Four dwellings at Land East Of 24 Eastmoor Lane, Doddington

Permission sought

The application seeks permission in principle for up to four homes, assessing their location, residential use and amount of development.

“This application seeks Permission in Principle (PiP) for the development of up to four dwellings on agricultural land located to the south of Eastmoor Lane, Doddington. The site comprises an undeveloped field outside the continuous built form of the village.”

“The ‘Permission in Principle’ (PiP) application is for residential development of 4 dwellings. The current proposal is the first part of the permission in principle application, which only assesses the principle issues namely:”

Officer report

The site

The site is an undeveloped agricultural field east of existing buildings, accessed by a public footpath, in Flood Zone 1.

“The application site is situated on the eastern side of Eastmoor Lane, within the settlement of Doddington. The site is accessed via a public footpath, with the recorded public highway vehicular rights currently ending approximately 45 metres to the south of the site.”

“The site currently comprises and agricultural field to the east of existing built form. Agricultural fields extend to the east of the application site.”

Officer report

Nearby planning history

There is no earlier planning history on the site, while a nearby 47-home scheme was allowed on appeal in 2023.

“There is no prior planning history on the application site. However, the following applications relate to a site (Land East Of Bevills Close And North Of, Eastmoor Lane, Doddington, Cambridgeshire) within the immediate vicinity of the application site:”

“Reference Description Decision F/YR25/0856/VOC Variation of condition 7 (archaeology) of planning appeal APP/D0515/W/23/3318467, relating to planning application F/YR21/1072/FDL (Erect 47 x dwellings with associated garages, parking, landscaping and infrastructure. Creation of vehicular access from Bevills Close and creation of cycle/footpath/emergency link from Bevills Close. Provision of open space, LEAP and attenuation basin.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the site detached from the village, harmful to rural character, unsuitable for further access and an inefficient use of land.

“Whilst Policy LP3 identifies Doddington as a ‘Growth Village’, the application site is considered detached from the village, especially considering the row of bungalows which run parallel to the western boundary of the site. The proposal would result in the development of a parcel of land which is currently open and undeveloped. As such, it would result in an urbanisation into the open countryside.”

“One of the three overarching objectives that the planning system has is achieving sustainable development. Set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF is an environmental objective which includes making efficient use of land.”

Officer report

The agent’s case

The agent said the site formed part of Doddington, was a small extension beside existing development and could safely accommodate four homes.

Members’ debate

Members discussed whether the site was within the built-up area, whether the access was suitable and whether four homes made efficient use of the land.

“He explained that officers have concluded that the parcel of land does not really fit as part of Doddington and as part of the built form, however, if members do not agree with that matter, then there is the requirement to look at the actual number, which is obviously one of the considerations which can be looked at under the PIP limitations.”

“Alan Davies explained that when officers are stating the amount when considering PIP applications, they are considering whether they feel it is an efficient use of land and officers would argue that in this case it is an inefficient use of land and if permission were to be given in principle the developer could fit more dwellings on there and national policy would encourage there to be more dwellings on that site.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Gerstner proposed approval, Councillor Marks seconded it, and the committee agreed to approve against the officer recommendation.

“Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee rejected refusal because it considered the proposal consistent with several similar applications on the boundary of an outlying area.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission as they feel that to remain consistent the committee have approved several other applications similar to this application where the development is on the boundary of an outlying area.”

Minutes