Committee hears of 18 objections to bungalow plan in March but also hear of 10 letters of support before deciding to refuse it

Mill Hill Lane, March, where three bungalows planned for this site have been refused by Fenland Coun

Mill Hill Lane, March, where three bungalows planned for this site have been refused by Fenland Council planning committee. Picture; APPLICANT - Credit: Archant

Eighteen objections were considered by Fenland District Council planning committee to proposals for up to three bungalows to the rear of 6 and 7 Mill Hill Lane, March.

All were concerned about the level of housing in the Mill Hill Lane area being too intensive and the access to the proposed houses not being adequate.

But the planning committee – that refused the application – also heard there were 10 ten letters of support for this application.

The committee was told by officers of concerns in respect of the amenities which fall well below council guidelines, the bin storage and collection areas being a long way from each bungalow.

Speaking as agent to the applicant, Matthew Hall said: “This application was submitted in accord with all council planning policy and has received no objections from highways, environmental health or any of the neighbours to the plot.

“The applicant currently owns and lives at No.7 Mill Hill Lane and considers the plot to be nothing but unproductive land crying out for a development of this nature.

“Both he and the owner of the property at No.6 Mill Hill Lane have the same bin storage and collection amenities and neither have raised any objections, so we have no idea where your 18 objectors come from, but would draw your attention to the ten persons who did not object to the application.”

Most Read

Cllr Peter Murphy (Conservative, Wenneye Ward Chatteris) wanted to know if the 18 objections had come from within the same ward, and was told they come from Knights End Road, Cavalry Drive, Cavalry Park, Wisbech Road, Uphill Road, Mill Hill Lane and Monument View.

Cllr Anne Hay (Conservative, The Mills Ward Chatteris) said: “It is all well and good stating that the owner of No.7 doesn’t object – he is the applicant – but what happens when he sells his house and the new occupants have this restricted access, bin storage and collection point at the top of their drive?

“No, the space is just too small. If this was a fresh planning application for No.7 to be built it would struggle.”

Cllr Ian Benney (Conservative, Birch Ward Chatteris) added: “We require specific amenity specs for bin storage and collection for a reason, and this proposal is more than twice the distance to that point.

“Access to the proposed bungalows is quite inappropriate, and while it may not concern the applicant at No.7 now, what about the future when somebody else moves in?”

This application was refused by majority decision.

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter