Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 13 November 2024.

The minutes of the meeting of the 13 November 2024 were agreed 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 Peter Bryant, an objector. Mr Bryant explained that he is addressing the committee to represent the hamlet of Colletts Bridge who are asking the Council to uphold their Local Plan and to show it cares about highway and flooding safety by voting unanimously to refuse as they did the near identical application earlier this year. He stated that the officer’s report asserts the ELP has little impact, and he notes the huge disparity in LP65.1 (which is this plot, in LP65 which is Colletts Bridge) and, in his view, with regards to the update report, the ELP should be ignored.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that the application comprehensively fails to meet the Local Plan, and the west side of Colletts Bridge is a place that officers, the committee and Planning Inspectors have all agreed is predominantly open to the surrounding countryside with a handful of sporadic dwellings. and this application of a mini estate drives a coach and horses through. He made the point that clearly this proposal would be in total opposition to the form of the settlement and would adversely harm its character and appearance.

Mr Bryant referred to the presentation screen and stated that the red marks show a concentrated objection to development on this site from residents, the Parish Council and both District Councillors. He added that the more distant green marks show the residential support for the plan as supplied by the applicant’s agent, which he feels paints a very clear picture, adding that the Highway Authority’s first response to an application for this site required splays of 215m in either direction, or a traffic speed survey to show speeds are low enough and theapplicant has done neither.

Mr Bryant added that the application claims a 69m splay which is only safe for speeds of about 40mph for light vehicles and yet this road is the only approved route for HGV’s attending Fenmarc, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with it being immediately adjacent to both a blind junction and a dangerous crossroads. He made the point that the visibility splay is significantly reduced by the hedge in the picture and that hedge is not in the control of the applicant, with the Highway Authority having never chosen to take any action on the hedge and he explained that the Highway Authority have stated in their follow up by indicating acceptability resting entirely on the phrase “…would be unable to build up speed”.

Mr Bryant expressed the view that this statement is an evidence free assertion, and he referred to the presentation screen and explained the diagram shown on the screen, which demonstrates the actual speeds achieved safely during a test undertaken by him and he added that when cars exit Colletts Bridge Lane, vehicles from the left can be travelling  ...  view the full minutes text for item P67/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated along with additional representations which had been received and sent directly to members of the Planning Committee.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council who explained that she was also present to raise an objection on behalf of the community. Councillor Johnson expressed the view that retrospective planning applications are becoming more common place within businesses in Wimblington, with the error caused by Knowles Limited has cost the community and councils a lot of time and money. She added that she would also like to know whether Planning Officers have considered the installation of a weighbridge which has been added to the application is to be approved along with the retrospective application as it did not form part of the originally approved planning application.

Councillor Johnson stated that the committee is aware of the history regarding planning applications for the site along with the appeal with the Secretary of State which was granted including conditions. She added that Knowles Limited then went ahead and built something different than that represented to the Secretary of State and this error raised concerns with regards to road safety and flooding.

Councillor Johnson explained that the site is situated close to the boundaries of flood zones 2 and 3 and local residents are already experiencing problems with heavy flooding especially within the proximity of the Knowles Limited site. She made the point that she is sure that both the committee and officers are fully aware that there are two types of flooding, namely river and surface water.

Councillor Johnson stated that this flooding occurs when ground or drains cannot soak up and transport away rainwater meaning that a property can be at risk of flooding even when it is not near a river, with some Cambridgeshire locations known as wet spots and are prone to surface flooding. She explained that a flood zone is a planning term used for deciding where the development should go and what planning officers are frequently forgetting is to take into pluvial flooding which is now becoming more and more prevalent in and around Wimblington and the surrounding areas.

Councillor Johnson stated that the construction built in error and without consultation is not proportionate to the design granted by the Secretary of State and the drainage soakaway and runoff water from such a large impermeable surface is of great concern to close residents. She questioned whether the conditions put in place by the LLFA, and the Highway Authority are robust enough as, in her opinion, there are a number of them which are hard to implement since the work has already been completed.

Councillor Johnson questioned whether adequate measures have been taken to ensure that the draining soakaway and an attenuation pond have been installed to the correct specification. She explained that a local resident, Mr Jerry Smith,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P68/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andrew Hodgson, the agent. Mr Hodgson stated that the application represents the final piece of the southeast March allocation and is for 50 units for Canon Kirk. He explained that in an ideal world he would have liked to include this element in the application which came in with Barratts David Wilson site, however, that was not possible as it was in the ownership of Canon Kirk.

