Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of 6 August and 20 August 2025.

The minutes of the meetings of the 6 August and 20 August 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from James Burton, the agent and Luke Boekestyn, the applicant. Mr Boekestyn explained that his company specialises in delivering affordable homes with a positive track record of delivering homes in Fenland. He added that his company is currently building 148 homes, and read out a statement from Azar Ahmed, Assistant Development Director at Accent Housing, who is the preferred partner for the site, which stated ‘At Accent, we care, and we manage over 20,000 homes housing over 35,000 people. We aim to deliver a large programme of newbuild homes to provide quality homes in sustainable communities and Accent is aware that there is a high need for affordable homes of all types in Fenland. With support from Fenland Housing, there is a clear housing need, and this rural exception site will give priority to those with a local connection. Accent is a registered provider and strongly support the delivery of this 100% affordable housing scheme and provide sustainable homes which are genuinely affordable to the local people’.

Mr Burton stated that the rural exception scheme is for up to 24 100% affordable dwellings ensuring homes for local people in perpetuity, with the Council’s Assistant Director and Housing Enabling Officer both supporting the scheme and recognising that the scheme meets identified need to provide ring fenced affordable homes for the parish and they consider that the scheme meets the requirements of the rural exception site under the National Planning Policy Framework. He added that he has consulted with the Parish Council throughout the application process and amended that scheme and as a result the Parish Council have given their support.

Mr Burton added that he has worked closely with the Council’s Housing Team, and they have informed the housing mix so that it includes one-bedroom units and have confirmed the need for 176 dwellings in the area with 31 having a direct link with Guyhirn. He stated that a formal housing survey has not been conducted but the housing register data provides the most reliable baseline for assessing demand and it demonstrates a significant local need, making the point that if a survey was carried out then the Housing Officer has stated that in their opinion the figures would rise.

Mr Burton expressed the view that LP3 of the Local Plan typically restricts development in Guyhirn below the affordable threshold which effectively prevents any affordable homes being delivered but made the point normally LP3 development will be considered on its merits but be limited in nature and to residential infilling. He added that the glossary within the Local Plan defines residential infilling as development of a site between existing buildings and this application site is located between number 6 and Cobble House on Gull Road, making the point that there have been 86 dwellings approved in Guyhirn since 2011 with around 350 in the parish and to the best of his knowledge  ...  view the full minutes text for item P42/25

To determine the application.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gillian Bean, in support of the application. Ms Bean stated that she is a resident of River Drive, and she has spoken to every resident in the road and is addressing the committee on their behalf. She explained that numbers 8 and 9 of River Drive are in favour of the application and the proposal will, in her view, reduce the issue of vandalism, drugs, vermin and due to the lighting in the road, it would ensure that people could walk through the entrance way safely.

Ms Bean added that the Council’s core priorities are to improve the environment and street scene as well as giving residents a safer neighbourhood by reducing crime and anti-social behaviour and, in her view, by accepting the application and letting the application develop the site then the committee would be satisfying the Council’s core responsibilities. She stated that the applicant is trying to improve the area where the District and County Councils, in her view, have done nothing in the area where she has lived for the last six and a half years and feels that the area does need something doing to it, and it is down to the committee to make that decision.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that Ms Bean has referred to two residents who are in support of the proposal and she questioned whether they have officially written to the Council opposing the application in the first place. Ms Bean explained that not to her knowledge and they have both advised her that they have emailed the Planning Department to state that they are in support of the application and she also obtained their signature to state that they are happy for her to speak on their behalf.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated from the presentation slides, it does look as though the area is ripe for anti-social behaviour and he asked Ms Bean whether she can provide any statistical information with regards to the instances of anti-social behaviour which have taken place? Ms Bean explained that she does not hold any statistics, but she made the point that she knows that the resident from number 8 took it upon themselves to ask some individuals to leave the area after playing loud music and drug taking earlier in the week and she added that it is not what the residents in any road wants in their area. She added that many of the residents in the road are elderly, and it is a quiet area with the residents just wishing to get on with life and to help each other out. Ms Bean stated that residents are finding rats in their gardens, and the residents want to see some change, adding that whilst the proposal will not look as though it is part of River Drive, it will look considerably better in her opinion.

