Builder’s yard and dwelling at Land East Of March Airfield, Cross Road, March

What was proposed

The application proposed one self-build dwelling alongside a builder’s yard, shed, fencing, six containers and a new access.

“Erect x 1 self-build/custom build dwelling in association with a new builder’s yard (sui generis), including the erection of a shed, and 2.4m high palisade fence and gates, the siting of 6 x containers, and the formation of an access…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an undeveloped greenfield parcel outside March, in open countryside about 1.25 kilometres from the settlement and opposite a small airfield.

“The application site is located on land off Cross Road, outside the built form of March. The site currently comprises an undeveloped, greenfield parcel of land in a rural area characterised largely by open countryside, with sporadic pockets of development throughout. The site is located immediately opposite a parcel of land that operates as a small airfield that provides training for paramotors and land gliders. 2.3.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the proposal unjustified in an unsustainable rural location, harmful to countryside character, at unacceptable flood risk and unsupported on aviation and self-build requirements.

“The proposal seeks the erection of 1 x self-build dwelling in association with a new Builder’s Yard (including change of use), with ancillary works proposed including the erection of a shed, 2.4m palisade fence and gates, the siting of 6 x containers and the formation of an access. 11.2.”

“As such, the proposal is considered on balance to be acceptable in terms of its highway safety impact. The proposal is located in an area of high flood risk and fails to adequately demonstrate that the Sequential or Exception Test are passed. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LP14 of the Fenland Local Plan and Section 14 of the NPPF. 11.6.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The Environment Agency, Environmental Health and highways raised no objections, the town council supported the application, and 16 people objected on aviation, highway and countryside grounds.

“I can conclude that there are ‘No Objections’ to the proposal from an Environmental Health standpoint. March Town Council – 18.02.2025”

“Whilst the Local Highway Authority has reservations in respect of the proposed development in relation to this development on the basis of the information submitted, from the perspective of the Local Highway Authority, I consider the proposed development is acceptable. 08.09.2025 Whilst I have some reservations in regard to the capacity of this road and lack passing places. On balance I believe that this development, if approved would be acceptable to the LHA.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Tom Donnelly presented the report, while officers answered members’ questions about new representations, flood risk, aviation and the self-build requirement.

What members debated

Members debated whether flood mitigation and the business’s rural needs justified approval, and whether the airfield and highway concerns had been sufficiently evidenced.

“Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows: • Councillor Marks stated that with regards to Flood Zone 3 it is fairly well established within this committee that although members understand flood zones, they also understand that there are mitigation measures which can be put in place as well.”

“He expressed the opinion that this is the right location for such a business to operate as a builder’s yard should not operate in a town centre location. Councillor Connor made the point that he cannot understand why it has taken nine months for the application to come back to the committee, but he will support the application in its entirety.”

Minutes

The vote

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

“Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee rejected the officer’s refusal recommendation, believing flood mitigation could address flooding and that the location suited a builder’s yard while on-site occupation would improve security.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they believe that flood mitigation measures can be used to overcome any risk of flooding, whilst it is an elsewhere location, there are mitigating circumstances as they feel that this is the right location for a builder's yard as opposed to a town centre location and as the applicant owns the land and will reside on site it will act as further security for the business.”

Minutes