One custom-build dwelling at Land East Of 26 Turf Fen Lane, Doddington

What was proposed

The application proposed one three-storey, detached self-build or custom-build dwelling with parking, turning space and private amenity space.

“The proposed dwelling would be a 3-storey, detached L-shaped dwelling with accommodation situated within the roof space. The dwelling would have a width of 16 metres approx and a depth of 12.4 metres approx. The roof proposed would be pitched with an eaves height of 5.4 metres approx and a ridge height of 10.2 metres approx.”

“The dwelling is proposed to be accessed by a gravel driveway between No. 4 and 5 May Meadows, with parking and turning space situated to the front of the dwelling. Private amenity space is proposed to the rear of the dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site was garden land east of 26 Turf Fen Lane, accessed from May Meadows and situated within Flood Zone 1.

“The application site is situated to the east of No. Turf Fen Lane, within the settlement of Doddington.”

“The site is accessed off May Meadows and is situated to the south of 3 and 4 May Meadows and currently comprises garden land associated with No. Turf Fen Lane and is partially bound by close boarded fences and post and rail fencing.”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

An earlier proposal for two dwellings was refused and dismissed at appeal, with concerns about amenity and flooding but not the site’s character.

“There are a number of applications within the immediate vicinity of the site relating to the wider May Meadows development. There are currently 6 dwellings along May Meadows, with extant outline permission for 2 further dwellings. The following history relates to the current the site itself:”

“Reference Description Decision F/YR25/0010/O Erect 2 x self- build/custom dwellings (outline application with matters committed in respect of access and layout) Refused 26/02/2025 Appeal Dismissed 15/08/2025”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered that reducing the scheme to one dwelling, moving it further from a neighbour and placing it in Flood Zone 1 overcame earlier concerns.

“This application has reduced the quantum of development proposed and re- positioned the proposed dwelling further away from the boundary of No. May Meadows, which is considered to have overcome the residential amenity issues raised on the previous application.”

“The re-positioning of the proposed dwelling within the site and the reduction of the red-line boundary of the site has resulted in the site being contained within Flood Zone 1. As such, this has overcome the flood risk issues previously raised.”

Officer report

What people said

An objector challenged the dwelling’s scale, amenity effects and access, while the applicant said the earlier concerns had been resolved.

Members’ debate

Members questioned whether the proposal was backland development and raised concerns about access, refuse vehicles, lighting, scale and consistency with the appeal decision.

“Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows: • Councillor Marks stated he is really surprised as has concerns about the access having heard about the refuse vehicle and he feels that it still looks like back land development. He does not understand how anyone can say that is not back land development, there is 26 Turf Fen Lane but then it is just opening that whole section up for further development.”

“Councillor Marks questioned what the Inspector was looking at following the Head of Planning reading from the appeal report as, in his view, a lot of this does not ring true to what is there as, in his view, it can blatantly be seen that it is back land development and what is more concerning is that once one dwelling is there it will open up the remaining land to be developed.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application against the officer recommendation, deciding that it was backland development with poor access, no community benefit and unsuitable scale and design.

“Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Connor and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation, with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.”

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as they feel the proposal is back land development, it offers no amenities or community benefit, the roadway in and out of the site is poor and the scale and design of the dwelling are not in keeping with the area.”

Minutes