Three dwellings at Land South West Of Woodbury, Manea Road, Wimblington

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to three dwellings, with indicative plans showing detached homes, parking, landscaping and a new access road.

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

“A location plan, existing site plan and indicative site layout (although not a requirement of a PiP application) accompany this submission. These indicate the removal of the existing buildings on the site and the provision of three detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping together with the provision of an access road utilising the existing site access.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site is east of the A141, outside Wimblington’s settlement footprint, beside homes, commercial warehouses, open countryside and a listed church.

“The application site is located outside of the settlement footprint of Wimblington. The site is situated to the east of the A141 Isle of Ely Way and is therefore divorced from the main residential area to the west of the highway. The site has a dwelling named Woodbury at the northern boundary, with low level timber fencing and trees along the frontage. This dwelling fronts Manea Road close to the junction with the A141.”

“There is a residential dwelling, known as ‘Limes’ opposite the site entrance. Neighbouring the site to the east and to the northeast on the opposite side of Manea Road are large commercial warehouse buildings. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (low risk).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and site use

Earlier housing applications were withdrawn or refused, while the site currently contains a permitted dog-grooming and kennelling business and unauthorised vehicle storage.

“The site is currently used for a dog grooming and kennelling business to the rear of the dwelling, which was granted planning permission under reference F/YR18/0087/F. There is also a family member living beyond the residential curtilage on site in a static caravan which does not benefit from planning permission. Additionally, the site is being used for the storage of work vehicles and materials in connection with the applicant’s groundworks business.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the site detached from the settlement, harmful to countryside character and unsuitable for housing under the Local Plan’s settlement strategy.

“Policy LP12 identifies that to receive support, the site must be in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village, defined as the continuous built form of the village and excludes individual buildings and groups of dispersed, or intermittent buildings, that are clearly detached from the continuous built-up area of the settlement.”

“Similarly, it is noted that the Agent and local residents have referred to other residential developments having been approved at Eastwood End, which is also east of the A141. Each application must be determined on its own merits. Notwithstanding this basic principle, it is considered that the sites are materially different in that the character of the area at Eastwood End features existing residential development and does not benefit from larger commercial uses.”

Officer report

The number of homes

Officers considered three homes a suitable amount for the site, but said the reduced number did not overcome the location and land-use objections.

“The application seeks Permission in Principle for up to three dwellings on a site of 0.28ha which will equate to a density of approximately 11 dwellings per hectare. This is low density and could comfortably be accommodated on-site without being considered an overdevelopment of the site. However, the detailed layout and design will be for consideration at the Technical details stage. In terms of consideration of amount, the proposal is acceptable.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council raised highway and pedestrian concerns, highways had no objection subject to later detail, and eight residents’ letters supported the proposal.

“Object due to highway concerns as a result of additional vehicular movements and potential access conflict with other commercial premises. Also concerns regarding pedestrian safety due to lack of footpath and countryside location. The Parish note the comments made in support of the application.”

“Eight letters of support have been received from residents of Breton Avenue, Wimblington Road (March), Norfolk Street, King Street, Greenwood Way, Manea Road, Eastwood End (Wimblington), Beech Avenue (Doddington) these are summarised below:”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent said the scheme had been reduced to three homes, would remove the kennels, reduce traffic and connect to Wimblington through an existing footpath.

What members debated

Members disagreed about highway safety, nearby development, connectivity and whether the site formed part of Wimblington or open countryside.

“He made the point that the dog grooming business exists on site and, in his opinion, putting three dwellings on this site will make it a safer junction, it will reduce the amount of traffic not make it worse, make it safer and if a view is taken that the junction is dangerous that stops any development at Station Road end of Manea because that will put more traffic here, which is not going to happen as Manea is a growth village.”

“Hayleigh Parker-Haines referred to much of the discussion being around the number of units proposed and consistency in decision making and drew members attention to the previous reason for refusal in 9.1 of the report so whilst the red line has been amended as part of this application the overall location of the site remains unchanged.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee agreed a motion to refuse the application as recommended, using the chairman’s casting vote.

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed, with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote, that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the site lies outside Wimblington’s developed footprint and housing there conflicts with Policies LP3 and LP12.

“Refuse; Permission in Principle for the following reason:”

“The application site constitutes an area of land located outside the developed footprint of Wimblington. The development proposal will be in an ‘elsewhere’ location contrary to Policies LP3 and LP12 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014). As such any residential development on this site will be contrary to the above policy considerations and thus, in terms of location and use, the Planning in Principle application fails.”

Officer report