Mr Hodgson explained that he is the agent for Barratts David Wilson and Canon Kirk and both companies are in full dialogue with each other in order to bring forward a comprehensive scheme. He stated that in terms of the site itself, it is for up to 50 units and is in outline form in order that when the reserved matters come forward for the Barratts David Wilson scheme it makes it very flexible for the application to be designed so that it fits in.

Mr Hodgson explained that there will be some sharing of infrastructure and drainage and the Barratts scheme is fairly well advanced in terms of the Section 106 which is due to be finalised and the reserved matters is already underway for that and the land adjoining and around will be coming forwards fairly imminently. He made the point that there does not appear to be any reasons for refusal from a statutory consultee point of view and he explained that the site has been designed carefully to ensure that it fits with the surrounding development.

Members asked Mr Hodgson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for details concerning the width at Wimblington Road and she added that there was a planning application for the access at Lambs Hill Drove which was withdrawn recently. Mr Hodgson explained that it does form part of the proposal before the committee, and that the two accesses mirror exactly the approved applications which were submitted by Barratts David Wilson. He added that they replicate the accesses which have been approved for the 425 units and he referred to the plan and made the point that they match up identically to the red line of the wider site. Mr Hodgson made the point that he cannot recall the measurement, however, it is the same arrangement of that which is already approved.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the reserved matters application, and she asked when that will be ready for submission. Mr Hodgson stated that design is being worked on at the current time and the Section 106 has to be completed which is likely to be early on in the new year.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the drainage and the SUDs, and asked that as it appears that the developers are working together will it mean that the layout will be changed. Mr Hodgson explained that all of the site was designed at the same time and the application before the committee actually improves things as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P69/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mark Smith, an objector. Mr Smith stated that he represents CB6 developments, and he is before the committee on behalf of Mr and Mrs Percival together with a number of their neighbours in Askham Row to voice a collective objection to the planning proposal. He added that the application is recommended for refusal by Planning Officers for three reasons and he stated that in respect of the first reason it is highly relevant to note that planning permission was refused on land to the west of Hospital Road for three dwellings by the Planning Committee in April 2023, with the proposed application being immediately to the north of the application which was refused and, therefore, it is further away from the centre of the village and in an even more sustainable location than the site which was recently refused planning permission.

Mr Smith expressed the view that it would be illogical and irrational to approve three dwellings on the site when considering that previous decision and whilst it may be suggested that development has been approved to the east of Hospital Road, that land relates to the hospital grounds whereas the current proposal is fully within the open countryside. He expressed the opinion that the application has no relationship at all with any other built form and it is open to agricultural fields on three sides with the mature trees and hedges of Hospital Road forming the other side and the site is clearly and fully within the open countryside for the purposes of applying planning policy.

Mr Smith stated that the second reason for refusal relates to highway safety and the County Council have confirmed that the development would not be safe and that accidents could take place which, in his view, provides a clear reason to refuse planning permission. He stated that the third reason for refusal also relates to highway safety and the absence of visibility splays and he made the point that it is possible that third party land would be required to ensure sufficient visibility, and it is clear that a substantial number of established trees and hedges along Hospital Road would need to be removed to accommodate the splays.

Mr Smith made the point that there is no refusal reason in respect of ecology which he finds surprising as the trees and hedgerows along Hospital Road are known to be used by bats and there are existing ponds nearby. He expressed the opinion that the applicant assessment in terms of ecology is flawed and incomplete and he added that he has also raised objections to the absence of any Section 106 considerations given that the application would cumulatively propose up to 12 dwellings along Hospital Road within the applicant’s ownership.

Mr Smith made the point that the application is also contrary to LP5, which is very relevant as the local Primary School is at capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item P70/24

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. Mr Walford explained that he has worked with officers to revise the site layout and has reduced the density, improving the spacing between the plots as well as increasing the garden sizes. He added that he has simplified the road layout which has meant that the houses have been moved away from the flats so that the houses are now looking onto the road and not into the private amenity.

Mr Walford added that with the exception of plot 1 all of the plots within the site are now bungalows which has helped to reduce the overlooking, and he made the point that there is a significant need for bungalows. He stated that the application has been accompanied by a detailed surface water drainage strategy which overcome the earlier concerns with drainage and surface water flooding.

Mr Walford stated that all consultees are in support of the application, and he is happy to agree with all of the pre commencement conditions that have been put forward and he thanked officers for working proactively with him on the application.

