Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of February 5, 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of the 5 February 2025 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, read out by Member Services from Mr Nick Usher, an objector. Mr Usher stated he would like to pass on his thoughts and incredulity in the manner this application has been handled.  He referred to the timeline, with 24 January 2022 being commencement of first outline application which included the Environment Agency objection, with planning suggesting refusal and the Planning Committee voting 6-0 refusal; on 11 October 2022 the exactly same outline application was submitted apart from the Environment Agency objection, which had been submitted but just not loaded onto the application, and on 23 February 2024 this application somehow got through by the same Planning Committee on a 4-3 acceptance and he made the point that on these and previous minutes there are no declarations of interest by any member.

Mr Usher referred to the Reserved Matters application, which proposes a completely new amount of much larger houses with 30% more bathrooms and toilets even though the Environment Agency objected to all previous applications but somehow 30% extra waste would be acceptable? He made the point that on 12 February 2025 the Environment Agency stated that they have had not had enough time to put together a clearly formulated case so they must rescind their objections, but, in his view, they have had exactly three years to put together a case.

Mr Usher expressed the view that there is also no bus service now on Westfield Road to service these new homes and questioned how this will that effect future homeowners? He feels there may well be a case here for a judicial review as, in his opinion, this whole application and the manner in which it has been dealt with, is a complete and utter farce, when this tragedy of an application is passed, the future will be full of flooding and foul waste problems.

Mr Usher expressed the opinion that when these water problems do occur, it will cost the entire community of Manea when it is flooded with effluence and surface water, and who do residents come to with all its costs and bills? He questioned whether it will be the Environment Agency for not formulating a plan in three years and not standing with their objections, or the planning service for not putting/withholding all the important information online or the Planning Committee for reversing a 6-0 decision for the same application?

Mr Usher expressed the view that it is all very well people sitting in their ivory towers and passing decisions that are meaningless to themselves but asked when will it become clear that applications like this will affect citizens and voters’ lives, when most are struggling with just living their lives.

Members made the following comments:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he would like it recorded that the objector is a Manea Parish Councillor who also commented on the application at a Manea Parish Council meeting.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P99/24

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 in the officer’s report at 2.3 it refers to the site being surrounded by residential development and in his view the site is in the built-up form of Manea and on the side of Westfield Road, which has received various planning approvals for residential developments extending back from the frontage of Westfield Road. He added that the site is all located in Flood Zone 1 and as stated in the officers report it is at very low risk of surface water flooding.

Mr Hall made the point that concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and objectors regarding highways safety, however, the County Council do not object to the application and there is already an access on Westfield Road, with the application proposing to set a new wider access onto Westfield Road which will be set further south of the S bends in Westfield Road. He explained that the visibility splays which have been shown in his drawings in both directions as 2.4 metres by 43 metres for a 30mph road can be achieved in both directions and the existing footpath will also be extended about the new access, and this has all been agreed by highways.

Mr Hall stated that the splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres at the moment for the existing access could be achieved to the south and, in his opinion, he does not think that the existing access could be achieved to the north and, therefore, the proposed works would be an improvement if the application were to be approved. He stated that some of the objectors’ comments have raised concerns with regards to possible overlooking and if members are of the view that it is an issue, a condition could be imposed which states that development could be restricted to single storey to try and address some of the objectors’ concerns, with all the properties to the northeast already being 2 storey dwellings anyway and there have been no objections received from the Highway Authority, Environmental Health, Ecology or Archaeology.

Mr Hall added that the officer’s report states that there was a withdrawn application at this site which Manea Parish Council supported, and this application had a different Planning Officer at that time, but had been indicated that it was to be recommended for approval. He added that the reason that the application was withdrawn was because a Great Crested Newt survey had to be undertaken on the exiting pond which came back negative and then the application was resubmitted.

Mr Hall added that the officer’s report sums up the application well and the officer recommendation is to approve.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he knows the area well and knows that a field across the lane from the site was always a very wet field and as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P100/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report the members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Steven Flowers, the agent. Mr Flowers stated that the proposal is going to include a local connection criterion and will be 100% for local people within the parish. He explained that he has responded to various concerns over the lifetime of the application with regards to redesigns, such as moving the bungalows to the front of the site in order to help with the streetscene and overlooking.

