Seven dwellings at Land East Of 50 Station Road, Manea

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to seven dwellings on paddock land, with an indicative shared access road and layout.

“This application seeks Permission in Principle (PiP) for the development of seven dwellings on Land East of 50 Station Road, outside the developed footprint of Manea.”

“A location plan and an indicative site layout (although not a requirement of a PiP application) accompany this submission. The indicative site layout proposes a new 5.5 metre wide shared access road in the south-west corner of the site leading to seven dwellings on paddock land to the rear of existing frontage dwellings along Station Road.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site lies outside Manea’s settlement footprint, behind Station Road, with agricultural land nearby, open boundaries and Flood Zone 3 covering the area.

“The application site is located outside of the settlement footprint of Manea. The site is situated immediately to the east of the built-up settlement and is in use as a paddock. Adjacent development consists of frontage dwellings along Station Road to the west, agricultural buildings to the north and arable fields to the east and south. The site is bordered by fencing of varying heights to the west, with established trees and hedging to the northern boundary.”

“The site and surrounding area lies entirely within Flood Zone 3. The eastern extent of the site is subject to a low, medium and high annual likelihood surface water flooding.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the backland development would urbanise the countryside, harm the rural and linear character, and fail to show that lower-risk flood sites were unavailable.

“The application site does adjoin Station Road to the west and as such would be adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village in accordance with criteria (a) above. However, the rear garden of 50 Station Road is considered to denote the edge of the settlement.”

“The site lies entirely within Flood Zone 3. However, it is considered that insufficient assessment has been undertaken and inadequate information submitted to demonstrate that it is not possible for the development to be located on a site with a lower risk of flooding. The application is accompanied by a sequential test which is limited to Manea. This is in line with the Council’s guidance on the area of search for Growth Villages and is agreed.”

Officer report

What residents said

Fifteen communications objected over flooding, drainage, access, character and residential impacts, while 11 communications supported housing, services and transport benefits.

“Objecting Comments Officer Response Impact from raised 2.1 metre finished floor levels Addressed in the Location section. Surface water and foul water flooding Addressed in the Location section. Highway safety Addressed in the Location section. Access and parking Addressed in the Location section. Adverse impact on residential amenity Addressed in the Location section. Impact on existing services Addressed in the Use section. Loss of view Addressed in the Use section.”

“Supporting Comments Officer Response Close to local services and public transport. Addressed in the Location section. The proposed access would be uncongested. Addressed in the Location section. Would not involve the use of farming land. Addressed in the Use section. This end of Manea can support more development. Addressed in the Use section. No wildlife impact. Addressed in Matters Raised During Consultation section.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent said flooding and drainage could be addressed later, argued that backland development had precedents, and asked members to support the scheme.

What members debated

Members discussed flooding, foul-water capacity, highway access, overdevelopment and whether earlier schemes justified this backland proposal.

“Members asked [name withheld] the following questions: • Councillor Marks referred to the comment made by [name withheld] in which he was referred to, and explained that Poppyfields is a development which is located by Wisbech Road. He explained that he has been involved with flooding throughout the whole village and he organised a meeting with Anglian Water which Councillor Mrs French also attended to raise the various flooding issues that Manea suffers from.”

“He stated that the highways have been considered and it is likely that the road would not be offered for adoption and it will be a private road and the visibility splays can all be achieved as that has been reviewed almost as if it was an outline application just committing the access due to the fact that access is the key driver when considering this type of scheme.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Marks proposed refusal, Councillor Mrs French seconded it, and members agreed to follow the officer recommendation.

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

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because the location and use would cause unacceptable urbanisation and countryside harm, with inadequate flood-risk assessment.

“Development of this site would result in unacceptable urbanisation of this rural location, constituting backland development in the countryside. It would erode the character of the area and the wider open countryside contrary to criteria c, d and e of Policy LP12 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014).”

“The application is not accompanied by a substantive sequential test and as such insufficient assessment has been undertaken and inadequate information…”

Officer report