Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meetings of 13 May 2026 and 27 May 2026.

The minutes from the previous meetings of 13 and 27 May 2026 were approved 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 Peter Smith, the applicant. Mr Smith explained that he is the Delivery Development Manager at Housing 21, and is responsible for the delivery side of the business. He stated that the quality of the scheme will provide 49 very spacious 55 square metre one-bedroom apartments and 68 square metre two-bedroom apartments, which, in his opinion, is a big improvement on the existing accommodation which is currently predominantly bedsit units with no ensuite facilities.

Mr Smith explained that each apartment will have its own balcony or a patio area if they are located on the ground floor and there will also be a spacious residents lounge which will open out onto a large garden area along with a staffed manager’s office during office hours to offer additional support to residents. He added that there will be a store facility for motorised scooters, a communal toilet along with two lifts for access to the upper levels.

Mr Smith stated that discussions have taken place with Housing Officers from the Council with regards to the need for this type of accommodation and he has been assured that there is the need in Wisbech for this as it has been identified as a hotspot due to the increasing older population. He explained that the application site is in a sustainable location and is only a short walk from the Town Centre, so residents will be able to live there without needing to have a car, however, in his view, there is low car ownership amongst residents of this tenure group and, therefore, he anticipates that there will be ample parking available.

Mr Smith expressed the view that it will bring an economic boost to the centre of Wisbech because people will use the shops and there will be an increase in the number of residents in the future scheme than there is in the current scheme as well as during the construction phase itself. He added that the construction phase will bring economic benefits to the town in form of construction work and spending.

Mr Smith added that Housing 21 is familiar with the area and in particular his operational colleagues who are involved with schemes in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk and Whittlesey. He explained that Housing 21 are specialists in the provision of housing for older people and they do not offer general housing schemes, with this proposal being for retirement living and as a whole Housing 21 has over 25,000 properties owned and managed across England in over 500 locations and it prides itself on providing excellent resident satisfaction and any complaints from residents are dealt with promptly.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether there are any residents still residing in Somers Court? Mr Smith explained that to the best of his knowledge there are still three residents residing there and efforts are being made to rehouse them.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P9/26

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Miscandlon, a member of WhittleseyTown Council and current Mayor as well as Chairman of the Planning Committeeat Whittlesey Town Council. Councillor Miscandlon stated that whenthe Manor Leisure Centre project was first considered he was the Portfolio Holderand his remitwas tofuture proofthe facility for the next 20 to30 years and, in his opinion, this is what the planning application does. He added that thepresent Leisure Centre wasconstructed in the 1970s andhas done very wellto surviveand stillbe ina usablecondition and, in his view, that iswhy this applicationis before the committee asit is timeto bringthe facility upto date and for it to be to future proofed.

Councillor Miscandlon made the point that whilst there have been issues raised at meetings over a period of time thesehave beenaddressed ina properand meaningfulmanner. He stated that the projectis abig stepforward infuture proofingthe Leisure Centrefor years to comebecause thefacility notonly servesWhittlesey but thewider area.

Councillor Miscandlon added that theimproved facilitiesfor therifle clubare, in their opinion, secondto noneand willenhance theirability toattract many moremembers andbe atraining groundfor future competitions to the highest standard. Heasked thecommittee to approve the application to enableofficers to moveforward andproduce afacility thatisforthebenefitofWhittleseyresidentsandthosethattravel toWhittlesey to improvetheir healthand wellbeing.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French congratulated the town of Whittlesey and thanked the officers on their hard work on this project so far.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he would also like to thank the officers and the Head of Leisure for their time and their engagement and consultation with the public, which has gone through due process and for the work which has gone into the planning application. He added that on behalf of his Whittlesey residents he would like his thanks noted.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that the current swimming pool opened on the 1 May 1966, and whilst it has been a fantastic facility for Whittlesey over the years, it is now becoming rather an old and tired facility and the proposed new facility is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Whittlesey and Fenland as a whole to invest in the town. He referred to the presentation from Councillor Miscandlon and added that the current leisure centre has patrons who visit from well outside of the Fenland area including many disabled persons clubs that travel to Whittlesey from further afield as it is the best facility in the area. Councillor Gerstner explained that the Head of Leisure and Open Spaces has shown him what the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P10/26

