8 custom-build homes at Land R/O, 94 High Street, Meldreth

“Recommendation: Refusal of application 24/03389/FUL. The proposal 2.1. This application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting held on 12th March 2025. At that meeting a number of points of concern were raised by members of the committee which resulted in the application being deferred. The extract from the minute is identified under (a - c) below. 2.3.”

“The proposed amended description reads as “erection of 8no custom build dwellings”. The change to the description was confirmed by the applicant via email on the 16 April 2025.”

“Officers acknowledges that under Paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024) highlights the need for different groups in the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including “people wishing to commission or build their own homes”.”

“In both appeals of the Caxton and Orwell appeals, both Inspectors considered that the proposal was considered to be sustainable/closely linked to the village with an acceptable visual impact and the self-build provision outweighed the harm created by departure from the development plan. 4.15.”

“The previous Officers Report recommended nine reasons for refusal. Reasons 1, 6 and 7 have been overcome following the additional information, and amendments to the proposed development therefore these have fallen away. However, reasons 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 have not been overcome and have been reimposed. Condition 4 has partially been overcome, the concern only relate to tree (T7) which would be affected by the development. 5.3.”

“The scale, location, intensification of residential use and the attendant domestic paraphernalia of the proposed dwellings would be at odds with the rural setting and will not preserve or enhance the conservation area and would harm the setting of the Grade II Listed Building of no.94 High Street. No public benefits have been demonstrated to seek to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.”

“Third Party Representations 3.3. 3no. additional representations have been received since the deferral of the application. The 2no. in objection have raised the following issues: • Car parking pressures on the High Street • Increase in traffic and highway safety • Lack of information within the Viability Report • The Viability Report only takes into account 5plots rather the 8o. Plots; the remaining 3 free plots with market value.”

“There is one support of the application, the following comments are: • Good addition to the village and provides much needed additional housing options for the village.”

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. Noted that the proposal was for 8 custom build dwellings. Noted the viability information which had been provided. Commented that once a pub closed it was more difficult for them to re-open. Believed this application was in a more sustainable location for custom build dwellings compared with other developments which had been granted permission. Noted the listed building.”

“By 3 votes in favour (Councillors Anna Bradnam, Corinne Garvie, Peter Sandford), 3 votes against (Councillors Henry Batchelor, Peter Fane, Heather Williams) and 1 abstention (Councillor Tumi Hawkins) and on the Chair’s casting vote, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons:”