Four detached homes at Glass House Retreat, Harrow Road, Bulphan

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for four detached homes and a new access road from Harrow Road, with all other matters reserved.

“PROPOSAL: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for a residential development (C3) of four dwellings, including new access road…”

“Outline planning permission with all matters reserved seeking approval for the erection of four detached dwellings, including the formation of a new access road leading to Harrow Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The rural site is open green land in the Metropolitan Green Belt, with hedgerows, trees, nearby development and surrounding Fenland landscape.

“The proposal would provide dwellings on land to the northeast of the Glass House Retreat, a weight loss and wellness centre, which falls within the same ownership but does not form part of the application site. The site falls within Metropolitan Green Belt, the RAMS zone and Flood Zones 2 and 1.”

“The site currently hosts an open green area benefitting from existing established boundary treatment in the form of hedgerows and some trees. Whilst set back from Fen Lane, the site is visible from the public realm given the Fenland topography of the site and wider area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The site formed part of land associated with the approved Glass House Retreat, while several nearby or related applications had also been approved.

“The application site was approved as an area of open meadow land associated with the Glass House Retreat (under discharge of condition 6 of consent ref. 16/01446/FUL in application ref.17/00376/CONDC in September 2017).”

“17/00854/NMA Application for a proposed non- material amendment to amend of planning permission ref. 16/01446/FUL (Demolition of former public house and restaurant and erection of a weight loss and wellness centre (with 21 rooms) and associated access improvements, parking and landscaping.) Approved 17/01506/FUL Proposed ancillary residential detached dwelling with non-adjoining double garage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal was inappropriate Green Belt development, was unsustainable, and its benefits did not outweigh the harm.

“Overall, the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt on a site that meets the definition of grey belt but not of Previously Developed Land, and is in a location that is not sustainably accessible, and which would cause a significant loss of openness.”

“The crucial consideration here is whether the applicant’s case for Very Special Circumstances clearly outweighs the in-principle harm due to the inappropriateness of the development and the harm arising from the loss of openness resulting from an increase in the access hardstanding. In concluding this section, each circumstance put forward by the applicant attempts to redress that balance in favour of the development.”

Officer report

Landscape and access concerns

The proposed homes and extensive access hardstanding were considered likely to urbanise the rural setting and harm the Fenland landscape and Green Belt openness.

“The indicative proposed site plans shows that each of the four plots would appear well spaced across the site. Nevertheless, the indicative hard surfaced areas around each of the dwellings appear quite extensive and a dominant feature to each plot.”

“It is considered that by virtue of the significant amount of hardsurfacing required to enable vehicle access from the highway to the site, the indicative layout would not be appropriate for the location given its overly urban appearance. Development in this locality is much more sporadic and well-spaced out.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Highways and flood officers identified matters for design or conditions, while Landscape and Ecology objected because of harm to the Fenland landscape.

“Response received 12.09.2025 – 1. Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment required; Drainage Strategy required; Rainwater harvesting scheme to be submitted; Hydraulic calculations required; Details on exceedance flows to be submitted and; Maintenance and operational plan incorporating revised SuDS scheme is required.”

“Objection, on basis of the harm to the Fenland landscape. In addition, subject to RASM mitigation and BNG.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

The Bulphan Village Community Forum objected on character, flooding, Green Belt, urbanisation, sewage and sewerage-system grounds.

“The application was advertised via individual neighbour letter, newspaper advertisement and a site notice was erected nearby. One written comment of objection has been received from the Chair of the Bulphan Village Community Forum, on behalf of the Forum, outlining the following concerns:”

“- Out of character; - Flood risk concerns have not been fully addressed; - Harms the openness of the surrounding Green Belt and Fenland; - Layout and design would urbanise the area; - No justifiable reason given for this development to take place as does not meet definition of Grey Belt; - Strong sewerage smells around the site since Glass House Retreat has opened; - No assessment on how the development of 4 homes would impact the sewerage system.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant gave a statement and answered questions about local objections, the solar farm and sewage smells.

What members debated

Members debated fairness, business support, landscape harm, solar farms, public transport, footpaths and the need to protect the Green Belt.

“Some Members expressed the view that the recommendation was unfair, emphasising that the proposal was important in enabling the applicant to sustain their business. They considered that the addition of four dwellings would not result in significant harm to the landscape and commented that the nearby solar farms represented a more substantial visual impact.”

“Other Members disagreed and stated that the Committee had a responsibility to protect the Green Belt. They noted that the site was in an unsustainable location with no footpaths, limited connectivity, and no safe walking routes to the village, resulting in a development that would be isolated from the existing settlement.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Chief Planning Officer was given delegated authority to approve the application and agree required conditions, including flood authority conditions.

“That the Chief Planning Officer be granted delegated authority to approve and agree conditions required, including those required by the LFFA.”

Minutes