Self-build bungalow at Southend Road, Woodham Mortimer

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a detached two-bedroom bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached two- bedroom bungalow with associated amenity space and parking provision.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in open countryside outside settlement boundaries, beside a Grade II listed cottage, with existing access and low flood risk.

“The application site is located outside of any settlement boundaries and so occupies an open countryside location and lies to the west of the settlement of Woodham Mortimer. It forms part of an extensive garden area to the east of Oak Corner Cottage, which is a residential property. To the north is Southend Road and the site is bound on remaining sides by open fields.”

“The adjacent property Oak Corner Cottage is a Grade II listed building though there are no other historic assets in the vicinity. The site is located within flood zone 1, as defined by the Environment Agency, as so is at a low risk of flooding.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier applications for two-bedroom dwellings on the site were withdrawn in 2020 and 2021.

“The planning history relevant to this application is: • 21/00486/FUL – New build, 2 bedroom single storey dwelling – withdrawn July 2021 • 20/01106/FUL – Erection of 2-bed dwelling – withdrawn December 2020”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the dwelling would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the adjacent listed building.

“As detailed within the report, it is considered that the site lies in a sustainable location, benefiting from close proximity to a well-serviced bus route. It is considered that a dwelling at the site would not result in any harm in terms of residential amenity, highways safety, flood risk. It is considered that there would be no harm to ecology and biodiversity, subject to confirmation from the relevant Officers.”

“However, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of an adjacent listed building and so is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council recommended refusal, the Conservation Officer objected, and the Highway Authority and Environmental Health raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Statutory Consultee Comment Officer Response Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions Noted Ecology Officer Comments awaited Refer to paragraphs 5.9.1 to 5.9.2 Arboricultural Officer Comments awaited Refer to paragraph 5.4.4 Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions Refer to paragraphs 5.5.1 to 5.5.3”

Officer report

Public comments

Three third-party comments supported the application, but no planning reasons were given in support.

“Three third party comments have been received in relation to the proposals and in support of the application.”

“No planning reasons were cited in support of the application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant addressed the committee, followed by Councillor M F L Durham speaking in support of the application.

What members debated

The officer explained that the heritage impact of one dwelling did not justify approval despite the housing shortfall, while Councillor Durham considered the harm insufficient for refusal.

“In terms of the impact on the heritage asset Officers had taken the view that the impact of one dwelling was not significant enough to tilt the balance to approval even with a housing shortfall.”

“The design of the dwelling was different from the heritage asset. It was always best not to create a replica of the heritage asset, so the heritage asset maintained its presence and appearance.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members rejected the proposal to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation, then approved a proposal to refuse it.

“Following the debate, Councillor Durham proposed that the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendations. This was duly seconded. Upon a vote being taken this proposal was not approved.”

“Councillor S J N Morgan then proposed that the application be refused in line with the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded. Upon a vote being taken this proposal was approved.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the dwelling would harm the listed cottage’s setting and the benefits would not outweigh that harm.

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason: The proposed dwelling, by reason of its close proximity to Oak Corner Cottage, a Grade II listed building, would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of this property by eroding the spacious setting which defines the character of the property, causing harm to its setting and significance.”

Minutes