·       Councillor Benney asked whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item P44/25

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent and Andrew Eastol, the applicant. Mr Eastol stated that he has a fond connection with the area in question and has made memories both happy and sad after losing his wife whilst living at 91 Dartford Road. He explained that he has now moved to 93 Dartford Road, and it has always been his wish to have a small retirement bungalow built on the large garden which is the land to the north east of 93.

Mr Eastol added that the reason that he has applied again for planning permission is because his existing property is far too big now for his needs as it is a four bedroomed house and he has no children. He explained that, as he is semi-retired, he now has more free time available to self-build a small single bedroomed home and he intends to compete much of the work himself as well as employing local tradesmen to undertake other aspects of the work.

Mr Eastol added that the proposal will also help with the Council’s supply of self-build properties and made the point that he feels that the proposed design is very well thought out internally with plenty of light coming into the property and rear and front external gardens and space around the perimeter for maintenance purposes. He explained that parking is located away from surrounding properties and it will have good vehicle turning space and existing site access, which is already used for number 93, with the large garage being demolished.

Mr Eastol stated that he has secured the land to make it safe from anti-social behaviour and unwanted wildlife by erecting three sturdy fences to neighbours’ properties which they were unable to do. He explained that this is his last opportunity to build a home for himself due to an arthritic condition, adding that he does not have a great deal of money as his business collapsed whilst he was caring for his late wife, but he explained if he is granted planning permission by selling 93 Dartford Road it will enable him to cover all of the building costs and enable him to spend the rest of his life in a home which he has built himself and can be proud of.

Ms Penney explained that the proposal is for a bespoke dwelling for Mr Eastol and it is located within the built-up settlement of March, adding that it is different from the previous schemes as it is now for a self-build plot and the application has been recommended for refusal due to the alleged cramped nature of the scheme. She stated that she acknowledges that the dwelling is small, however, it is designed for a single person and is directly comparable to the footprint of other properties in Dartford Road.

Ms Penney stated that the nationally prescribed space standards require a dwelling for a single person  ...  view the full minutes text for item P45/25

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor John Clark, the Ward Councillor for the application site. Councillor Clark stated that 18 years ago he became a Fenland District Councillor to represent and speak up on behalf of residents and especially those of March, making the point that he cannot think of anything more deserving than to support this planning application after receiving a request from the applicant who is a resident of his ward. He explained that the applicant, Mr Haydon, is a former partner of Whiting Accountants who retired after working for them for 40 years and he is also one of his neighbours whose property is located at the bottom of his garden where he has lived for 40 years.

Councillor Clark stated that ten months ago Mr Haydon’s wife passed away and he is looking to support his family along with his own wellbeing, explaining that Mr Haydon has a severely dyslexic son who needs help and guidance with simple tasks such as reminding him to eat and not miss meals. He added that his daughter has a son who is autistic and has also been diagnosed with ADHD who also needs frequent support, and Mr Haydon would like to see his daughter and family move into the main dwelling, with his son already living in Stonecross Way, which abuts his garden so if approved Mr Haydon would move into the proposed annexe to create an intergenerational family welfare support unit.

Councillor Clark stated that Mr Haydon has applied to convert his garage into an annexe to the main property and the first application was refused, with the officers’ reasons for refusal being considered prior to submitting the current application and addressed by reducing the size of the application by 50% with only a modest single storey side addition. He stated that the application includes a large community space and garden, and the parking area remains unchanged.

Councillor Clark explained that officers have concerns that this could be sold as a separate dwelling and in order to address the concerns Mr Haydon is content to enter into a legally binding agreement to tie the proposed annexe to the main dwelling in order to stop the unlikely event of it ever being sold as a separate dwelling. He referred to LP16 of the Local Plan and expressed the view that the proposal meets all the fourteen A to N criteria with the only area for discussion being part D but, in his view, it does not adversely impact either in design or scale of the street scene, settlement pattern or landscape character of the surrounding area.

