Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 2 April 2025

The minutes of the meeting of 2 April 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

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 Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the process for this site was started in 2018 with a meeting with the then Head of Planning, Nick Harding, and the ward councillor, Will Sutton, as WMS were concerned with what the effect of Brexit would have on the camp and its numbers. He expressed the opinion that it was agreed that the site was residential in form and the principle of residential development on a brownfield site was the most obvious long-term solution.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that the camp has the capacity for over 300 people to reside and prior to Brexit this was being achieved, however, at present it is running with between 100-150 which does increase slightly as the season goes on but to break even they need around 200 people. He stated that the majority of the people housed here at present are via the six month visa agricultural workers scheme, which WMS have a year left on this agreement and the maximum charge for individuals is set at £74 per week, with individuals having shared accommodation of up to 10 to a dorm with communal kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Mr Edwards stated that the company operates a fleet of 20 minibuses from the site along with 4 coaches to take individuals to and from their place of work. He added that WMS are looking at all options for the site and have had contact to provide accommodation for immigrants as well as contact with Platform Housing.

Mr Edwards made the point that the facilities that the camp offer are basic and only residential accommodation is provided in two accommodation blocks that were built in the 90s. He added that the number of former prisoner of war blocks were demolished to make way for these buildings and the remainder have fallen into various stages of disrepair, with the former clubhouse which was the officer’s mess also being closed as it is unsafe and the only buildings that are in use at the moment are the shop and offices at the front.

Mr Edwards stated that they have dealt with a number of different planning and conservation officers throughout the 4-year process of this application which has led to a number of changes and various reports being commissioned to answer any queries raised. He understands the feelings towards the camp but as the report states an application was made to Historic England for listing and their view was not to list it due to its lack of completeness.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that WMS need to look at all options as the camp is now holding the company back and as a labour provider they are having to look elsewhere. He made the point that the application has the support of a number of consultees  ...  view the full minutes text for item P121/24

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards made the point that the application comes with the support of officers and virtually all the statutory consultees apart from the Town Council but he hopes the committee will look favourably upon it. He stated that the comments of the Town Council are fair, however, this proposal is the last piece of the jigsaw and will allow all the roads and footpaths to be completed and adopted, with the applicant keen to move on site as soon as possible.

Mr Edwards advised that the application is to switch the extant approval for 26 mixed dwellings for 12 chalet bungalows and, in his view, the proposed dwellings will fit better with the already built dwellings on the site and very much look like Reason Homes properties. He stated that the overall development, open space and affordable homes exceed the current requirements and the proposal will reduce the number of dwellings by 14.

Mr Edwards stated that the applicant has reluctantly agreed to the NHS payment but it should be noted that he could have built the existing 26 units which did not require a contribution. He added that they have provided the solicitor details to make any revisions required to the Section 106 Agreement and hoped committee would be able to support the application with the conditions specified.

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to Ellerby Drive being an unadopted road and in the objections there are concerns from residents about this so this proposal will be on an unadopted road going out into another unadopted road. She asked how he proposes to navigate this situation? Mr Edwards responded that due to the length of time this development started the whole section has to be adopted at the same time so it could not be partially adopted on a phased approach. He continued that the only reason it has not been adopted is because the road has not been finished but once this proposal is constructed and finished it will come forward for adoption. Councillor Sennitt Clough requested clarification that the road will be constructed up to adoptable standard? Mr Edwards confirmed that it will be adopted by County, both the existing and proposed roads.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point that it has been a long time since the first phases were completed and asked why it has taken so long to adopt it? He stated that there are a lot of developments where developers say the road is going to be to adoptable standards but then are not adopted so asked what is going to be different with this application? Mr Edwards responded that the agreement requires that either the original extant approval to be built out for it then to come forward and be adopted or this new proposal being developed for it to be adopted, which is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P122/24

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council.  Councillor Johnson stated she is representing the Parish Council and local residents with strong objections to this application, fully supporting the officer’s recommendation of refusal and reiterating the reasons for this refusal. She added that there are local concerns to those raised by the LLFA and Anglian Water.

