Plans for ‘self-build’ plots rejected for being too far outside of village

An earlier appeal for 44 homes had been approved nearby

An inspector has rejected plans for up to five homes on the edge of a village due to the “limited scale” of the proposal.

Over Parish Council raised no objections to the plans off Station Road – but South Cambridgeshire District Council refused them for lying outside the Over “development framework”, or area inside the village that’s been earmarked for development.

A supporting statement prepared by KWA Architects on behalf of applicant Chris Whistler, claimed the council couldn’t show a five year housing supply – but they disputed this. Mr Whistler appealed their decision to the Planning Inspectorate, arguing that additional housing in Cambridgeshire “where high growth is forecast over the next few years, is absolutely necessary to meet need”.

He said the plots could also be sold as “self-build units” of which there is currently a shortfall. Inspector E Brownless said they interpreted the application as permission for “a minimum of one” and “maximum of five” homes.

Visiting the site on January 19, they said west of Station Road is “open and predominantly undeveloped” while the other side has clusters of buildings with a “noticeably stronger sense of enclosure and urban influence”.

But they said the two sides don’t share a “consistent character or pattern of development” and the site “makes a significant positive contribution to the rural character and appearance of the area”.

Building there “would unacceptably harm the prevailing spacious verdant character of the area,” they said.

Mr Whistler and KWA argued that appeals had been granted nearby in the past, despite falling outside the Over village limits.

In 2021, a plan for 44 homes off New Road submitted by Abbey Properties was approved on appeal after being refused by the council.

But inspector Brownless thought this was “of limited relevance”, as public views of this area “would be restricted by existing screening and the enclosure of the site”.

They said the plan for a maximum of five homes was not dense enough and would be, at most, three times less than the requirement for villages such as Over and “an inefficient use of the land”.

The applicant said the site had been “disused scrubland” for around 20 years, but the inspector was concerned about the “irreversible loss” of the “most versatile agricultural land”. The council argues the land is rated as good quality for farming, but this is disputed by Mr Whistler.

Inspector Brownless agreed that there was a “significant shortfall and historic unmet need” for self-build units, and housing more generally, and these “are matters which attract significant weight”.

But, they said the “benefits of the development are tempered by the modest scale of the scheme” and dismissed the appeal.