Members asked Mr Walford the following questions:

·         Councillor Gertsner asked for clarification as to how many trees are to be removed from the site? Mr Walford explained that an arboriculture survey was undertaken on the site and whilst a period of time has elapsed, he has tried to retain trees. He added that the key areas were at the back at the far right of the site which are being kept, however, to give a precise number then the report would need to be consulted.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked officers to explain how many mature trees are being removed? David Rowen stated that the arboriculture report would need to be consulted in order to provide a precise number. He added that there are quite a few trees that are being removed from within the site, however, that has been assessed by the Council’s Arboriculture Officer who has concluded that the trees are not of sufficient standard to justify any further protection or to justify refusing the application. David Rowen added that as part of the application there is a condition regarding landscaping which will look to get a replacement tree planting schedule submitted through a condition. He stated that the agent, Mr Walford, has indicated from the public gallery that there are 5 trees due to be removed as part of the application. 

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that the agent has worked well on the application and felt that the previous was over development before it was refused. He added that the site is going to be developed at some point and the agent has worked well with officers to achieve a recommendation for approval.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item P71/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, read out by Member Services on behalf of Tony Gent, a supporter. Mr Gent stated that he had farmed this land for his whole life, and this includes the 2000-acre farm of which the AgriGrub site is a small part, with over his lifetime he has seen how farming has had to change, and it is now farmed completely regeneratively. He added that a key part of this is sustainable energy and heating, as fossil fuels cannot be continued to be used, with the biomass system at AgriGrub being renewable and makes use of sustainably managed timber from around the farm.

Mr Gent stated that the installation is a significant distance from any other property, and he has never witnessed any smell which might cause an issue to local residents.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Joe Halstead, the applicant. Mr Halstead explained that he started his company AgriGrub with the express goal of helping the environment and the last thing he would want to do is to pollute or cause any kind of nuisance to anyone nearby, with him taking all the necessary steps to ensure this. He explained that in 2022 he saw his energy bills triple almost overnight due to the fluctuating cost of energy and, therefore, he turned to a biomass boiler as the only renewable and cost-effective heating option available to keep his animals warm.

Mr Halstead stated that at the time he was assured by multiple sources that the biomass boiler did not need planning permission and, therefore, he did not apply, however it now appears that these sources were mistaken. He added that he is now aware that biomass boilers such as this do require planning permission if they are within 400 metres of a dwelling, however, the Council has granted planning permission to several other very similar biomass boilers including one only 25 metres from a dwelling and all without incident.

Mr Halstead advised the committee that AgriGrub has a licence to operate from the Council which is entirely contingent on the control of odour omitted from his site. He added as a result of complaints from neighbours due to a smell of smoke, the Council’s Environmental Health Team carried out extensive monitoring on the site and only on one occasion could the officers smell anything at all and the officer stated that other than a very faint quite pleasant burning wood smell they did not witness any odours or smoke.

Mr Halstead explained that the biomass boiler does produce some smoke especially when it is first lit and is just getting going but this clears rapidly and he added that this is the issue that the complainants have, that occasionally outside of their property for a short period of time they can smell a very faint smoke smell and that is all that can be evidenced. He added  ...  view the full minutes text for item P72/24

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked for confirmation that the application had been deferred previously in order to ask for further information to be provided on the drainage strategy, both foul and surface water as well as the detail concerning the bin collections. He stated that it appears that there has been no change and that no further information has been provided. Matthew Leigh stated that as per the officer’s report there has been no interaction with the applicant.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that as the information that the committee asked for previously has not been provided by the applicant the application is incomplete and, therefore, the application cannot be determined and should be refused. He expressed the view that he is sure that Matthew Leigh will want a decision to be made on the proposal, however, in light of the fact that the information requested by the committee has not been forthcoming and it would appear that the applicant has chosen to ignore that request the application should be refused.

·         Councillor Marks stated he agrees with Councillor Benney, the applicant has either ignored the request for the information to be provided or cannot be bothered and as it is an incomplete application he certainly will not be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she agrees with the points made by Councillors Benney and Marks, however, when considering the information before members, an applicant cannot be punished because they did not provide information that can be conditioned. She added that whilst she is still undecided with regards to her decision on the application, points 6, 7 and 8 can be conditioned.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that whilst certain aspects can be conditioned, the committee specifically requested the detail concerning drainage and foul water. He added that he recalls that there are problems with flooding and also the location where the bins were to be stored. Councillor Benney stated that without a refuse strategy the application is incomplete, and he added that the committee refused an application in Chatteris earlier in the year because it did not contain a drainage strategy.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the road does flood, and he is aware that there were pumps taking the water away via tankers and there was a large quantity of water removed. He added that he cannot give agreement to the application at the present time without seeing the applicant’s drainage strategy. Councillor Marks expressed the view that at the current time the applicant does not appear to be bothered and 6 months is an awful long period of grace for him to be given and there is no way that he can support the application.