Councillor Johnson stated that during the process of developing the Wimblington and Stonea Neighbourhood Plan there were a number of times when the issue of flooding was raised by residents and Bridge Lane is prevalent to these problems, not just surface water flooding but foul water and sewage problems, which is prior to the proposed construction of these nine dwellings. She expressed the view that flooding concerns relating to the dwellings to be constructed has been referenced, but it is also about the homes within that vicinity, with 2B and 2C having had extreme cases of high-water levels on the land surrounding their homes.

Councillor Johnson stated that Lily Avenue, which abuts one of the far corners, has experienced foul water problems resulting in Anglian Water having to come out to pump the drains. She expressed the view that Doddington waste water facility has regular visits from tankers removing excessive foul that cannot be dealt with at the facility.

Councillor Johnson stated that this site sits adjacent to the popular public right of way, the Woodman’s Way, a promoted ramblers walk and part of the Meridian Walk, since part of the ditch at the access point from Bridge Lane was filled in the public right of way is also subjected to flooding. She expressed concern that the application includes the public right of way as part of the access road, which is a public road used by the public for leisure activities as well as a connection through to the village and its facilities.

Councillor Johnson stated that on the west side of the access there is a large telegraph pole which restricts the width of the proposed access, which will mean the edge of the road would be right alongside the bungalow on Bridge Lane. She feels sure that committee will have read through the objections raised by the local community that live in Bridge Lane and the village, the lane is exactly that, a single lane with no pedestrian path, which is a continuation of the Woodman’s Way, with the walk there for people to enjoy the views of the open countryside and the natural historic environment of the Fens, not to be penned in by the view of a high fence, excessive trees or the side of a two-storey building.

Councillor Johnson requested, for all the right reasons raised by local residents, the Parish Council and the Planning Officer, that the application once again be refused.

Members asked questions of Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P123/24

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Walford stated that this proposal is a PIP application for 4 dwellings, with the site within the village and entirely within Flood Zone 1. He advised that the site benefits from an existing footpath that runs the full length of the site frontage giving pedestrian access to the entire length of the village.

Mr Walford made the point that the Local Plan defines Murrow as a small village where development will be considered on its own merits and normally limited to residential infilling but, in his view, the term normally implies there is some flexibility in that policy and brings with it the scope for logical development such as this proposal. He acknowledged the site is not infill but feels it can be considered a logical extension of the existing built form within the village.

Mr Walford expressed the view that the site is one of two remaining parcels of land within the flood zone within the village settlement that could accommodate frontage development, with this one being on the main road through Murrow, Front Road, and the second parcel of land being on the smaller Back Road and as such he feels that this is one of the most logical sites for small scale development. He referred to committee meetings talking about the need to grow villages through sustainable and logical extensions to contribute towards the local housing need and sustain local amenities, with a prime example being Murrow’s pub, The Bell, which has recently been renovated and up and running under new management and there is also Pollington’s newsagents and general store, with Peter Humphrey Associates obtaining planning permission for this store in 2011 and had been running for 14 years but has recently had to close due to a downturn in its use and running at a loss for the last two years so more development in the village will help sustain what facilities are left.

Mr Walford referred to the emerging Local Plan, which whilst does hold limited weight, has this site  allocated within it with the knowledge of the two appeals. He stated that on the first appeal if the logic of employment growth and the use of a car within a village are used then there would not be any development supported in any village as most people are working in the towns and cities and not the villages and focusing on car dominance is out of date and with the regard to the second appeal it is acknowledged that this is not an isolated location, it is part of the built form but is not infill but his understanding is that it is normally limited to infill.

Members asked questions of Mr Walford as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she knows Murrow very well as she used to live there and Pollington’s closed as it used to shut  ...  view the full minutes text for item P124/24

