Single-storey bungalow at 60-64 Land North West Of Histon Road, Cottenham

The site and surroundings

The site lies within Cottenham’s development framework, beside the Green Belt, in Flood Zone 1 but within an area affected by surface-water flooding.

“The site is located within the Cottenham development framework boundary and is adjacent to the Green Belt, which extends to the northwest (rear) of the site. The site is located in flood zone 1 (low risk) and an area of identified surface water flooding.”

“The site is accessed from an existing access which serves the former Cottenham Saw Mills and garages to the rear of the dwellings along Histon Road. The former Timber Mill is located to the northwest of the site. Officers note that the Timber Mill is currently closed and there is an application pending consideration on it for the development on the site including No. 56 to the east of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier outline permission for one dwelling expired, while later applications for two dwellings were refused or withdrawn.

“Reference Description Outcome S/3054/18/OL Outline Planning Application for Residential Dwelling with all Matters Reserved except for Access Withdrawn S/1930/19/OL Outline planning permission for one dwelling, all matters reserved except for access (resubmission of S/3054/18) Permitted 20/01562/REM Approval of matters reserved for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline planning permission S/1930/19/OL for the erection of one dwelling Refused…”

“Outline permission with all matters reserved except for access, was approved for one dwelling on this site in 2019. This permission was not implemented and therefore is no longer extant. As such, this permission holds limited weight in terms of establishing the principle of residential development within this site. Subsequently, 2no two storey dwellings have…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions, considering the design, neighbouring amenity, highways, ecology, trees and drainage acceptable.

“The proposal is in a sustainable location and is acceptable in principle subject to the proposal’s impact on the character and appearance of the area and impact on neighbouring and future occupiers.”

“Surface water drainage implications of the application have been assessed within the report and subject to conditions are considered to be acceptable.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected over surface-water flooding, while highways, drainage, ecology, environmental health and trees officers raised no objections subject to conditions where applicable.

“Objection and called into Committee. Concerns regarding the surface water flooding. County Highways Development Management - No Objection…”

“The site proposes permeable paving out falling through a flow control device to an Old West Internal Drainage Board Drain and foul water will connect to the existing foul water system. Conditions are recommended regarding Surface and Foul Water Drainage and flood resilient build. Ecology Officer - No Objection…”

Officer report

Objections received

Objectors raised concerns about flooding, drainage, character, density, amenity, highway safety, access, trees, biodiversity and housing need.

“Those in objection have raised the following issues: • Character, appearance and scale • Density and overdevelopment • No identified housing need • Residential amenity impact (noise and disturbance, light pollution) • Highway safety • Drainage and flooding • Green Belt • Land Ownership • Waste Collection • Right of Way access • Publication of the application • Biodiversity…”

“Drainage and Flooding Risk • No identified Housing Need • Character of Location • Road Safety • Boundary treatments/Right of Access • Access • Trees • Comments that both this application and application 25/00054/REM wish to discharge into nearby drain and refer to comments by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) on adjoining application. • Policy H/16”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors, a parish council representative and a local district councillor addressed the committee against the application.

What members debated

Members considered neighbouring properties, flood assessment information, flood compensation, flood-proofing, and whether the garden could provide suitable amenity space.

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. The impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties. ii. The information and data included in the Flood Risk Assessment and subsequent Addendum updates.”

“Planning Committee Wednesday, 10 December 2025 iii. The effectiveness of flood compensation/mitigation measures proposed. iv. The need to flood proof a new house. v. The ability to use the garden as an amenity space and flood risk.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the flood measures were not shown to mitigate impacts fully and the garden would not provide acceptable amenity space.

“Councillor Heather Williams proposed, and Councillor Peter Sandford seconded refusal of the application and provided planning reasons. Following a short adjournment, officers having heard the debate, drafted the first reason for refusal. The second reason for refusal was further put forward by the Committee. Both reasons for refusal are set out below: 1.”

“By unanimous vote, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons: • The proposed development has failed to demonstrate, through the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, that the flood compensation measures would be able to fully mitigate surface water flooding impacts upon the adjacent neighbouring properties and surrounding areas.”

Minutes