Councillor Clark stated that the application has 11 letters of support including many from neighbours and is, therefore, very unlikely to be legally challenged and he asked the committee to support the proposal.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the personal circumstances of the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item P46/25

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the applicant moved into the property in 2020 with her parents who have lived in the property since 2011 and the applicant has now purchased the property from her parents and resides with them to provide support. He stated that there have been changes made since the previous application was refused by reducing the first-floor element and, in his opinion, he considers that to be a material planning change.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and the proposed elevations and explained that the proposed left hand corner elevation has no first-floor windows, with the two windows downstairs already being there and there are no windows on that side meaning that there is no overlooking. He stated that the proposal is 12.5 metres away from the two-storey element of the neighbouring property and the proposed extension will be the same height as the existing building and will have the same ridge line and materials.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and a photo of the property and indicated that the proposal is to build over the existing garage and there have been no statutory consultee objections to the proposal. He stated that in the officer’s report at 10.8 it states that the front extension from the street scene is of an appropriate size and scale to the host dwelling and it also states that the extension would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that within the officers report it appears to refer to 2 The Hollies a great deal and he asked whether any objection had been received to the proposal that he is aware of? Mr Hall stated that the residents of that property did object to the application, however, the applicant has advised him that her father had discussed the proposal with the residents prior to the submission of the application and they stated that they did not object. He explained that the residents have objected during the application process, and it is only that property who have raised an objection.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and questioned whether the elevation depicts extractor fans? Mr Hall stated that he believes that they are air conditioning units.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the photos taken by officers from the applicant’s garden. Mr Hall stated that he agrees that the neighbouring property does look to be in proximity.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he does not see any issues or concerns with the application and whilst the brickwork will be coming forward slightly further, on the plan as the sun sets in the west it would be at the end of the day if it were to cast any shadow. He added that there is already brickwork there with  ...  view the full minutes text for item P47/25

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the presentation screen and questioned whether the sign above Domino’s Pizza business has an illuminated sign? It was confirmed that the sign is externally illuminated.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that the application site has an internally illuminated sign. Councillor Marks clarified that the sign in question is backlit. David Rowen stated that sign above Domino’s Pizza has lights above it which externally illuminates the sign whereas the signing on the application site has lighting which is inbuilt within the sign.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked officers to clarify how long the sign has been in place? David Rowen explained that it has been erected between 6 and 12 months. Matthew Leigh explained that the application is before the committee as a result of an enforcement complaint and as a result officers have advised the applicants that they needed advertisement consent.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he does see that there is anything wrong with the sign and the whole of Broad Street has undergone significant change because of the regeneration works. He stated that if businesses are not supported then they will close, and he made the point that anybody who chooses to invest anything in business should be supported. Councillor Benney referred to the presentation screen and stated that the signage is hiding the keystones above three windows and he added that the keystones will still be there long after the sign comes down. He stated that signs are above businesses for a reason as they are supposed to attract custom and the sign fulfils its need. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he sees nothing wrong with the sign and it brightens up the High Street.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he is aware of comments made by members of the public who have commented on the significant brightness of the sign. He added that whilst he appreciates that businesses do need to be supported, the business owners in this case do not appear to be taking any notice of advice and guidance being provided to them by the Council which, in his opinion, needs to be addressed. Councillor Purser added that he thinks business owners need to submit proper planning permission before they undertake any works to their business rather than retrospectively.

·       The Legal Officer stated that retrospective planning permission is not a material consideration and should not influence the members decision when determining the application.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he is very much in support of local businesses and their efforts to grow and advertise. He added that he knows how difficult the current economic climate is for businesses such as this, but he has to agree with the officers, and made the point that when you compare the previous NatWest sign which, in his view, was very sympathetic and the heritage aspect was still visible especially when considering that the site is in  ...  view the full minutes text for item P48/25