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow 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 all the site is in Flood Zone 1 and abuts existing residential development to the west and north. He referred to the presentation screen, and indicated the development is all part of the built-up form of Doddington, which, under policy LP3 of the Local Plan, states that Doddington is a growth village where small village extensions will be appropriate and, in his view, this application is a small village extension and linear in form in its indicative layout.

Mr Hall added that it is not back land development, just a small village extension which has received no objection from the Highways Authority. He referred to similar types of application, including the Old Dairy Yard in Manea, where there have been numerous plots which have been approved off there as well as Blackmill Road, Chatteris where some of those were delegated approvals and added that in West Street Chatteris, there is a large site there which offered similar access to this current application.

Mr Hall explained that the application site has not been used for agricultural purposes for over seven years and it now just scrub land and the PIP application considers land use and location, with the proposal abutting existing development and is a small-scale extension under policy LP3. He referred to the map on the presentation screen and pointed out the application site and the existing development to the north that has been there 20 to 25 years and to the west there is development which has been there just over 20 years, pointing out a large, hatched area to the north which is where a Planning Inspector approved 47 dwellings.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the application site is not in an elsewhere location and it is all part of the built-up form of Doddington, with, in his view, the proposal squaring off that area. He pointed out the blue line which shows a public footpath and demonstrates that the site is in a sustainable location, with the footpath being introduced for Walden Close and East Close and has been there for 25 years.

Mr Hall stated that the layout is indicative, it is not fixed but it will be linear development, and the application has been submitted for no more than four dwellings, restricting the amount although he does believe that the site could probably take more than four dwellings. He expressed the view that the application site is a small parcel of land which is ideal for development and policy LP3 states that growth villages and for these settlements’ development a new service provision either within the existing urban area or a small village extension will be appropriate.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that it is an ideal site for this type of development, and the application is for land use for residential use.

Members asked Mr Hall  ...  view the full minutes text for item P11/26

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the applicant. Mr Gowler thanked officers for the time between the deferral of the last application for allowing him to remove the description of self-build which was previously another reason for refusal. He explained that regarding the point made concerning an elsewhere location, even though the application site is some distance from the village it is a similar distance to application F/YR23/0115/F which can be seen on the presentation screen.

Mr Gowler added that this is located along Benwick Road and is approximately half a kilometre from the nearest footpath and street lighting and the committee supported that application and it was approved. He made the point that the application site has a footpath located approximately 200 metres to the north at the junction of Dykemoor and explained that he lives in number 22, which is just to the south of the application site, with him regularly walking along the grass verge which he maintains up to the footpath and regularly walks up to the village.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen, pointing out three applications recently approved by the committee, although no formal decision has yet been issued for two of these and two of these sites were located in Flood Zone 2 and 3. He explained that the presentation screen shows a bus stop located approximately 50 metres from the application site outside the entrance to 22a and made the point that in the officer’s report it refers to the distance as being 300 metres, which, in his opinion, is incorrect, with there being an hourly bus service which operates from the bus stop with services towards March and Ely.

Mr Gowler expressed the view that the site should not be considered as elsewhere as it is part of the settlement of Doddington and added that there is no specific definition within national planning policy as to what defines a settlement. He added that Doddington is also a growth village and the application site can be considered as an extension and infill to existing dwellings either side.