Mr Flowers stated that he has received some recent data from Fenland District Council with regards to housing need and the figures show that there are 64 households in housing need within Wimblington, with 491 showing Wimblington as a preference, and within the wider district there is almost 1800 in need of housing. He explained that there are opportunities for the 100% affordable scheme with a local connection in place, these do not arise very often in this area and he would be looking to secure the Section 106 agreement to reflect the local connection and the affordable housing supply on the site.

Members asked Mr Flowers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she welcomes the 100% affordable housing provision, however, she is unsure whether a Section 106 Agreement is necessary when there is 100% of affordable housing being delivered but if something else is being offered then she is more than happy.

·         Councillor Connor congratulated Mr Flowers and expressed the view that the application is one of the best applications that he has seen for a long time. He added his congratulations for the work that he undertaken in conjunction with the Parish Council and he asked whether Mr Flowers has any indication as to when works would commence if the application is approved by the committee? Mr Flowers explained that members will have noted that there are a couple of complications which have arisen with regards to ecology and the fact that there is a population of lizards on the site that means a process of trapping and relocating to a receptor site which is likely to take place in April. He added that there is also an archaeology condition to satisfy which will follow the ecology issue and the likelihood of development commencing is by the late Summer by which time the conditions will be satisfied.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is delighted that all of the affordable homes are going to be in Wimblington Parish, and he thanked Mr Flowers for bringing the application forward. 

·         Councillor Marks stated that the Isle of Ely Way is in the vicinity along with a public footpath and he asked Mr Flowers whether there are any plans to introduce a stile or a gate as he has concerns with regards to young children being able to access the A141. Mr Flowers stated that he welcomes the question but he is unsure what the detail is with regards to that point. He added  ...  view the full minutes text for item P101/24

The purpose of this report is to advise members of the current situation in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in Vicarage Close, Chatteris.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, read out by Member Services from Ingrid Holliday, in support of the Tree Preservation Order. Ms Holliday stated that she understands that following the Council’s decision to apply a Tree Protection Order on the Sycamore tree, granted late last year, whose roots are in her garden (13 St Martin’s Road), the future of this tree is now in jeopardy, as an objection has been raised by an interested party and referred to this meeting for its further consideration. She wished to reiterate that primarily and what should be of significant importance for this committee’s consideration and deliberation right at its onset is the fact that, as I am sure members will already know but the objector may not, is that nationally, significant numbers of Sycamore trees are suffering and dying from various pathogen causing diseases, including leaf spot (cristularia depraedans), tar spot (rhytisma acerinum) and the potentially more damaging, sooty bark disease, cryptostroma corticale, which is a fungal disease and can cause wilting of the tree crown and eventual death of the tree and can also lead to maple bark disease which is transferable to humans.

Ms Holliday expressed the view that the Sycamore is a tree that is now in danger and, therefore, worthy of protection, conservation and care and should not be allowed to be destroyed or damaged wantonly even though its leaves and charming helicopter seed pods have a tendency to become a nuisance and fall onto cars and driveways. In her understanding, the objector had, late last year, collected some fallen branches that fell into Vicarage Close after a few particularly windy days but, in her view, these were not of any significant size to cause any material or structural damage and indeed, these were put over her fence into her garden where they remain, should anyone need to inspect them.

