Plans for ‘prime’ Doddington site rejected over property numbers, flooding concerns and lack of community benefit

Concerns of overdevelopment, the impact on a Grade II listed building and a lack of benefit to the community led to councillors rejecting plans for 14 bungalows on a ‘prime site’ in a Fenland village.

Flooding was also a worry over the plans by Construct Reason Ltd for the homes on land north of 43-54 High Street, Doddington, when it was discussed by Fenland’s planning committee on Wednesday.

Ruth Hufton, chair of Doddington Parish Council, addressed the meeting and pointed out the village had already met its target of 127 homes as set out in the current local plan with 196 already being built.

She also told councillors that lack of viability meant there were no affordable homes included in the application.

Ms Hufton also criticised the developer’s claims that the bungalows would lend themselves to those looking to downsize and said Doddington already has an inbalance of older residents and really needs affordable homes to attract and retain younger people in the village.

She outlined the wildlife that currently lives on the land and said the applicant’s proposals did not offer much to mitigate the loss of this wildlife.

“There is a wildlife pond proposed, but who will maintain this?” she asked, adding it would become covered in weed and be a nursery for mosquitoes.

Ms Hufton was also concerned about the impact the development would have on the Grade II listed building, which she said is including in her late partner’s will and has been left to the benefit of the village when anything happens to her.

She said it offered itself to be a wildlife park which would be great for the village school children.

Councillor Charlie Marks raised concerns about the number of proposed properties.

He suggested the site was prime for development, but the number of properties was too many and was also concerned about flooding.

Cllr Marks said: “I believe officers have got this 101 per cent right and I will go with their recommendation for refusal.”

His views were echoed by fellow committee members including Councillor Jan French who said: “It is prime for development, but not 14,”

Councillor Sidney Imafidon, who proposed the committee go with the recommendation to refuse, pointed out that a neighbouring development had been left with unadoptable roads and questioned how the committee could be certain this would not happen with this development.

Officers recommended refusal and stated their reasons for that: “The proposed development by reason of the loss of the open character of the site and its proximity to the adjacent Grade II Listed mill and the conservation area, fails to preserve the significance of the settings of these heritage assets.

“The proposal causes less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets and there are insufficient public benefits to the scheme which would outweigh the harm caused.

“As such the proposal is contrary to policies LP16 (a) and LP18 of the Fenland Local Plan which require the preservation of heritage assets and their settings; and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

All but one of the committee’s members voted in favour of refusal with Councillor Ian Benney abstaining.