Two self-build homes at Holme Farm, Walpole St Andrew, Wisbech

The site and surroundings

The site was redundant agricultural land outside the development boundary, in predominantly countryside with sporadic homes and agricultural buildings.

“The application site is located to the south-east of King John Bank approx. 100m from its junction with Goose’s Lane and 1.4km from the A17, in the Parish of Walpole St Andrew. The site is currently redundant agricultural land and contains two detached agricultural buildings. The surrounding area is predominately countryside with sporadic detached dwellings some with associated agricultural buildings.”

“Walpole St Andrew, combined with Walpole St Peter and Walpole Marsh is designated as a Key Rural Service Centre (Tier 4) within the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy. However, the application site is located well outside of the development boundary and within the countryside.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with countryside, spatial and flood-risk policies, and the fallback carried only modest weight.

“In spatial policy terms, both the Local Plan and the new NPPF provide a clear steer that new housing development such as that proposed, in the countryside 1.7km remote from day-to- day service provision, is not required/sustainable.”

“26/00780/F Planning Committee 7 September 2026 The information contained in the site-specific FRA indicates that the development could be safe for its anticipated lifetime in accordance with policy F7 of the NPPF and not increase flood risk elsewhere, the development would not however, provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk. Therefore, all three parts the Exception Test have not been met.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporting speaker addressed the committee under the adopted public speaking protocol.

What members considered

Officers highlighted the site’s remoteness, flood-risk failure, countryside policy conflict, lack of infill and unsecured self-build purpose, while members proposed approval.

“In response to comments made, Officers identified the site as remote, approximately 1.7 kilometres by road from Walpole and isolated from day-to-day services. They considered that the proposal failed the relevant flood-risk exception test, conflicted with policy H011 on isolated homes in the countryside, was not infill between existing clusters and lacked the legal agreement expected to secure the self- build purpose.”

“Councillor Devulapalli proposed that the application should be approved on the grounds of the claimed improvement to the existing buildings, the fallback position and that it would be a custom and self- build scheme. This was seconded by Councillor Ryves.”

Minutes

How the committee voted

The proposal to approve was lost by 4 votes to 7, and the proposal to refuse was carried by 7 votes to 4.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was lost (4 votes for, 7 votes against).”

“As the proposal was lost, the Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (7 votes for, 4 votes against).”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused as recommended.

“RESOLVED: That the application be refused, as recommended.”

Minutes