Ms Holliday expressed the opinion that the Sycamore tree contributes to the countryside’s rich tree biodiversity, adding sanctuary to bats, bees and local birdlife and the aesthetic value of the landscape and help to “bed in” and provide interesting views, colour and texture for local houses to enjoy. She questioned what could be of greater value than to teach young children to watch the tree renew itself each spring and to see local birdlife making nests in a beautiful tree at the bottom of the garden and in what better way can such values be imparted to children and grandchildren to respect, conserve and value nature if trees are chopped down just to prevent people from needing to wash their cars and tidy their lawns and driveways of leaves.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that when she visited the site, she thought she was seeing things and she has listened very carefully to the points made by the owner  ...  view the full minutes text for item P102/24

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that when this application came before the committee previously with the main issue which was of concern to the committee being with regards to highway matters, which led the application to be deferred and at that time he had agreed that any necessary amendments required by highways would be made. He added that the highways comments were received on 7 February, which he reviewed on Monday 10 February and he referred to the third line of their comments stating that they requested additional information from the applicant regarding the access in the site and the comments then go onto explain that a speed survey is required, with his colleague notifying the applicant of the requirement for a speed survey by Highways and commenced obtaining quotes.

Mr Lunn-Towler explained that he was advised on the 25 February that the application was being brought before the committee today and whilst he has tried to expedite the speed surveys there has only been a two-week time frame from receiving the Highways comments to having received the notification of the date of committee. He stated that a colleague requested whether the application could be deferred, however, that request was refused, and he is of the opinion that the item has been brought back to the committee too quickly.

Mr Lunn-Towler advised the committee that the speed specialist is ready to commence the survey, however, the timeframe for this is 3 to 4 weeks to obtain the survey report and then in turn seek advice from highways before making appropriate amendments to the scheme. He suggested that the committee scheduled to take place in May would allow for a survey and consultation period and he would agree to an extension of time to facilitate that in order that it is ready for members to consider.

Mr Lunn-Towler explained that he is still committed to amend the scheme in order that it satisfies the Highways Authority, and he asked the committee to consider a deferral to allow additional time for the survey to be undertaken. He made the point that the outside of the building has already been painted green.

Members asked Mr Lunn-Towler the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Lunn-Towler whether he had spoken to officers with regards to the application coming back to the committee too quickly? Mr Lunn–Towler stated that when the committee notification was received, his colleague spoke to officers on the same day and advised that there was not enough time to make the necessary arrangements. He expressed the view that due to the very quick turn around of the notification being released within 12 working days, he believes that officers were of the opinion that it was to come before the committee again anyway. Mr Lunn-Towler added that he did  ...  view the full minutes text for item P103/24

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 the proposed development is situated on a brownfield site which was previously occupied by a sewerage treatment plant which was decommissioned in 2010. She added that it is common for abandoned brownfield sites to become overgrown, and she disagrees with the Planning Officer’s comment where they state that this leads to the site blending into the surrounding landscape.

Mrs White explained that the site is unkempt and is an eyesore at the end of Crown Avenue and she does not believe that the dense vegetation changes the classification of the site. She explained that the ground asset and boundaries are still present on the site albeit obscured by the overgrowth and if the site was cleared to clearly show its brownfield elements it would then become a magnet for anti-social behaviour due to its accessible but hidden location as well as a financial burden on the Council to keep it maintained.

Mrs White stated that location of the site behind 8 Crown Avenue classifies it as back land development rather than the residential infilling under policy LP3 and the existing access is located beside 8 Crown Avenue and although the new dwelling is situated towards the rear, it remains visible from the street due to the sites constraints and the necessity of keeping it within Flood Zone 1. She stated that the application proposes the development of a brownfield site within the village settlement to provide a new home and thereby positively supporting community growth which is supported by the Parish Council and also responds to a national pressure to provide new housing.

Mrs White explained that whilst Crown Avenue predominantly features two storey semi-detached homes by proposing similar properties on the site would be inappropriate due to the harm and impact of overlooking and reduction of privacy for neighbours, with the proposal being for a single detached two storey house with reduced eaves to mitigate the concerns. She added that unlike the first two reasons that the officer is recommending the application for refusal, the third reason was not addressed or brought to her attention during the application, and it did not form part of the previous application either.

Mrs White explained that contrary to the statement indicating that the site is in a high-risk flood area, a Flood Risk Assessment was submitted in support of the application, and it concluded that due to the benefits of the defences the provide protection the site is not at risk. She explained that it is her understanding that the planning flood maps do not account for the existing flood defences which effectively protect this area.

