InPost locker at 1 - 3 Commercial Road, March
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Fenland Planning Committee on 27 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission for an InPost Locker beside the industrial building.
“The application is for the installation of an InPost Locker. The proposal is retrospective.”
“PROPOSAL 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of an InPost Locker. The proposal is retrospective.”
Officer report
The site and its history
The corner site contains a large industrial building beside grassed amenity land, with earlier permissions for a factory extension and storage warehouse use.
“The application site is a corner plot consisting of a large industrial building. The site is located on Commercial Road and the proposal is located adjacent to the grassed amenity land set between the site and Hundred Road.”
“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is a large industrial building located on Commercial Road in March. No.1-3 is located on a corner plot and also adjacent to Hundred Road.”
Officer report
Why officers recommended refusal
Officers found the design and residential effects acceptable but considered transport information, parking, turning and pedestrian access insufficient to demonstrate highway safety.
“Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios’.”
“CONCLUSIONS 11.1 The proposed development will not adversely impact upon the character of the area, nor will it adversely impact upon neighbouring properties. However, the application is not supported by sufficient transport information to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to the satisfactory functioning of the highway or highway safety.”
Officer report
The committee vote
Councillor Imafidon proposed, [name withheld] seconded and members agreed to grant permission against the officer recommendation.
“Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by [name withheld] and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation.”
Minutes
Why permission was granted
Members considered the proposal accessible, supportive of residents’ health and wellbeing, beneficial as a community facility and not harmful to highway safety.
“Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel in accordance with Policy LP2 it is easily accessible which assists the health and wellbeing of Fenland residents, in accordance with Policy LP6 it is a community facility, which brings benefits to the community and they do not believe that the proposal would impact on highway safety.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The members' reasons are quoted from the minutes above, under “Why permission was granted”.
Sources
- Fenland Planning Committee minutes, 27 May 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Fenland's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Fenland Planning Committee
- Council
- Fenland
- Date
- Wednesday 27 May 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Approved, against officer advice
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Fenland committee decisions →
This committee's year
84 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 45 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.