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 Stuart Carruthers, the agent. Mr Carruthers stated he had little to add to the officer’s report and was happy to answer any questions.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked where the travellers policy document is? She stated that she met the manager a few weeks ago and was informed it was completed. Matthew Leigh responded that whilst a draft has been received there is some comments and feedback in relation to the addition of documents, but it is not specifically a policy but in relation to the need. Councillor Mrs French asked when it was likely to be available? Matthew Leigh responded that he cannot give a definitive date as they want to make sure it contains the correct information. Councillor Connor asked officers to provide committee with an update on the likely completion as it has been mentioned for some time and seems to be taking a long time to be finalised.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the paragraph in the report about the lack of a 5-year land supply for gypsy and traveller pitches and then the subsequent paragraph it mentions that the site is in Flood Zone 3 and because there is a shortage the fact that it is Flood Zone 3 is mitigated by that shortage, but in reality it is Flood Zone 3. She asked what practical ways of mitigation there were for the reality of flooding? David Rowen responded that there is recommended condition 5 which is that the development is to be carried out in accordance with a submitted Flood Risk Assessment which the Environment Agency have commented upon and which will require the finished floor levels of the mobile homes to be at least 0.3 metres above ground level secured with relevant ground anchors and also for the residents to sign up with the Environment Agency’s Flood Line service.

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

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to Parson Drove Parish Council, the North Level IDB and Environment Agency all recommending refusal so feels it makes it a slightly difficult decision to make. David Rowen responded that the IDB have raised concerns largely on their access to the drain at the back of the site indicating on the receipt of consent they are willing to relax the bylaws of 6 metres for a fence line providing the mobile homes are sited 9 metres from the water course, with the green wildflower meadow strip providing the 6 metre strip and the caravans themselves can be sited 9 metres away from the drain, which is one of the recommended conditions. He continued that the Environment Agency do object to the application as it is in a highly vulnerable flood risk category but it has indicated it is outside of the breach hazard map extents  ...  view the full minutes text for item P125/24

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 this application is for a local family whose immediate family also live in Whittlesey and the adjacent villages of Coates and Eastrea. He made the point that Whittlesey Town Council support the application and there are no objections from any members of the public, with the neighbour whose garden backs onto this development having e-mailed the Council to support the application.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the one key point that has not been raised is that on 7 March they e-mailed the officer after the application had been submitted for 5 weeks asking for an update and they were told it was going to be recommended for refusal, even though everything on the public access was positive, and they were told they would not accepting any more information. He stated that he questioned this because the queries, in his view, seemed minor and he was told again that they were not accepting any more information.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that they would have been able to provide the information the next day or possibly the same day and for plot 2, they are 0.3 metres short. He feels that for plot 1 the officer’s report is very positive, no issues with the bungalow in terms of design, overlooking or overshadowing but it appears that plot 2 is the concern, the garage is 6 metres wide and 6.7 metres long and the difference between themselves and the officers is 1 foot, which they can easily overcome by moving the utility wall back to achieve this and providing an additional bit of tarmac for the turning head, which they had tried to resolve in March.

Mr Hall expressed the view that plot 2 is largely hidden behind the dwellings on Priors Road so it will not be seen, it does not overlook the school or other properties and plots 1 and 2 do have a third garden area. He referred to a photo on the screen, which shows the site with the large bungalow being demolished, there is a chalet bungalow next door and other bungalows in the vicinity which is the character of the area and it can be seen that most of the site would be hidden from view.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that from the Google map on screen they are not encroaching into the countryside as it is the same boundary that has been established there since the bungalow was built 60-70 years ago so they are staying within the limits of this site. He made the point that there are no technical objections to this application from any party, no residents have objected, the site is all in Flood Zone 1 and it is within the built-up form of Whittlesey.

Mr Hall stated that if members share the officer’s concerns with regard to the garage  ...  view the full minutes text for item P126/24

To determine the application.

Alan Davies 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 Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that there have been a number of previous applications, an appeal against an enforcement notice and now another planning application with retrospective inclusions. She expressed the view that this is a large agricultural/industrial warehouse, not a garden shed, being built to house large heavy vehicles, erected in the grounds of the dwelling of 6 Bridge Lane, with the property itself already housing three double brick built garages.

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that the application has not retrospectively erected a shed, an industrial storage unit has been erected that towers above the already uncharacteristic 7 foot high brick wall to a height of almost 19 foot for the industrial storage unit, which invades the skyline of a lovely quiet residential country lane. She continued that the industrial unit has, in her view, impacted upon the historic environment and agricultural nature of Bridge Lane’s surrounding countryside.