Mrs White made the point that the strategic Flood Risk Assessment maps for Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council demonstrate that the site is not at risk during the 0.5% annual probability tide event with climate change or  ...  view the full minutes text for item P104/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report the members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that the previous application, which was also an abandoned site and allegedly a brownfield site, had not been used for 15 years and the application before the committee now, in his view, is the same as the site has not been used for at least 20 years. He added that the site has been cleaned and has overgrowth, and questioned whether the site is classed as a greenfield site.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he knows the site and, in his view, it has been in that state for at least 25 years.

·         David Rowen explained that the site being considered is of a slightly different nature, including the scale, considering whether it has actually returned and blended into the natural form of the area, which, in his view, it has not. He expressed the view that the most important aspect to consider is that the site is in the core of the settlement as opposed to a site on the edge of the settlement and the principle of the development of a site whether its brownfield or greenfield within the built form of a settlement is deemed acceptable under the policies of the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned whether the architects worked with the officers when considering the design and layout of the site? David Rowen stated that to the best of his knowledge there has not been any pre-application enquiry submitted on the site in relation to the development.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether there is enough amenity space associated with the proposed dwellings on the site and will there be enough space to allow for vegetable patches on the site or will the area be covered by tarmac or concrete? David Rowen stated that it is evident from the site plan that all the units have the necessary amenity space as set out in Policy LP6 of the Local Plan. He added that with regards to the remediation of the site, there are comments within the officer’s report made by Environmental Health with regards to the need to add cleaner soil on the site and, therefore, he is assuming that the long term intention for any redevelopment of the site would be that ultimately that the soil would be clean enough to be a conventional garden.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the application form for the proposal does not indicate that there has been any pre-application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows the site very well as it forms part of her District and Town Council ward, and she believes the site has not been used for maybe 30 years. She expressed the opinion that as far as she is concerned the proposal is over development of the site, especially when taking into consideration Kirk Ogden Close and the various other elderly persons bungalows in the town. Councillor Mrs French stated that to suggest that the car parking for the proposed site is  ...  view the full minutes text for item P105/24

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report the members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the principle of residential development of the site is acceptable and forms part of the officer’s report at 10.4, with the proposal being a small scale development for four bungalows and is located in Flood Zone 1. He made the point that Natural England as well as the Ecologists at the District and County Council have no objection to the proposal.

Mr Hall explained that there were three reasons for refusal initially and he was surprised to see two of the reasons cited for refusal as he was not aware of them and his Ecologist wrote to David Rowen who acted immediately and consulted with ecology, and he is pleased to say that those two reasons for refusal have now been removed. He explained that he has worked with the Highways Authority and has purchased a boundary map with regards to the enlarged access which proved that the enlarged access can be carried out along with the visibility splays in each direction and the Highways Authority do not object to the application.

Mr Hall made the point that a turning head has been shown in the plans for the application which, in his view, allows a refuse freighter to enter and exit the site and all the properties have garages and adequate parking which can easily be achieved on the site. He added that section of Westfield Road is straight and there are no objections from Highways, originally Manea Parish Council objected to the proposal on highways grounds, but he has worked with Highways who are content with the proposal along with the Parish Council who no longer have any objection with the enlarged access.

Mr Hall made the point that the proposal is for four bungalows and is a small-scale development and there will be no overlooking, with bungalows being committed as part of this application and, in his opinion, they will have adequate garden area and will have a plot area which is greater than a third and adequate parking. He referred to the presentation screen and the map displayed, and highlighted the site which was approved earlier consisting of 23 dwellings and runs all the way along the western side of the site which is shown in orange, with those dwellings still be built, however, he is aware that the developer is keen to commence construction, and those dwellings will be between 20 and 24 metres away from the bungalows in this application.

Mr Hall stated that the existing property to the southeast is located about 40 metres away from the proposed nearest bungalow and there are a number of trees to the western side of the site which are all to be retained. He added that there have been no objections from any of the consultees on the the proposal, including the Parish Council, Highways, Tree Officer, Environmental Health,  ...  view the full minutes text for item P106/24

This item was withdrawn.