Two four-bedroom homes at Land East Of Highland View, Benwick Road, Doddington

What was proposed

The application sought two two-storey four-bedroom homes, with a shared access also serving agricultural land behind the site.

“This planning application seeks full planning approval for the erection of 2no. 2- storey 4-bed dwellings at the site, with the formation of an access in the south-east corner. The access is proposed to be shared by the proposed two dwellings and will also form a field access to the agricultural land to the rear of the site.”

“This planning application seeks full planning approval for the erection of 2no. 2- storey 4-bed dwellings at the site, with the formation of an access to the south-east corner. The access is to be shared by the proposed dwellings and will also form a field access to the agricultural land to the rear of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for up to three homes were refused or not determined, with the latest refusal concerning development principle and countryside character.

“The site has a history of refused planning applications. Most recently, a full application (ref: F/YR22/1149/F) for three dwellings and a new access was refused on the basis of (1) the principle of development and (2) its impact on the open countryside character.”

“The fundamental issues in respect of the principle of development and its impact on the character of the countryside have not been addressed. Therefore, the proposal remaining in contravention of Policies LP3, LP12, and LP16 and is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the site an isolated countryside location without justification for housing, and found that two homes would harm the rural character and open appearance.

“This revised application submission has offered no justification for new development within the countryside and within a defined ‘Elsewhere’ location as set out under Policy LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan to justify the development as being demonstrably essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation, transport, utility services or minerals or waste development.”

“Accordingly, in addition to the principle of unjustified new housing in this location failing to accord with the development plan, the construction of two new detached dwellings within a principally isolated area, located on and effectively surrounded by rural countryside would undermine the rural character and appearance of the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity.”

Officer report

What the speaker said

A speaker said the site was part of Doddington, near a footpath and bus stop, in Flood Zone 1, and suitable for development beside existing homes.

The committee’s discussion

Members considered the land wooded rather than open countryside, its poor quality, highway visibility, relationship to the village and use of the land.

“Members asked the following questions. • Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and asked for confirmation as to whether the dwelling shown in the photographs is built out? [name withheld] confirmed that his father lives in that house and has done for 18 months.”

“Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows: • Councillor Marks stated that members are looking at land usage and [name withheld] has explained that the land is not of high quality and the open space is a wooded area. He added that he drives along that road regularly and whilst the Highway Authority have an issue regarding the fact that it is a 60mph road with splays, [name withheld] has assured the committee that he can meet those concerns.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors proposed and agreed to grant permission against the officer’s recommendation.

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

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee did not support refusal because it considered the site wooded, the land poor, and the development a good use of land rather than an elsewhere location.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider the application site to be in open countryside, it is in a wooded area with poor land quality and, in their view, will make good use of land and it is not considered to be an elsewhere location.”

Minutes