March man refused permission to fell trees to make way for executive style housing
A MARCH man has been refused permission to fell more than half the 55 trees behind his home – on what was formerly a derelict poultry site- to make way for five executive style houses.
Hilton Fisher was told the proposed development “would represent the irreparable loss of existing trees, hedgerows and other landscaping features.”
Fenland District Council Planning Committee accepted their officers’ views that the proposals be rejected.
Councillors were also concerned that Mr Fisher had only brought forward part of the site behind Orchard Lodge, Jobs Lane, to avoid having to sign a section 106 agreement. Had he proposed using the whole site and building more houses he would have been required to contribute to local education or other community needs through the 106 planning gain legislation.
The council’s arboriculture officer described the loss of trees on the site as “significant” and nine residents also argued allowing the development.
You may also want to watch:
The county council’s archaeology team also had concerns about the housing, claiming the site lies “in an area of high archaeological activity”
Their spokesman said: “We consider the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation and recommend that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer.”
- 1 Bombshell result in village polls leaves 115 homes plan in doubt
- 2 Woman claims police officer ‘forced himself’ upon her
- 3 Two mystery sinkholes appear across town during scorching weekend
- 4 Magpas chief executive 'surprised and honoured' by MBE
- 5 Hotel has everything you need for a relaxing staycation
- 6 Van overturns after striking Ely’s infamous ‘most bashed bridge’
- 7 New ditch to relieve flood issues 'more challenging than expected'
- 8 'A crash waiting to happen' say police
- 9 ‘Shift well spent!’: Fen Cops target illegal motorists in day of action
- 10 Tea rooms may become a bedsit
Council officers, in recommending its refusal also noted that “anecdotal evidence would indicate an over supply of executive dwellings for sale in the area.”
They claimed that by not utilising the full potential of the site Mr Fisher was proposing an unacceptable “piecemeal form of development.”