Three self-build homes at Nissan Hut And Farm Buildings N of Harston, Marshland St James

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing agricultural buildings and erecting three self-build and custom semi-detached homes with shared carports.

“SELF BUILD- Demolition of existing buildings and erection of x3 self- build semi-detached dwellings on class Q approved land. Location:”

“Nissan Hut And Farm Buildings N of Harston Black Drove Marshland St James Norfolk PE14 8JX Applicant:”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was 0.47 hectares of grade 2 agricultural land outside the settlement, surrounded by open countryside and agricultural land.

“The application site is approximately 0.47ha of grade 2 agricultural land, comprising the siting of various agricultural buildings within overgrown shrubs and grassland, along Black Drove, which is outside the built-up settlement of Marshland St James. Within the wider setting are open low-lying parcels of countryside and agricultural land with limited and sporadic residential development.”

“Marshland St James is classified as a Tier 5 (Rural Village) settlement under the settlement hierarchy of policy LP01 of the Local Plan 2021-2040. The site falls outside the development boundary of Marshland St James by approximately 1.5km. The site is within the neighbourhood plan area of Marshland St James Neighbourhood Plan.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and fallback

Earlier Class Q approvals allowed three homes, while a larger detached scheme was refused and similar pre-application proposals were likely to be refused.

“Planning permission (reference 25/01229/F) was sought for the development of three detached dwellinghouses with associated parking, turning and landscaping across the entire site, following the demolition of the existing agricultural buildings. This application was refused due to the impact on the open countryside setting outside the development boundary due to the scale, form and appearance of the development as a whole.”

“The Applicant sought pre-application advice from the Council in January 2026 (reference 25/00216/PREAPP), for a nearly identical scheme to this proposal of three attached dwellings, connected by a shared carport in between, creating a court-yard area. The Council concluded that should a Full application for that scheme be submitted, it would likely to be refused.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with development policies, harmed the countryside, was unsustainable and failed flood-risk tests.

“The site lies within Flood Zone 3. Suitable opportunities for self-build and custom housing exist within areas of lower flood risk inside the development boundary of Marshland St James. The proposal would not deliver sustainability benefits sufficient to outweigh the identified flood risk. The scheme therefore fails the sequential test and would also fail the exception test required by the NPPF.”

“The development, of three self-build and custom dwellinghouses outside the development boundary of Marshland St James by approximately 1.5km, would fail to comply with policy LP02 of the Local Plan 2021-2040. The site is not an allocation within the Neighbourhood Plan nor an allocation of the Local Plan 2021-2040. The housing need identified under policy LP03 of the Local Plan 2021-2040 has been met by development in the development boundary of Marshland St James.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporting agent addressed the committee, followed by Councillor Long speaking in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members debated the fallback approval, flood risk, rural character, sustainability, self-build housing and agricultural worker dwellings.

“The issue of flood risk was raised, with the site located in flood zone 3. Officers clarified that the Environment Agency had no objections to the flood risk assessment, but the sequential test failed as there were safer sites available within Marshland St James.”

“Members debated the impact on rural character, sustainability, and the merits of self-build and agricultural worker dwellings. Some members supported the application for its improvement over the Class Q scheme, while others stressed the importance of adhering to development boundaries and planning policy.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The recommendation to refuse was carried by four votes to three, with four abstentions.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (4 votes for refusal, 3 against and 4 abstentions).”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused as recommended because the committee accepted the officers’ assessment of the development plan and the proposal’s impacts.

“The Council’s Legal Advisor reminded the Committee that the law required them to determine the application in accordance with the Development Plan.”

“RESOLVED: That the application be refused as recommended.”

Minutes