One worker dwelling and two farm buildings at Land At School Grounds Farm School Grounds, March

What was proposed

The application sought a worker dwelling, a new agricultural building and retention of an existing agricultural building.

“The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of 1no. worker dwelling, the erection of a building and retention of an existing building for agricultural purposes. The submission detail fails to demonstrate that there is an essential need for a rural worker dwelling on site in terms of the responsibilities of the worker to live on site, nor that there are not alternatively available properties in the area that could fulfil this need.”

“Therefore, there is an unacceptable and unmitigated risk of flooding associated with the development, contrary to Policy LP14 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014) and Chapter 14 of the NPPF (2024). The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Local and National Planning Policy and is unacceptable in planning terms. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission is refused in this instance.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site was a rural farmyard reached by a long agricultural track, with agricultural land around it and most of the site in Flood Zone 3.

“The application site is located on land at School Grounds Farm, March. The site is accessed via a long agricultural track (approximately 1km in length) that runs to the north of Creek Road, situated between a residential property and a poultry farm.”

“The site is approximately 750m as the crow flies from the nearest edge of the built form of March. The site currently comprises 2no. barn style buildings of metal construction, one with a regular pitched roof, the other in the style of a nissen hut. The land on which the buildings are situated forms part of a “yard”, with the location of the proposed dwelling immediately to the south of this on a parcel of agricultural land. 2.3.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An agricultural storage building was previously accepted as requiring no further details, while an earlier dwelling and agricultural building application was refused.

“F/YR21/0624/AG1 Erect an agricultural storage building with concrete apron Further details not required 06.07.21 F/YR24/0999/F Erect 1 x dwelling and 1 x agricultural building and the retention of existing agricultural building Refused 07.03.25”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found no essential need for a worker to live on site, alternative properties were available, the dwelling harmed the open countryside, and the flood sequential test failed.

“On this basis, there are a significant number of alternative properties available that could be purchased, and as such it is considered that Criterion e) is failed. Finally, in respect of criterion f), the proposed dwelling as a 2-storey, 3-bed property is not excessive in scale in relation to the enterprise that it would serve. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 10.22.”

“For proposals that demonstrate a clear objective to sustain particular settlements or the countryside, the area of search will be: - For developments within or adjacent to Market Towns and Growth Villages, the area of search will normally be limited to land within or adjacent to the settlement in which the development is proposed.”

Officer report

Consultation and local views

The town council supported the application, several bodies raised no objection, and objections concerned access, flooding, countryside development, security evidence and traffic.

“March Town Council – 04.11.25 Recommendation; Approval 5.2. Environment Agency – 23.10.25 No objection 5.3. Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology – 24.10.25 No objection subject to condition securing scheme of archaeological work 5.4. Environmental Health – 26.10.25 No objection 5.5. Councillor Paul Hicks – 05.11.25 Objects- Inadequate access, and site in Flood Zone 3 5.6.”

“Narrow roads with no passing places See ‘Parking Provision and Highway Safety’ Section HGV’s using roads at unsociable hours See ‘Amenity Impact’ Section Danger to pedestrians and other users of highway See ‘Parking Provision and Highway Safety’ Section Large parts of land owned by applicant are away from site See ‘Principle of development’ Section Site in Flood Zone 3 See ‘Flood Risk and Drainage’ Section Unauthorised non-agricultural activities taking place on site See…”

Officer report

Who spoke

District councillors, an objecting resident and the agent addressed members about security, farming, traffic, flooding, countryside impact and the claimed need for the dwelling.

Members’ debate

Members questioned the crime evidence, storage and fire risks, machinery, alternative security, crop movements, road capacity and the effect on residents.

“Members asked questions of Councillor Count as follows: • Councillor Marks expressed the view that the crux of this seems to be around crime and reference has been made to an e-mail, does Councillor Count have a copy of that e-mail saying there are no crime numbers? Councillor Count responded in the affirmative and with the permission of the Chairman it can be circulated.”

“[name withheld] expressed the opinion that 2½ thousand tonnes of crop storage is a minimum of 337 HGV movements passing their doors with no limitations and on-site crop storage will effectively double and, therefore, so will heavy HGV traffic. He feels the scale of the development is excessive compared to the actual size of the site, which is effectively a small holding and this amount of traffic will have a detrimental effect on so many local lives on a daily basis.”

Minutes