Self-build dwelling at The Red House, Long Itchington, Southam

What was proposed

The application proposed a self-build dwelling and associated infrastructure at The Red House.

“Application Ref. 26/00101/FUL Site Address: The Red House, Marton Road, Long Itchington, Southam CV47 9PX Description of Development: Erection of a self-build dwelling and associated infrastructure.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would harm the listed building’s setting and Conservation Area, and its benefits would not outweigh that harm.

“The Heritage balance In line with NPPF paragraph 215, CS Policy CS.8 and BE2 and H4 of the NDP, it is necessary to weigh the less than substantial harm identified to the Grade II listed The Red House and Conservation Area in the planning balance. All of the above benefits can be regarded as public ones.”

“I am mindful that there are personal benefits to the development. However, such benefits are likely to be temporary in nature, whereas the identified harm would be permanent. As such, the personal benefits are not considered to outweigh the identified harm when assessed in the overall planning balance.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The conservation officer objected, while environmental health, rights of way, ecology and highways raised no objection, subject to stated requirements.

“SDC Environmental Health No objection (11.3.26)”

“WCC Rights of Way No objection; subject to advisory notes (16.3.26)”

Officer report

Views from others

The ward member, parish council and one supporter supported the proposal, while CPRE objected that it would not preserve the area’s character.

“Ward Member – Councillor Adam “I support this application. The proposals seek to provide additional single storey living in the village, and take a sensitive approach to the setting and constraints of the site. The most recent housing need survey did identify the need for bungalows. The impact to both the street scene and landscape will be minimum given the siting of the proposal, to the rear of the site by a mature hedge.”

“One letter of objection has been received from the CPRE raising the following matters: • Does not preserve the character of the area…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council, the agent, the applicants, a neighbour and the ward member spoke at the meeting.

The committee vote

A motion to grant permission was proposed and seconded, and the committee unanimously resolved to grant it.

“Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting, a Motion of GRANT, subject to conditions and notes and for the reason detailed below, was proposed by Councillor Littlewood and seconded by Councillor Ballinger.”

“That Planning Application 26/00101/FUL be GRANTED for the following reason, and subject to the following conditions and notes (the detailed wording of which be delegated to officers):”

Minutes

The decision and reason

Permission was granted subject to conditions and notes because the committee considered the heritage harm outweighed by the development’s benefits.

“In the opinion of the Planning Committee, the reason for granting Planning Permission was that the harm to the setting of the Heritage assets was outweighed by the benefits of the development.”

Minutes

Conditions and notes

The permission included conditions covering plans, materials, climate change, self-build, landscaping, archaeology, ecology, lighting, drainage and bins, plus notes on the NPPF and footpath.

“Time 2. Plans 3. Materials 4. Climate change checklist 5. Self Build 6. Bins 7. Landscaping 8. Written Scheme of Investigation 9. In accordance with Preliminary Ecological appraisal 10. External Lighting 11. Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan 12. Drainage…”

Minutes