38-home turkey farm redevelopment at Land To The South Of North End, Meldreth

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought to demolish the turkey farm and build up to 38 dwellings with associated landscaping, with only access decided now.

“25/00566/OUT – Land to the South of North End, Meldreth Application details Report to: Planning Committee Lead Officer: Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development Ward/parish: Melbourn/Meldreth Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved, except for access, for the demolition of the existing turkey farm and the redevelopment for up to 38 dwellings and associated landscaping.”

“Report contents Document section Document heading 1 Executive summary 2 Site description and context 3 The proposal 4 Relevant site history 5 Policy 6 Consultations 7 Third party representations 8 Assessment 9 Principle of development 10 Agricultural land quality and soils 11 Housing provision 12 Design, layout, scale and landscaping 13 Trees 14 Heritage assets 15 Carbon reduction and sustainable design 16 Biodiversity 17 Water management and flood risk 18 Highway safety and…”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The 2.3-hectare working farm lies outside but immediately beside the village framework, near homes, footpaths, heritage assets and Grade 2 agricultural land.

“The site is approximately 2.3ha and lies outside of, but immediately adjacent to the Meldreth Development Framework. The Meldreth Conservation Area is nearby and the site is in proximity to some listed buildings including the Church of Holy Trinity which is Grade I and Mill House and Topcliffes Mill (No.36 North End) both of which are Grade II. The site lies on Grade 2 Agricultural Land.”

“The site boundary includes part of the nearby residential property at No.44 North End and it borders other residential properties (Nos.42 and 56 to 62 (evens) North End) to the north. The site also includes part of the public highway. To the west lies paddocks and a moat. To the east lies a small area of open land including some trees and a tennis court which is believed to be connected to one of the residential properties.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and discussions

There was no relevant site history, although the applicant held pre-application discussions and took the scheme to a Design Review Panel.

“The application has been amended to address representations, and further consultations have been carried out as appropriate. The amendments include alterations to the design code and parameter plan, alterations to the access plan along with the submission of a Housing Needs Assessment. Relevant site history 4.1 There is no relevant site history on the site.”

“The applicant has sought pre-application discussions with the Local Planning Authority on the scheme. As part of these discussions, the application also went to Design Review Panel. A copy of the Design Review Panel’s response is attached at appendix 2. 5.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because limited countryside harm and moderate housing-related harm were outweighed by housing, biodiversity, character and removal-of-nuisance benefits.

“The amount of development would greatly exceed the recommended 8 dwellings within a Group Village. However, as Meldreth is in close proximity to Melbourn which is considered a minor rural centre, and benefits from a train station serving Cambridge and London, Officers consider that Meldreth is one of the more sustainable Group Villages. Officers consider that up to 38 dwellings would make the best use of the site.”

“The proposal would result in additional housing, 40% of which would be affordable. As the Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing supply and the quantum of affordable housing is the minimum that is required by policy, this only attracts limited benefits.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three people, including the ward member, spoke against the application, and the agent spoke for it.

The committee vote

The committee approved the application by nine votes in favour and one against.

“By 9 votes in favour (Cllrs Bradnam, M. Cahn, A. Cahn, Garvie, Hawkins, Redrup, Rixon, Sandford, Wilson) and 1 vote against (Cllr R.Williams), the Committee approved the application subject to: • the planning conditions as set out in the officer’s report with minor amendments to…”

“Planning Committee Wednesday, 9 July 2025 the conditions as drafted delegated to officers; with • an amendment to conditions 17 and 19 to add ‘in perpetuity’; and • an additional condition that notwithstanding the parameter plan to restrict the height of two storey properties to 8 metres and to restrict the height of two and a half storey properties to 10 metres; and • the addition of a compliance condition regarding the construction of the access and the main route through…”

Minutes