One self-build dwelling at Roman Bank, Newton-in-the-Isle

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission, with access committed, for one self-build or custom-build dwelling.

“Erect of 1x self-build/custom build dwelling (outline with matters committed in respect of access)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The generally undeveloped site lies outside Newton-in-the-Isle’s main built form, between homes, near commercial buildings and agricultural land.

“The application site is located on Land North of The Chestnuts, Roman Bank, outside the main built form of Newton-in-the-isle.”

“The site is currently generally undeveloped but has some domestic paraphernalia on it. The site lies within in between existing residential dwellings on each side, with close boarded timber fencing on the northern and southern boundary. The boundary of the site fronting onto Roman Bank currently has heras fencing along it. Further south of the site are some industrial/commercial buildings. 2.3.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

A previous dwelling application was refused in 2017, while later outline and reserved matters permissions for a dwelling south of the site were approved.

“F/YR17/0365/O Erection of a dwelling (outline application with all matters reserved) Refused 19.06.17 F/YR17/1167/O Erection of a dwelling (outline application with all matters reserved) Grant 26.04.18 F/YR19/0226/RM Reserved Matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to F/YR17/1167/O Approved 27.09.19”

Officer report

Other planning effects

Officers considered amenity, flood risk, drainage, parking and highway safety acceptable, subject to relevant matters being addressed through conditions or later design.

“It is therefore considered that the principle of developing the site for residential purposes in respect of residential amenity provision and impacts is acceptable in accordance with Policy LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014). Flood Risk and Drainage 10.22. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is at very low risk of surface water flooding.”

“It is proposed that the development is served via an access point off the public highway of Roman Bank. The proposed access was previously considered and approved under the Reserved Matters application F/YR19/0226/RM. The Highway Authority have considered the proposal and have raised no objections on Highway Safety grounds, subject to conditions to ensure suitable construction of the access. 10.25.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

The parish council and consultees raised no objections, while six residents’ letters supported the proposal as infill with limited countryside impact.

“No objection subject to condition securing scheme of archaeological work 5.5 National Gas Transmission – 06.01.26 Site is outside the High Risk zone and can proceed. North Level Drainage Board – 08.01.26 No objection 5.7 Local Residents/Interested Parties A total of 6no. letters of support were received on the application from residents of Newton and Leverington. The following points were raised:”

“Supporting Comments Officer Response Site between existing properties See ‘Principle of development’ section New residents will have a positive impact on local businesses See ‘Principle of development’ section Will have little impact on the open countryside See ‘Character and appearance’ section…”

Officer report

What the speakers said

The agent and applicant said the dwelling was sustainable infill, supported local needs, had technical support and would provide a future home for the applicant’s family.

Members’ discussion

Several members viewed the site as infill within the settlement, while officers questioned whether it formed part of Newton’s continuous built form under policy.

“David Rowen stated that if members wish to grant the application, it is within members’ gift and if they wish to view it as an infill plot that is members judgement, however, he is not sure looking at the aerial photo that it could be deemed that this is within the settlement of Newton and, therefore, is an infill plot for the purposes of LP3, with that interpretation being an incorrect one of the policy.”

“He continued that there is a definition within LP12 within the footnote which defines what the continuous built form of a settlement is, and it excludes groups of buildings which are clearly divorced from the main part of the settlement as there is here.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Benney proposed, and Councillor Mrs French seconded, granting permission against the officer recommendation with delegated authority for the agreement and conditions.

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to formulate the unilateral agreement and apply appropriate conditions in consultation with Councillors Benney and [name withheld].”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission because members considered LP3 open to interpretation, the site within the settlement and the proposal compliant with LP16.

“Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that Policy LP3 is open to interpretation and they do consider the site lies within the settlement and it does comply with LP16 as it would provide a positive contribution to the area.”

Minutes