Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 28 May 2025.

The minutes of the 28 May 2025 were signed and agreed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

The Legal Officer provided an update on the habitat considerations and the relationship with Natural England. She stated that the Council is subject to a duty to consider the impact of the development on two special protection areas (SPAs) which are close to the application site though not within it. The Legal Officer added that the applicant has commissioned and submitted a shadow habitats regulations assessment and the Council shared that with Natural England in its capacity as a statutory consultee. She feels the applicant would take the view that this shadow habitat regulations assessment shows that this development would not have an adverse effect on either of the nearby SPAs but Natural England appears to have taken a slightly different view and is of the view that more information is needed for the Council to be fully satisfied that the application will not have an adverse effect on these two SPAs. The Legal Officer continued that given Natural England’s particular specialism in habitats and species and in nature conservation more generally, committee should show reasonable deference to their opinion and are required to give considerable weight to their advice but nevertheless the decision is not Natural England’s, the decision is for the committee to make and it is entitled to depart from Natural England’s advice as long as there is cogent and compelling reasons for doing so. She referred to case law on cogent and compelling reasons and she is aware that there is a 2024 outline permission for a similar scheme on this site and it might be tempting to treat that as establishing the principle of development on this site and to a certain extent it does but drew members attention to a recent court of appeal case where it said where you have what might be considered a multi-stage consent that local planning authorities need to think about habitats impacts and the assessment of those impacts at each stage of the process, although this case law is being appealed. The Legal Officer stated that she is giving committee a little caution about relying too much on the 2024 fallback position outline consent and she feels that the recommendation should be amended slightly to include a delegation to the Head of Planning to satisfactorily address the outstanding request for further information to satisfy the Council that a habitats regulations assessment can be passed before granting planning permission.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Roman Falinski, a supporter to the proposal. Mr Falinski explained that he has followed the application and its history over several years, with him currently residing in Coates and has regularly walked his dog around the area. He made the point that he has never seen any sort of habitat in that area, and added that when he previously lived in Whittlesey, there was a development which was due to be built and, in his view, that had even more reasons to  ...  view the full minutes text for item P17/25

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent. Ms Penney explained that the application is for outline planning permission for up to six dwellings and the officer’s report states that the principle of development is acceptable. She added that members may recall the Planning in Principle (PIP) application was granted by the committee for five dwellings on the land to the immediate east of the site.

Ms Penney referred to the presentation screen and pointed out the neighbouring PIP is entirely reflective of what she is proposing both in terms of the suggested layout of development in depth and in general density. She explained that the neighbouring site is located entirely within Flood Zone 3, whereas the current application is located only partially in Flood Zone 3, with the remainder of the land being in Flood Zone 1.

Ms Penny referred to the presentation screen which points out the officer recommendation for the neighbouring PIP and it states that the back land nature of the development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and it further states that there is insufficient information to allow for development in Flood Zone 3, clarifying that no sequential test was submitted for the PIP. She referred to the presentation screen which displayed the extract from the decision notice for the PIP which shows that it was granted and the committee’s reason for going against the officer’s recommendation was ‘the committee in consideration of the scheme deemed that the benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. The development was therefore considered to comply with the Fenland Local Plan 2014’.

Ms Penney expressed the view that the similarities between her site and the PIP next door are such that the PIP is a material planning consideration, with her scheme having the added benefit that they have provided a sequential test and that there will be the removal of an industrial non-conforming use within a residential area. She added that in the committee report at paragraph 9.13 it says that the technical details for the PIP have not been submitted and as such only limited weight should be afforded to it in terms of the back land nature of the development but referred members to the presentation screen which shows an extract taken from the Government’s planning practice guidance, which states that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission and the first stage relates to the principle of development and the second stage relates to technical details, with it at no point suggest that the first stage is a lesser permission.

Ms Penney explained that the adjoining PIP was granted on the 30 May 2024 and is, therefore, extant for nearly two more years. She added that contrary to the officer’s report and given the Government guidance and despite the lack of technical details,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P18/25

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Murray Graham, the applicant, and Rory Canham, the agent. Mr Graham stated that he purchased the 4-acre parcel of land in 2007 with the sole intention of keeping horses and chickens and for hobbies in a family, relaxing and stress freeway, with it never being the intention in the early years to apply for planning permission as the land was used just for stables. He explained that he is a March resident and has lived in the town all his life, with his wife being a third generation March resident.

Mr Graham stated that when he purchased the land in 2007 it was a small 4-acre parcel of agricultural land and was not sustainable for farmers on a commercial scale and his aspiration was to develop the land in a way which supported the environment. He explained that over the years a huge amount of work has been undertaken to transform the land which has included planting over 2000 native hedgerow plants across the front and some of the side boundaries, with some mature native trees also being planted in consultation with various organisations and following advice from environmental agencies he has planted all the boundaries with seed mix to encourage flora and fauna, and the boundaries are allowed to grow wild for most of the year.

