Up to nine dwellings at Land South Of 2B And 2C Bridge Lane, Wimblington

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to nine dwellings, with all matters reserved, on land behind two existing homes.

“Agent: [name withheld] Architecture Ltd Land South Of 2B And 2C, Bridge Lane, Wimblington, Cambridgeshire…”

“Erect up to 9 x dwellings (outline application with all matters reserved)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The roughly one-hectare agricultural site lies behind Bridge Lane homes, away from Wimblington’s established settlement, with a public footpath and watercourse nearby.

“This section of Bridge Lane is a fringe rural location, which is abutted by dwellings characteristic of roadside ribbon development. The lane is single track with some passing places, but no separate footway. Sporadic dwellings of various types, styles, and sizes line the road. In contrast the application site and the adjoining land to the west of 2a Bridge Lane is open and agricultural in character.”

“The site is located away from the established settlement of Wimblington and is currently in agricultural use. The site is situated behind two existing dwellings at 2b and 2c Bridge Lane and is roughly ‘L’ shaped covering about 1ha. The site will be served by an existing access to the west of 2b Bridge Lane. The site boundaries are defined by mature hedging/planting.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal remained large-scale development into the countryside and would erode an important visual gap.

“Notwithstanding this, the scale and location of the proposed development remain unchanged from the original application. Accordingly, it remains that the proposal would result in large scale in-depth development in a rural area characterised mainly by frontage development. The proposed development would therefore erode an important visual gap and area of separation between this part of Bridge Lane and the main built form of Wimblington.”

“The proposal would result in large scale in-depth development in an area rural in character and characterised mainly by frontage development and would erode an important visual gap and area of separation between this part of Bridge Lane and the main built form of Wimblington. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies LP3, LP12 and LP16 of the adopted Fenland Local Plan.”

Officer report

Drainage and consultation

Updated flood and drainage information removed consultees’ objections, with conditions proposed for surface water, foul water and maintenance.

“From the details submitted to support the planning application the proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water operated assets. As such, we are unable to provide comments on the suitability of the surface water management. The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Internal Drainage Board.”

“Cambridgeshire Lead Local Flood Authority (dated 09.09.2025) We have reviewed the following documents: • Surface Water Flood Study, prepared by McCloy Consulting, ref: M03569- 01_FL01, REV: 02, dated 1st September 2025. • Surface Water Drainage Strategy, prepared by WE Consulting Engineers, ref: WECE/24/398/RP/C/001, REV: 06, dated September 2025. Based on these, as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) we can remove our objection to the proposed development.”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty-five objection letters raised flooding, drainage, traffic, access, countryside and infrastructure concerns; supporters cited housing need, employment and limited impacts.

“Reasons for objection can be summarised as: • Minimal changes since last submission; • Flooding and surface water drainage concerns; • Foul water drainage concerns; • Risk of SuDS scheme not being appropriately maintained; • Traffic along Bridge Lane; • Visibility and width constraints at access; • Supporters of the application do not live nearby and will not be impacted; • Wimblington infrastructure and services unable to cope; • Bridge Lane is only single track; limited…”

“Will compliment rural setting and a nice community; • Employment opportunity in construction; • A small development will make a nice contribution to the village; • Nice to see; • Well-spaced houses; • Close proximity to the future Fens Reservoir; • Good layout; • No impact on countryside; • Limited impact on traffic;”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and applicant presented the proposal, while a written representation was read on behalf of a district and ward councillor.

What members debated

Members discussed the changed character of Bridge Lane, nearby development, the public footpath, drainage improvements and whether the visual gap remained important.

“Members asked the following questions: • Councillor Mrs French stated that when it was discussed in April, the only issue that the committee had with the application was one of significant concern with regards to flooding and she is pleased to see that [name withheld] has recognised those concerns and has gone away and undertaken some work to alleviate those concerns.”

“Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows: • Councillor Benney stated that the character of Bridge Lane has changed beyond belief over the period of time that he has been a member of the planning committee, questioning what the character of Bridge Lane is as it was very open when the 88 dwellings were approved.”

Minutes

The vote

Members agreed to grant permission against the officer recommendation, with conditions delegated to officers in consultation with a councillor.

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with conditions delegated to officers in consultation with Councillor Mrs French.”

Minutes

What was decided

Members granted the application because they considered Bridge Lane’s character had changed, the area suitable for development, and flooding concerns addressed.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that since the previous application was refused the character of Bridge Lane has changed, the area is ripe for development, the frontage no longer exists in Wimblington as it is being filled in, they do not consider the proposal to be large scale development and they do not consider the visual gap to be one of any importance.”

Minutes