The council described the designs as ‘bland’ and ‘repetitive’
Plans to build nearly 30 homes in a small village with “limited services” have been refused. The Cambridge Housing Society submitted plans to East Cambridgeshire District Council to build 27 affordable homes on land west of Ely Road in Little Thetford.
The homes proposed were 23 rented and four shared ownership homes. These included: six one-bed flats, three one-bed bungalows, seven two-bed houses, a pair of two-bed houses, four two-bed bungalows, four three-bed houses and one four-bed house.
The housing association said the plans provide “100% affordable housing” with a “balanced mix” of “high quality” homes. These plans have now been refused by the council.
In stating its decision for refusal, the council said that the “affordable housing need for Little Thetford had been assessed and met through a previously approved scheme”.
The council added: “The application site is adjacent to Little Thetford, however, the village has very limited services and facilities, resulting in residents having to leave the village for the majority of their daily needs.”
The council also said the plans would cause “harm to the character” of the area. The designs of the homes were also seen as “repetitive and bland”, and would bring “poor quality design into the countryside”.
For anyone who may have moved to these homes, the council thought they would be affected by noise. There was also not enough information on how highways would be affected, as well as “insufficient” information on the watercourse.
Initially after the plans were submitted, they received 48 public comments and these were all objections. On resident in Dewsbury Gardens a junction at the front of the village was “dangerous enough”, and adding more traffic would make it “even more dangerous”.
Another person in Watsons Lane believed there wasn’t a “need” for the homes. One resident in Chapel Close mentioned that the village had “very limited amenities” and an “unreliable bus service”.
They added: “With the addition of 27 dwellings and 61 parking spaces within the development this would cause significant congestion to an already dangerous junction which has visibility constraints.”