Six affordable homes at Land North Of 1 Gull Road, Guyhirn

What was proposed

The application proposed six fully affordable two-storey, three-bedroom homes arranged as three pairs, with two accesses onto Gull Road.

“The proposal seeks the erection of 6no. fully affordable dwellings, and the creation of 2no. access points. The proposal is considered, on balance, to be acceptable in principle when considering the material considerations relating to other developments built out in the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of character impact, amenity impact, biodiversity impact and highway safety impact. 1.4.”

“The proposed dwellings are laid out in three pairs of semi-detached properties which are all two-storey, 3-bedroom properties. Each pair of dwellings measures 5.1m in height to the eaves, 9.1m in height to the ridge, 12.25m in width and 9.1m in depth. The proposed palette of materials comprises ‘Weinerburger Hathaway’ brindled facing bricks, ‘Marley Modern’ smooth grey tiles and cream uPVC windows and doors.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an open undeveloped parcel east of Gull Road, beside residential development, and almost entirely within Flood Zone 3.

“The application site is located to the east of Gull Road in Guyhirn. The site is currently characterised as an open and undeveloped parcel of land which is adjoined by residential development to the south and west, with new dwellings currently under construction to the north.”

“The application site lies almost entirely within Flood Zone 3 but is at very low risk of surface water flooding.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, ecology, archaeology, the Environment Agency and Environmental Health raised no objections subject to conditions, while the parish council sought refusal and Anglian Water objected to the sewer connection.

“CCC Archaeology – 28.07.25 No objection subject to condition requiring submission of WSI 5.2 FDC Ecology – 31.07.25 No objection subject to conditions requiring submission of CEMP & BNG scheme 5.3 Natural England – 06.08.25 Further information required to determine impact on designated sites arising from recreational pressure impacts 5.4 Anglian Water – 08.08.25 Objects to a connection to vacuum sewerage system due to the risk of flooding and pollution.”

“Environment Agency – 01.08.25 No objection subject to condition requiring compliance with mitigation measures set out in FRA 5.6 Wisbech St Mary Parish Council – 12.08.25 Refusal. Cllrs said this area is over developed and had concerns over highway traffic & safety 5.7 CCC Highways – 13.08.25 No objections 5.8 North Level Drainage Board – 20.08.25 The applicant/developer must ensure that they have obtained consent from the Board for all works within 9 metres of Rose Farm…”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Four residents objected on grounds including overdevelopment, parking and turning, construction traffic, flooding, accidents, water pressure and pressure on local services.

“Environmental Health – 24.08.25 No objection subject to condition restricting working hours 5.10 Local Residents/Interested Parties Four letters of objection received from residents of Gull Road on the following (summarised) grounds: Objecting Comments Officer Response Overdevelopment of site See ‘Character and appearance’ Insufficient parking and turning space See ‘Parking provision and highway safety’ Danger caused by construction traffic See ‘Parking provision and…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent said the site was infill, the homes were fully affordable, local need was significant, and highways and drainage concerns could be addressed.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the nearby development, the site’s infill role, affordable housing need, drainage arrangements and the effect of filling remaining gaps along Gull Road.

“Members asked questions of [name withheld] and [name withheld] as follows: • Councillor Mrs French asked if they have been in discussion with North Level Drainage Board? [name withheld] responded that they commented during the application and they undertook the 8 to the north for private market sale so they had a lot of information needed from this development that has been adopted into this proposal, essentially 9 metre easement to the back, no pathways, ramps or anything within that area…”

“Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows: • Councillor Marks referred to the fact that committee discussed a scheme adjacent previously hearing today what the agent said previously, and these are 4 properties along the road which are houses and not bungalows.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Marks proposed, Councillor Imafidon seconded, and members agreed to grant permission against the officer recommendation, subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions and for the applicant to enter into a Section 106 Agreement regarding affordable homes and the offering to local people.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee granted permission because it considered the proposal to be infill development and the significant benefit of affordable homes outweighed the Sequential Test requirement.

“Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that a precedent has been set, the application is an infill development and there is significant benefit to the people of Fenland by providing much needed affordable homes which outweighs the requirement for a sequential test.”

Minutes