Councillor Johnson expressed the view that shortening the length of this industrial unit has no bearing on the fact that it imposes on the close residential dwellings, some already enclosed behind the 7 foot brick wall and it closes off all the previous open views across agricultural fields and the countryside and if the applicant is granted permission and the industrial unit is made smaller she questioned where the applicant intends storing the rest of his vehicles. She made the point that the applicant does already have the use of three big brick built garages integral to the dwelling.

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that the land is not being changed to domestic use, it is being changed to house an industrial storage unit, which is not domestic by any means. She referred to the flood issues in Bridge Lane and the large area of impermeable ground that is covered on this site can, in her view, only exasperate this problem, especially when including the surface area of the roof of the industrial unit.

Councillor Johnson stated that Wimblington is an historic village that should not be eroded by the construction of an uncharacteristic building within its village environment as of Bridge Lane. She made the point that the Inspector dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice, part of this being that it is an uncharacteristic building within the environment and the Planning Officer, the Parish Council and local residents all recommend refusal of this application.

Councillor Johnson expressed the opinion that the enforcement notice should be implemented and action taken and if the applicant wishes to keep their old rare steam engines indoors then maybe they should look into an industrial unit in one of the nearby industrial estates. She asked that committee to take into consideration the impact this is having on local residents and refuse the application.

Members asked questions of Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P127/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Ward, an objector. Mr Ward expressed his surprise at seeing the documents on the screen as when the system is looked at it did not show Plot 14 on the layout plan on the western side of Green Park and it seems to have appeared again now so he is unsure whether Plot 14 is going ahead or not. He expressed the opinion that the applicant must think the Planning Committee is easily fooled as he provided committee with a street scene that purports to represent the west side of this site, however, they have deliberately missed something, plot 14, which is a 5-bedroomed house and if shown the committee could have objected to this situation based on overshadowing, lack of privacy and character.

Mr Ward expressed the view that the applicant has shown a total disregard of rules and regulations and doubt he will build the 5-bedroom house or otherwise it would not have been missing from the street scene. He referred to the committee requesting that a survey of the site was undertaken due to the scrapyard that was there and when looking at the contamination surveys, of which there were 6, none of them bring together an examination of the site but are generalised systems and reports from places such as the British Geological Survey and the examination reports only show bore holes were dug by the Highways department when they built the bypass, which was nowhere near the scrapyard.

Mr Ward questioned why there was not a soil examination and a proper report added to the application as it has not provided the committee with evidence that the site was examined. He made the point that the committee also wanted to know whether the road was to be adopted, which the applicant has not provided, giving a picture of what was provided previously.

Mr Ward stated that the applicant said he has owned the property since 2002 when in fact the previous owner Mars Construction did a judicial review in 2003 and he does not believe they would have paid for a judicial review of somebody else’s land. He expressed the opinion that the applicant has stated that he has 2 titles to the land, one of which is for the 3 metre wide dyke that ran behind all the bungalows but given this piece of land was originally unregistered the land application would have been applied for by just a statement of truth and he could not have disclosed on this piece of land that it was originally fenced off from his property and that it had been maintained by the residents for over 30 years, with several of the residents planting hedges and plants along the 3 metre strip and one has a permanent greenhouse there.

Mr Ward stated that on the map that has been provided the applicant has written that he is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P128/24

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 this site already has approval for 4 dwellings and they just wish to vary the layout of three of the plots, with there being no additional plots applied for. He continued that the reason for the variation is because there is a new buyer for the site and they want to vary the layout slightly, but there are the same number of plots and bedrooms.

Mr Hall advised the plot 1 remains the same, plots 2 and 3 are very similar to what has been approved and they were contacted by Doddington Grange with some concerns and he spoke with them overcoming their concerns, with the wildlife run to the rear of the site being maintained so it adjoins the adjacent pond. He stated that indicative layouts were submitted of what the dwellings would be to assist the officer and plot 4, where the concern is from neighbours, the first-floor windows would be 20 metres away and those three indicative windows which face Witchford Close are for a bathroom and two en-suites so they would be frosted glass.

Mr Hall made the point that there are no technical objections to the application.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked, if this is granted, is there a timescale when the development might be started? Mr Hall responded that if this is granted there would need to be a detailed reserved matters application, which is ready, and would take 2-3 months. He stated that the bungalow on site has already been demolished by the previous owner and the new owners are keen to start, with one of the owners going to live in plot 4.

