A reservoir in East Cambridgeshire cannot be opened up to more people over concerns increased cars travelling to the site could harm highway safety. 

The owners of the reservoir and its surrounding open space and woodland, at Engine Bank in Mepal, had appealed to the planning inspectorate to remove conditions limiting its use to their own family. 

The condition was imposed by East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) when it granted permission to the retrospective application for the reservoir to be used for private recreational use in 2021. 

The district council said it could not be used for commercial uses, or events, including letting the site to other third-party groups or individuals without the written authorisation of the authority. 

The condition was added in order to limit the number of cars travelling to the site, due to concerns over highway safety. 

The owners of the site told the planning inspector they did not plan to use the land commercially but wanted to “enable others to enjoy the benefits of the site”. 

They gave examples such as allowing charities and local groups to have limited use of the land for things such as fishing and camping. 

The planning inspector raised concerns that removing this condition could potentially allow the site to be used “more intensively and in an uncontrolled manner”. 

They highlighted that the access was a single-track driveway with limited opportunities for vehicles to pass. 

The inspector said that an “unknown number of cars coming to and from the site could lead to “potential conflict”, which they said could “harm highway safety”. 

The owners of the site also asked to remove two other conditions, one limiting the amount of external lighting and the other which prevented using the site for shooting of animals or birds. 

The planning inspector said they noted the appellants’ desire to “protect and enhance species” and that they said they did not intend to install any more external lights at the moment. 

However, the inspector said the application to remove the condition ‘indicated; this could change in the future'.

They also said they had not been given information for the alternative condition that would create a “precise and enforceable mechanism to ensure future lighting would be appropriate”.  

Because of this the inspector said the district council’s condition was justified. 

The planning inspector said they recognised the owners had “no desire to shoot animals or birds” on the site, but that they had indicated “there may be occasion when the shooting of deer or rabbit is necessary to support farming practices”. 

The condition preventing shooting had been put in place over concerns about the effect of shooting animals on the land could have on protected species supported at nearby wildlife sites. 

The planning inspector said they had adopted a “precautionary approach” and that it had not been “adequately demonstrated” the condition was not “necessary or reasonable”. 

The inspector dismissed the appeal to remove the three conditions.