Mr Graham explained that a few years ago he decided to plant 200 sapling tree and in addition there are two or three native honeybee colonies located in the bottom right-hand corner of the field. He stated that he has been adding nest boxes across the land to encourage nesting birds, and he leaves the stable doors open during the summer months to allow swallows and swifts to nest in the barns.

Mr Graham made the point that there are no main services on the land and that has been the case since 2007 and added that as a result he is using solar power and surface water for the animals. He stated that the reason he is looking to change the land use now is that he has suffered from many thefts and has submitted four crime reports because of break ins, with there being additional intruders on the site over the last few years and the losses he has encountered are estimated to be around £20,000 so far.

Mr Graham explained that Crime Prevention Officers have attended the site, and he has taken the advice provided to him and implemented that, including CCTV on the site and extra security measures have been included on the buildings and doors on the site. He stated that even with all of those additional precautions in place there are still instances of intrusions on the site with ongoing break ins because of the rural proximity the intruders are going on to the site during the night and go undisturbed for large periods of time which has resulted in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P19/25

To determine the application.

This item was withdrawn.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Phil Clark, a supporter of the proposal. Mr Clark explained that he was in attendance on behalf of his father who was not able to attend the meeting due to illness. He stated that the application is for a considerate bungalow at the bottom of the garden of 108 High Street in March which has been the family home for 43 years.

Mr Clark stated that the existing house is now becoming impractical due to his parent age and the fact that the house is split over three storeys and the size of the house is becoming too big, with the purpose of the bungalow being to provide them with a more suitable home within the town where they have lived for the last 43 years. He made the point that his parents understand the concerns which have been raised, and he added that nearby properties have access with lesser widths than their driveway one of which is the pub next door which has a car park, with the High Street remaining unchanged from the time he has ever lived in the house including a 30mph speed limit.

Mr Clark explained that his parents raised him and his siblings in the property, and they have grown up, lived and worked from the house which have meant multiple cars leaving the house daily. He stated that to the best of his parents’ knowledge throughout the 43 years that they have lived in the property there has been no serious accidents or incidents on the High Street.

Mr Clark explained that his parents feel that the application does not have any impact and there have been others approved on the road. He added that his parents have tried to take all the advice which has been provided to them concerning the design to reduce any impact that the proposed bungalow may have.

Members asked Mr Clark the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would like to take the opportunity on behalf of the committee to pass on their best wishes to Councillor Clark.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked Mr Clak whether he still resides in the property? Mr Clark stated that he does not reside there currently, but it is where he grew up and he lived there up until 2004 or 2005.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Clark, from his experience of having lived in a Listed Building, how suitable does he feel that it would be to renovate or modify to include stairlifts and is the house on more than three levels if it has any further steps inside? Mr Clark explained that there are various steps inside the building and one main wooden staircase which is partly timber frame and part masonry although he is unsure how old the building is. He explained that it is a solid wall construction and there is no insulation, and it has single pane windows, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P21/25

To determine the application.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the existing property is an out of keeping 1960’s bungalow which the applicant purchased and when the applicant purchased the property, he had a structural engineers report undertaken in August 2024 which concluded under Building Regulation Digest 251, assessment of damage of low-rise buildings, that the damage to the property is severe and it has suffered from foundation settlement and ground subsidence. He explained that the report concluded that the property would require demolition and the purchase was a cash property due to the fact that the property is non mortgageable.

Mr Hall added that there are no objections raised by the Planning Officer or the Conservation Officer concerning the demolition of the property. He referred to the presentation screen and pointed out that the property has slipped off its damp proof course which is something that cannot be remedied very easily and the photograph which shows the interior of the dwelling demonstrates that the whole floor inside the building has dropped, the other photo demonstrated a large diagonal crack in the masonry, and it shows that it has not only cracked through, but it is also distorted quite heavily which would mean the demolition and rebuild of the property.

Mr Hall explained that over the last ten years the applicant has had two major health issues and at the current time he cannot always work full time, with the applicant currently living on Whittlesey Road in March, and he wishes to move to the town centre with this site being the ideal location and being in Flood Zone 1. He stated that there was one original objection to the proposal which was with regards to the unofficial turning head in one of the driveways being lost and he is aware that residents in the vicinity do use it, however, the application will keep that and will widen it.

Mr Hall added that the site will also benefit from a rear access right of way to Lambs Place which then leads to Creek Road. He stated that there is no objection in the officer’s report from the Conservation or Planning Officer with regards to setting two dwellings on the site, but he referred to the presentation screen, pointing out the application site and the row of properties which are on the same side as the application site and immediately adjacent there is a one and a half storey property with Dorma windows which is the same as the proposal.

Mr Hall added that along the road there are various styles of properties, and he pointed out the photograph of the bungalow proposed to be demolished where the large Sainsburys Supermarket can be seen in the background which is a very large building, with there being a public walkway public cut through between the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P22/25