Mr Gowler referred to the presentation screen and stated that the slide displayed also shows an insert at the bottom, which is an extract from the submitted drawing, which shows the required visibility displays for what is a 60 limit and he reiterated the point that he maintains that verge, so that it is safe for his family to access their drive. He explained that the site is located solely in Flood Zone 1, not in Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Mr Gowler added that although it does not form part of a PIP when he built his father’s house he consulted with the drainage board at an early stage and successfully got their permission to connect to a ditch that surrounds his land. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that the photos shown are of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P12/26

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

Member Services read out a written representation on behalf of Mr Anthony Boyce, an objector. Mr Boyce stated that he lives in West End, March opposite the George Campbell Leisure Centre with the wooded hill area in between. He added that he originally agreed to proposals for fishing platforms along the Old River Nene as so many of them were nearly inaccessible to those wishing to fish who did not have any platform making equipment.

Mr Boyce stated that he had presumed that the existing pegs between the town bridge and the bypass bridge would be used. He explained that he objected to the first proposal plans as the making of a new peg was sited exactly opposite his house and there are no fishing pegs there currently and he further objected to the second proposal, as none of his previous objections had been considered, with the plan now including the siting of 3 pegs which are all new and opposite his property.

Mr Boyce expressed the view that his objections have been ignored as the officer’s recommendation is one of approval. He expressed the opinion that the fishing pegs would significantly encroach into his family’s privacy as users of the pegs would be able to look directly into his back garden as this is the narrowest part of the river.

Mr Boyce expressed the view that it is not a safe area to position pegs due to the vicinity of the hill which is regularly frequented by youths who continue to cause anti-social behaviour by vandalising it and throwing debris, branches, bikes, shopping trollies and rocks down the hill into the river. He feels it is the most unpeaceful place to fish on the whole river length due to the constant shouting and screaming and foul language which comes from the hill, with the anti-social behaviour being so bad he does not allow his grandchildren to go into the back garden.

Mr Boyce expressed the view that any new pegs positioned here will be vandalised within a short space of time and he is confident of that fact as he has watched the hills flora and fauna be systematically destroyed even though it has been a designated Conservation Area. He explained that he regularly fishes from his mooring which he is permitted to do and he will continue to do so regardless of who is fishing on the opposite bank, but this is likely to cause major conflict especially if there is a fishing match taking place.

Mr Boyce stated that he has complained about this for so many years, but nothing has changed and he hopes that it can be recognised that the further loss of privacy would add to the negative experiences that he is currently having to endure and he asked for compassion and understanding in this matter.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the land is owned by Fenland District Council and as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P13/26

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she fully supports this application.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated it is a similar application to the other one, with the only difference being that there is an objector to the other application, and he will be supporting this proposal. He stated that he understands the objector's point but whatever anyone does someone objects anyway and the river is being fished already, and the committee is here to support an application to make it safer so, in his view, members are wasting their time if this application is deferred as well.

·       Councillor Marks referred to consistency and feels members need to be consistent on this application. He stated that his concerns have not changed, although it looks to be a better location for the platforms but due to the limited number of photos members are unable to see what the condition is of the rest of the river or riverbanks. Councillor Marks expressed the view that for consistency this application should be deferred and that MLC be invited to attend. He stated that he is not saying he is against the proposal, but he is still not clear on what the lease from the Council is to the fishermen and it could be putting Fenland at risk if it is not clear what should be there and what is in the lease. Councillor Marks made the point that it is a delay of possibly a couple of months, recognising that it is probably into the fishing season, but he would prefer to be on the right side.

·       Councillor Connor stated that the fundamental reasons are still there to support a deferral.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that even if this was approved today, these platforms would not be installed this year as there are too many conditions to be complied with through MLC and he believes it will be 12 months of negotiations.

·       Councillor Imafidon made the point that it says grant subject to conditions so if it is granted today the conditions are there to be met before it is actually delivered.

·       Councillor Connor stated that still consistency comes to mind.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of Councillor Marks. She stated that she knows this area exceptionally well, with just further up from this there is a new skate park pump track which unfortunately the County Council put in the wrong way and MLC are in the process of enforcing the County Council and this Council to remove the pump track unless something else is sorted out. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that if this is allowed today more problems are probably going to be created further down the line, plus the fact that the river was supposed to be drained a couple of years ago and it still has not been undertaken.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he does not want to be a killjoy and if  ...  view the full minutes text for item P14/26