Two self-build homes at Land South Of Woodlands, 20D Primrose Hill, Doddington

The site and surroundings

The site is outside Doddington’s settlement footprint, in cultivated woodland beside homes, commercial development, fields and nearby flood zones.

“The application site is located outside of the settlement footprint of Doddington. The site is situated to the east of Primrose Hill and is in cultivated woodland use. Adjacent development consists of dwellings at 22a and 22b Primrose Hill to the south of site, a replacement dwelling named Wildwood to the west, as well as a commercial development named The Quadrant.”

“The site is bordered by a 1 metre high timber post and rail fence to the south, beyond which is the driveway which serves 22b Primrose Hill. A 1 metre high timber post and rail fence borders the rear of the site to the east, with an established area of trees to the western site frontage. The site is bordered by an established area of trees and lines of infant trees to the north. A drain is located with the established areas of trees along the western site frontage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was detached from the settlement, would urbanise open countryside and had no rural enterprise justification.

“Under Policies LP3 and LP12 of the Fenland Local Plan, the site is considered to be in an ‘Elsewhere’ location, where new housing is only supported if it is demonstrably essential to a rural-based enterprise. No such justification has been provided. The development would therefore be in direct conflict with the settlement hierarchy and spatial strategy of the Local Plan.”

“The site is visually and physically detached from the main settlement and would result in the urbanisation of open countryside, with associated harm to rural character.”

Officer report

Other planning concerns

The amount of development was considered acceptable, but the location and self-build description created fundamental policy and procedural objections.

“As per Policy LP3, development not falling into one of the categories set out in the settlement hierarchy will fall into the “elsewhere” category and will be restricted to that which is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation, transport or utility services or to minerals and waste development.”

“The application seeks Permission in Principle for two dwellings on a site of 0.38ha which will equate to a density of approximately 5 dwellings per hectare. The proposal site is in a remote location with only sporadic dwellings in the vicinity which are located in larger plots. More intensive development in this rural location is not considered to be appropriate. The detailed layout and design will be for consideration at the Technical details stage.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, highways raised visibility concerns, environmental health had no objections, and six letters supported the proposal.

“The Environmental Health Team note and accept the submitted information and have ‘No Objections’ to the proposal, as it is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on local air quality, adversely impact the local amenity due to excessive artificial lighting or to be affected by ground contamination.”

Officer report

The applicant spoke

The applicant said nearby sites had been supported, the site had low flood risk, visibility splays were achievable and the proposal could be addressed later.

Members discussed deferral

Members considered whether an appeal decision about permission in principle and self-build dwellings should be obtained and assessed before deciding the application.

“Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows: • Councillor Benney asked whether it would be possible to see the appeal decision that [name withheld] had referred to? The Legal Officer indicated that it could not be seen.”

“LP12? Matthew Leigh advised that no debate today can predetermine the eventual committee decision if the application is returned so members would simply have to debate it again when it was brought back. He stated that there would, therefore, be no point in debating it today if it is to be deferred.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

The committee agreed to defer the application after a proposal by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks.

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be DEFERRED.”

Minutes