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

·         Councillor Connor stated that he cannot see anything wrong with this application, with plot 4 windows all being frosted glass to bathrooms.

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

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

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

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 made the point that this site already has an extant planning approval for a larger dwelling and garage that was approved by committee in April 2023, which was also recommended for refusal by officers. He stated that this application is for two smaller dwellings for the applicant’s two sons who are looking to build their own properties, they are from March and it will allow them to stay in March being in rented accommodation currently and both sons work in the family business as builders, with the business having yards at Whittlesey Road, March and Eastwood End, Wimblington.

Mr Hall referred to the history of the site in the officer’s report, with there being an application at this site for a pair of properties refused but, in his view, this application is materially different from that, which was for semi-detached properties with one access, and matches in better with the larger development to the east. He made the point this proposal is two detached properties, single access with parking at the side, larger gardens and they are trying to match in with the adjacent built out development.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the extant approval on the site of bespoke design does not match in with that character of the area and they have tried to match in with the area with smaller properties. He stated that as was seen on the photos all along the front of the site to the bypass and back right into the centre of March there is a footpath linking this site and the surrounding sites altogether.

Mr Hall referred to the report mentioning intensification of this site compared to the current approval, however, the current approval for a large dwelling and garage gives a roof area of 160 square metres but this proposal for 2 smaller properties gives a roof area, including the porch, of 156 square metres so there is less floor and roof area. He stated that since that first application was refused all along the opposite side of this road 55 dwellings have been approved, which is being built out and with the site where it is they would be happy to accept a landscaping condition and they can also provide some biodiversity features for the site.

Mr Hall made the point that earlier at this committee there have been caravans in Flood Zone 3 approved and previously in Wisbech next to a major river that had an historical approval on and this site has a current approval on it. He stated that there have been no objections from any members of the public, no technical objections, this proposal is for smaller properties, there is material change and there is an extant approval on this site, which is being looked at to vary.

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

·         Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item P130/24

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 expressed the opinion that this site is an ideal infill development set between residential properties and there are no concerns raised in the report in this regard. He stated the site has not been used for agricultural land for over 50 years and in the last 10 plus years it has been used as part of the adjacent business for a forecourt area for selling cars and there is also a portacabin that has been on there for around 15 years and it has not been used as part of the garden for over 20 years.

Mr Hall stated that directly on the opposite side of this site 14 dwellings were approved in Flood Zone 3 in 2013 when the previous Local Plan was being superseded and the new emerging Local Plan was being referenced to. He feels when you visit the site on Station Road and view this site against the larger development with some large houses on the opposite side, this site is about ½ metre higher yet both sites are in Flood Zone 3 and within the independent flood risk report he submitted it states that the site is protected by the Middle Level barrier bank which was not considered during the preparation of the Environment Agency Flood Maps and when the Middle Level barrier bank is considered the site has a low probability of flooding and the development is considered to pass the sequential test.

Mr Hall stated that directly to the north of this site and abutting this site, planning approval was given by members in 2023 for up to 9 dwellings all in Flood Zone 3. He referred to the Google map which clearly shows it is within the built-up form of Manea, with the site just referenced being directly all to the north-east of this site and attempted to handed out a document that showed other sites in Manea that have been given approval in Flood Zone 3 in the last 3 years marked in blue.

Matthew Leigh interjected and stated that officers cannot fully assess what is being given out, members are allowed to accept it in theory but they need to give it the weight that officers have no ability to assess it and it could have been given to officers prior to the committee meeting. He feels it is intentionally being given out so officers are unable to comment on it and it needs to be given the appropriate weight.

Councillor Connor asked if members wanted to look at this document? Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the choices are it is either looked at or not or the application is deferred. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that it is known about flood zones in Manea and what has happened in the past with reference to Manea’s history and he does not think looking  ...  view the full minutes text for item P131/24

To confirm and sign the confidential minutes of 2 April 2025.             

The confidential minutes of the meeting of 2 April 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

(Members resolved to exclude the public from the meeting for this item of business should it need to be discussed on the grounds that it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)