse at Harolds Bridge where they can begin to take over the business. She expressed the view that there is a need for an agricultural dwelling associated with the farm as the applicants have lived in the farmhouse for a considerable time, with the existing farmhouse not being agriculturally tied and, therefore, this application presents an opportunity to secure a dwelling for the exclusive use of the farm which will complete the business offering.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the difference between this application and the previous refusal is that they are now asking for an occupational dwelling linked to the farm and not for open market housing. She stated that Mr and Mrs Brownlow are passionate about Gorefield, have lived their all their lives and want to be close to the village centre, with this particular site being chosen due to it being on part of the holding and in close proximity to the village centre and the remainder of the farm.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that being amongst existing dwellings she fails to see how harm is caused to the character and appearance of the countryside given that this is effectively an infill type of development within a cluster of existing properties. She referred to the sequential test and expressed the opinion that as per the Design and Access Statement and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment there are no alternative sites which could accommodate the dwelling or are at a lower risk of flooding, with the additional sequential test report that was circulated yesterday providing further details of the application of the sequential test.

Mrs Jackson stated that the committee report at Paragraph 2.2 acknowledges that the site is at very low risk of surface water flooding and she referred to Paragraph 175 of the NPPF which states that the sequential test is not required if a flood risk assessment demonstrates that the site is safe. She highlighted to members that the submission demonstrates that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P97/24