Up to 8 homes at Land West Of 78-88 Station Road, Manea

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to eight dwellings, with access included in the application and the homes shown indicatively as four pairs.

“The application seeks outline planning permission for up to 8 x dwellings with matters committed in respect of access. The proposal site is located at the junction of Station and Wimblington Roads in Manea.”

“PROPOSAL 3.1 The application proposes the erection of up to 8 x dwellings with matters committed in respect of access. A single point of access is applied for towards the northern end of the site which is then shown crossing the ditch around the edge of the site before turning in a north-south direction. The dwellings are indicatively shown to the west of this in four pairs, with tandem parking to the side and rear gardens abutting the western boundary of the site.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The 0.46-hectare agricultural site is at the junction of Station and Wimblington Roads, within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and two earlier applications were refused.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The proposal site consists of a 0.46ha parcel of land located at the corner of Station and Wimblington Roads in Manea. The site is currently agricultural land but has residential development to the North, East and to the South, with scattered agricultural buildings. The site is generally flat and has no trees. There are surface water drains located around the site.”

“The site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 as defined by the Environment Agency maps.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found that alternative sites were available in Manea, so the proposal failed the flood-risk sequential test and did not show wider community benefits.

“The submitted Flood Risk Assessment undertaken by Morton & Hall is accompanied by a separate sequential test. This sets out the sites with planning permission within Manea, it states whether the agents consider the sites are reasonably available and whether they are considered to be at a lower risk of flooding. The sequential test incorrectly asserts that sites for 1 dwelling or 7 or more are not comparable to the proposal and are therefore rejected.”

“The proposal is for up to 8xdwellings and the submitted Sequential Test and Exception Test Report discusses the Exception test. The Report states that the exception test is passed because: o The development would provide wide sustainability benefits to the local village of Manea that would outweigh flood risk.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council objected over drainage and flooding, while highways, environmental health, the Environment Agency and ecology consultees raised no objection subject to matters being addressed.

“Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Authority After a review of the submitted information with this Outline Application with all matters reserved, accept access, I have no objection to the principal of the development.”

“Environment Agency 24/11/25 We have reviewed this Flood Risk Assessment and we are now able to remove our objection to this planning application. Please see further information on flood risk below. Please note our previous comments related to wastewater disposal and water resources from our previous letter remain relevant.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and applicant spoke in support, highlighting smaller homes, affordability, local connections, nearby transport and other development in Flood Zone 3.

What members discussed

Members asked what had changed since the earlier refusals, and the agent said the proposal had changed from larger homes to smaller dwellings.

“Members asked the following questions: • Councillor Mrs French stated that there had been two previous applications, one in March 2024 for four dwellings refused and November 2022 for four dwellings which was also refused and she asked for clarification as to what has changed since the last application was refused in 2024, particularly now the number of dwellings has doubled.”

“Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows: • Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.7 of the officer’s report relating to the Middle Level Commissioners and stated that if planning permission is granted it does not necessarily mean that it will get built out as there are strict rules with regards to the 9-metre access strip.”

Minutes

The committee vote

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

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

Minutes

The decision and reason

The application was refused because the site had a high flood probability, the sequential and exception tests were not met, and flooding risks lacked justification.

“The site is located within Flood Zone 3 where there is a high probability of flooding. The Sequential Test for flood risk has not been adequately applied or met and consequently, the application fails to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites with a lower probability of flooding that could accommodate the development. In addition, the Exception Test has also not been passed.”

Officer report