Replacement self-build dwelling at Willow View, The Chase, March

What was proposed

The application sought a replacement single-storey three-bedroom dwelling with a garage, roofspace bedroom, swimming pool and new driveway.

“The application site is located on the eastern side of The Chase within the built-up area of March. The site is currently occupied by a single storey detached dwelling with associated detached outbuildings and is in a state of disrepair. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character.”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of a replacement single storey three bedroom dwelling with an integral garage. The proposed dwelling would take on an L-shaped form, with a maximum height of approximately 6.5 metres, a maximum depth of 15.51 metres to the southern end and an overall width of 26.6 metres.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for a single-storey side extension and demolition of existing structures was granted.

“Reference Description Decision F/YR15/0184/F Erection of a single-storey extension to side of existing dwelling involving the demolition of existing garage, side lean-to extension and chimneys Granted…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers accepted the replacement principle but considered the dwelling too large and roof-dominant, harmful to the street scene and neighbouring amenity, and unsecured as self-build housing.

“The principle of a replacement dwelling in this location is acceptable. However, the proposed dwelling is excessive in scale, width and footprint relative to the plot, resulting in a cramped and roof-dominant form of development that appears incongruous within the street scene and fails to respond to the character of The Chase.”

“In addition, the siting of the dwelling close to the southern boundary, combined with its scale and massing, would result in an overbearing impact and loss of light to the occupiers of Bramble Cottage. Furthermore, in the absence of an appropriate legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure the self-build nature of the scheme.”

Officer report

Consultation and written views

The town council supported the development, while environmental health had no objection subject to a construction condition and residents submitted objections and support.

“No objection, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan, gin the interests of protecting the amenity of nearby residents during demolition and construction phases. It is considered, should the application be approved, this condition would be reasonable and necessary.”

“Comments Officer Response Given the lengthy size, should external lights be installed these should not shine into neighbouring gardens/properties. Comments noted, should the application be approved, a condition could be included to secure any details of future external lighting. Obscure glazing to the ensuite window to prevent overlooking.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector opposed the size, position and impact on his garden, while the agent argued that the design was suitable, well separated and policy compliant.

The committee vote

Councillor Mrs French proposed refusal, Councillor Imafidon seconded it, and the committee agreed.

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of the dwelling’s excessive and incongruous form, harm to Bramble Cottage’s amenity, and the lack of an enforceable self-build mechanism.

“The proposed dwelling, by reason of its siting in close proximity to the southern boundary, scale and massing, would result in an overbearing form of development and an unacceptable loss of light to the occupiers of Bramble Cottage. This would have a harmful impact on residential amenity, contrary to Policies LP2 and LP16(e) of the Fenland Local Plan, which seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.”

“In the absence of a legal agreement or other enforceable mechanism to secure the delivery and occupation of the proposed dwelling as a self-build unit, the development fails to meet the definition and requirements of self- build housing as set out in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended).”

Officer report