Self-build bungalow and cartlodge at Cowslip Lodge Drury Lane, Carbrooke, Thetford

What was proposed

The application proposed one three-bedroom, single-storey self-build bungalow and cartlodge west of the existing dwelling.

“DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application proposes 1no self-build dwelling. The dwelling is proposed to the west of Cowslip Lodge and comprises of three-bedrooms and is proposed as a single storey unit.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The mown grass site had outbuildings, lay outside Carbrooke’s settlement boundary, and a previous application for two dwellings was refused.

“The land is currently mown grass with outbuildings and lies to the west of Cowlsip Cottage. The land and site is screened by an established boundary hedge to the frontage. The site lies outside of the Carbrooke Settlement Boundary.”

“RELEVANT HISTORY There have been a number of historic planning applications on this site; the following are the most recent/relevant: 3PL/2016/1059/O – Erection of two dwellings – Refused…”

Officer report

Why officers objected

The proposal was outside the settlement boundary, poorly connected to services, reliant on private vehicles, and harmful to the open rural character.

“ASSESSMENT 1.0 Principle 1.1 Policy GEN05 of the Breckland Local Plan (2023) restricts development outside of settlement boundaries as it is to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, it is only acceptable if compliant with other relevant policies. Carbrooke is classified as a Village with a Boundary within Policy GEN03 of the Breckland Local Plan (2023), and housing is deemed acceptable if located in the defined settlement boundary.”

“Appropriate development will be allowed immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary, subject to being supported by other policies within the development plan* and where all of the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The development is of an appropriate scale and design to the settlement; 2. It would not lead to the number of dwellings in the settlement increasing by significantly more than 5% from the date of adoption of the Plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council had no objection; highways recommended refusal, while environmental health, ecology, trees and Natural England raised no objection subject to requirements.

“Environmental Health Team There are no objections or comments on the grounds of Environmental Protection, providing the development proceeds in line with the application details.”

“Natural England No objection, subject to securing appropriate mitigation.”

Officer report

What people said

One representation supported approval, describing the design as suitable for the rural area with minimal visual, noise, traffic and privacy effects.

“One representation received, their comments are summarised, as follows:”

“I believe this proposal should be approved, the design is well suited to the area and its rural character, will have minimal visual impact on the area , and I see no unacceptable impact to neighbouring properties from noise, traffic or privacy. This application would also enable the applicants to live out a quality of life in an area that they have already invested in and love.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The neighbouring ward representative spoke in support of the application under the committee’s public speaking arrangements.

What members considered

Members fully explored the application’s details in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

“Consideration was given to the report presented by Lisa O’Donovan, Senior Development Manager.”

“Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.”

Minutes

The vote

After a tied 5–5 vote, the Chairman used his casting vote for approval; members then voted 9–2 to approve.

“DECISION: The vote was 5 x 5. The Chairman was entitled to his casting vote and voted that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.”

“DECISION: Members voted 9 x 2 to approve the application, subject to delegated authority being given to Officers to impose suitable conditions, including a further condition to include the retention of the frontage hedgerow (despite where required to widen the access).”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee approved the application because self-build and environmental construction considerations outweighed the harm from conflict with Policy HOU04.

“Reasons: Members felt that despite the identified non-compliance with Policy HOU04 of the Local Plan and the Development Plan as a whole, the other material planning considerations of self-build and environmental construction outweighed the harm generated by the conflict with this policy.”

Minutes