Up to 9 dwellings at Land North Of 386 Wisbech Road, Westry

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to nine dwellings, with an indicative linear layout and a single access from Wisbech Road.

“The proposal seeks permission in principle for the erection of up to 9no. dwellings on the site. Whilst not a requirement of a PiP application, an indicative site layout plan has been submitted illustrating a centrally located access point onto Wisbech Road serving all properties, with a linear form of development set back from the highway by approximately 35m. The indicative layout shows areas of soft landscaping along the front of the site, with 2no.”

Officer report

Officer recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the countryside location lacked justification for rural enterprise housing and was not sustainable, while nine homes would erode rural character.

“As assessed above, amount of development is acceptable in principle for new residential development. However, the location and use of the site in an ‘Elsewhere’ Location fails to accord with the aims of Policy LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014), where development is to be restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of rural enterprise, with no evidence submitted to demonstrate this.”

“The proposed development, which is located outside the settlement of March, is considered to be situated within the open countryside. Therefore, under policy LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan the proposal is considered to be an ‘Elsewhere’ location. The application is not supported by sufficient justification for dwellings in this location, where development is required to be essential for the effective operation of rural enterprise.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council supported the application, while consultees raised no objections in principle, subject to further details or conditions in some cases.

“Environmental Services - 24.10.25 No objection 5.3. CCC Archaeology – 27.10.25 No objection subject to condition securing scheme of archaeological work 5.4. CCC Highways – 03.11.25 No objection in principle – further details required at technical details stage 5.5. Anglian Water – 18.11.25”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Fifteen residents objected, citing traffic, pedestrian safety, flooding, drainage, privacy, disturbance, visibility and loss of rural character.

“A total of 15no. letters of objection were received from residents of Wisbech Road.”

“Objecting Comments Officer Response Wisbech Road experiences a lot of traffic – HGV’s & Lorries See ‘Other Matters’ Section Development will result in increased traffic movements See ‘Other Matters’ Section Risk to pedestrians from proposed pavements – approximate 45-minute walk to services & facilities See ‘Assessment’ section of report Detriment to visibility of adjacent site access See ‘Other Matters’ Section Loss of rural character See ‘Other Matters’ Section Increased…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised concerns about flooding, traffic, services, utilities and sustainability, while the agent described the proposal as infill between residential properties.

Members’ debate

Members questioned the site’s location, flooding, drainage, cess pits, highway safety, infrastructure, access and whether nine homes were excessive.

“Members asked the following questions: • Councillor Mrs French stated that in front of the proposed development there is a riparian dyke and whilst she appreciates that the application is only for planning in principle, it does need to be taken into serious consideration as does the inclusion of cess pits as there are no main sewers in Westry.”

“Councillor Marks stated he has listened to the views of Councillor Mrs French who is the Ward Councillor and knows the area very well, with planning being about land use and the objector to the proposal highlighted her concerns with regards to the additional vehicles and he also has concerns with regard to the highways and the entry and exit from the site.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors agreed a proposal to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.

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

Minutes