Up to 4 homes at Land Adjacent Apple Cottage, Bilsthorpe Road, Eakring

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for residential development of between one and four dwellings, with detailed design deferred to a later stage.

“The application seeks Permission in Principle (the first of a 2-stage process) for residential development of up to 4 dwellings with a minimum of one. No specific details are required at this stage. Permission in Principle requires only the location, the land use, and the amount of development to be assessed. If residential development (as is the case in this application), the description must specify the minimum and maximum number of dwellings proposed.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a 0.39-hectare undeveloped parcel beside Bilsthorpe Road, outside the conservation area and near non-designated heritage assets.

“The Site 1.1 The site (outlined in red) comprises of a rectangle parcel of undeveloped land measuring 0.39 hectares in area, fronting onto Bilsthorpe Road on the outskirts of the village. The site is enclosed by a level of foliage and is accessed via a posted entrance on the highway. Visibility to the site is clear and open with the site and wider field being clearly visible from the roadside.”

“Flood Zone 1 • Non-designated Heritage Asset Of Apple Cottage immediately adjacent to the site • Non-designated Heritage Asset Of Ashcroft and adjoining 2 Bilsthorpe Road located further along Bilsthorpe Road into the village.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous pre-application for 12 homes was considered acceptable, while the site remained outside the village in open countryside.

“PREAPP/00294/24 - Development of 12 new homes. – Considered to be acceptable.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because housing benefits, accessibility and the tilted balance outweighed the identified countryside and heritage considerations in principle.

“As such, whilst the site is located within the open countryside and is contrary to the settlement hierarchy, the tilted balance is engaged, and the provision of housing is given additional weight in the planning balance. Smaller unallocated sites, such as this site, will play a small role in helping the district to meet its housing targets and identified housing needs and given its location adjacent to an existing settlement this is considered acceptable.”

“In this instance, the location is considered to be within the open countryside adjacent the built village of Eakring. There are no impacts at this stage that would warrant refusal when applying the tilted balance in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, which favours the presumption in favour of development unless there are convincing issues which would warrant refusal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways considered access achievable with visibility splays, conservation officers raised no objection in principle, and the parish council made no comment.

“NCC Highways – Consider the development frontage width is adequate to provide suitable access to 1-4 dwellings. They have noted that the site is within close proximity to a change in speed limit to national speed limit and would consider it necessary for visibility splays to be provided in accordance with the measured 85 th % speed of the road.”

“NSDC Conservation – The site contributes to the rural setting of the CA and Non- designated heritage assets, and the proposal would therefore have some impact on their setting. Whilst there are concerns regarding the piecemeal erosion of the rural setting on the fringe of the CA, the impact would be limited, subject to the design, scale, massing, form, plot layouts and materials.”

Officer report

Neighbour objections

Three neighbours objected over the conservation area, the site’s sustainability, loss of the village edge and loss of open space.

“Three neighbours have commented to object to the proposal. Their objections can be summarised as concerns over harm to the setting of the nearby conservation area, sustainability of the site being unachievable due to Eakring being an “other village” with a lack of services and loss of the rural limit of the village and its open spaces.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support of the application, and members received a presentation with photographs and plans.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the nearby period building and said later designs should enhance the village approach and respond sensitively to the landscape and trees.

“Members considered the application, and it was commented that Apple Cottage was an attractive period building at the entrance to the village, the technical submission needed to be carefully designed to form an enhanced approach to the village. There were no concerns raised regarding the position and quantum.”

Minutes

The vote

Permission in principle was approved by 10 votes to 2.

“AGREED (with 10 votes For and 2 votes Against) that Permission in Principle be approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was approved for between one and four dwellings, with technical details, mitigation and access to be assessed later.

“The purpose of this application is to assess the acceptability of the proposal on the application site, in relation to location, land use, and amount of development, in principle only. Any other issues should be assessed at Technical Details stage. Further to the above assessment, it is considered that the location and land use is suitable for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4 dwellings and is an acceptable amount of development for the site.”

“It should be noted that conditions cannot be attached to a Permission in Principle. Conditions would be attached to the Technical Details Consent. The Permission in Principle and the Technical Details Consent together form the full permission. No development can commence until both have been approved.”

Officer report