·         Councillor Benney added that he recalls that there was a resident of Wisbech Road who was pumping water out into the road and was told to stop by the Police, or she would  ...  view the full minutes text for item P73/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, read out by Member Services from Councillor Michael Humphrey on behalf of Gorefield Parish Council. Councillor Humphrey stated that the Parish Council does not support this application and would draw members attention to its concerns as per the officer’s report. He added that the Parish Council is also concerned on the grounds that this application has been brought to the committee and considers that the use of letter templates to support this application is a misuse of the system.

Councillor Humphrey reminded members that Gorefield is designed as a village of limited growth, yet it has permission for in excess of 50 homes still to be built out. He hoped that unlike the application approved against officer’s recommendation in August 2023, the Planning Committee members will be mindful to support the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson referred to the presentation screen and stated that the application has taken a considerable time to go through the validation process. She stated that the application is for up to nine dwellings within the centre of Gorefield and it is quite a unique site due to the fact that despite it being located in Flood Zone 3, the technical Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that it can accommodate bungalows on the site, which is a significant benefit as nowadays it is rare to be able to build bungalows within the district.

Mrs Jackson explained that the application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved and the indicative layout demonstrates that a spacious layout can be achieved which respects the established loose knit development along Cattle Dyke. She expressed the view that it demonstrates a really good transition between a densely built-up development which is proposed at Dennicks Yard and the very low density along Cattle Dyke, with the proposed density being appropriate and not harmful as mentioned in the second reason for refusal.

Mrs Jackson stated that Gorefield is classified as a small village where infill development is supported by Policy LP3 and she explained that the application site is located between the Dennicks Yard development and the established development along Cattle Dyke and, in her view, it would infill this part of the village without encroaching further into the countryside and the surrounding development. She expressed the opinion that the proposal complies with the spirit of Policy LP3 and that it comprises with residential infilling within the footprint of the village.

Mrs Jackson made the point that she has noted the reason for refusal with regards to the proposal comprising back land development but, in her view, she cannot see how the site is considered as backland when the scheme can be laid out comprehensively and it is no different in terms of its locational aspect from the Dennicks Yard site to the east. She stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P74/24

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Angela Johnson of Wimblington Parish Council. Councillor Johnson stated that she is addressing the committee on behalf of Wimblington Parish Council who are objecting to the proposal, and she explained that a little over 2 years ago Wimblington and Stonea Parish Council began developing their Neighbourhood Plan and as part of that ACOMB were commissioned to produce a professional researched housing needs assessment and a design guidance and code report. She added the reports were completed in early 2023 and were unanimously adopted by the Parish Council and copies were provided to the Planning Department at the Council.

Councillor Johnson added that the housing needs assessment highlighted the fact that the village of Wimblington is way above the national average in Fenland and England for built bungalows, with it also highlighting the high percentage of people over the age of 60. She explained that the Planning In Principle application which was objected to by local residents and the Parish Council has been granted on the corner of the Eastwood End settlement which is east of the A141, with there being no facilities whatsoever on this side of the village and, therefore, to reach any of the village facilities it would mean crossing the A141.

Councillor Johnson explained that planning in principle was granted by planning and now the developers have applied to construct 8 bungalows which are recommended for approval by officers. She made the point that it is obvious that neither of the two professional reports made available to officers have been taken into consideration and she added that the reports were produced for a reason, and they are there to support the draft Neighbourhood Plan which the Planning Officers have received, and it contains a policy in relation to the housing needs in the neighbourhood area.

Councillor Johnson questioned why the Planning Officer has not supported the research undertaken on the housing needs in Wimblington and she also questioned why the developer has not been advised that there is no further requirement for the construction of bungalows in the village. She stated that the design proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area which is a cul de sac of bungalows off a country lane and a proposed pallet of materials which are not consistent with the local built heritage and no specific building materials submitted with the submission which leaves the developer an open door.

Councillor Johnson added that the development is near the construction site of other dwellings on Eastwood End and, in her view, the dwellings are not in keeping with the area due to their size, design, materials and housing need. She expressed the view that bungalows inherently attract older members of the community, and she questioned how they would be able to access local facilities if they choose to walk which would mean having to cross the A141 which would also be the case  ...  view the full minutes text for item P75/24