Self-build dwelling at Land rear of Langmead, West Street, North Kelsey, Market Rasen

What was proposed

The application sought a self-build four-bedroom home, detached garage, gym, domestic store, access, parking and associated works.

“PROPOSAL: Planning application to erect 1no. self build detached dwelling with associated detached garage / gym, ancillary domestic garden equipment store and associated site works.”

“The Proposal: The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 1no. self-build, two storey, 4-bedroom, detached dwelling. It is also proposed to erect a two- storey detached garage/ store and gym building and a single storey detached domestic garden equipment storage building. The site would have a formal parking and driveway area to the front (east) with its main garden area located to the west.”

Officer report

The site and access

The site was a grassed paddock behind West Street homes, adjoining countryside and residential gardens, with access through Langmead after removing its garage.

“Site Description: The application site comprises of an area of paddock land located to the rear of existing dwellings along West Street, in North Kelsey. The site is currently well kept and laid to grass, with a stable building located in the south of the site. The application site is adjoined by open paddock/ fields/ countryside to the north and west, with residential dwellings and their garden areas to the east and south.”

“The application proposes access to be taken through Langmead, a residential property within the ownership of the applicant, on West Street. Access through would be…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Prior approval was not required for demolishing Langmead’s attached double garage, and no other relevant history after 2005 was identified.

“Langmead, West Street- WL/2026/00175- Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of attached double garage. Prior Approval Not Required 16/03/2026.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the site outside the village’s developed footprint, with harmful scale, neighbouring amenity impacts, energy performance and unresolved self-build biodiversity information.

“The proposals, by virtue of their scale and massing within this rural location are also considered to be harmful to the character of the area and would also have unacceptable harmful impacts upon neighbouring amenity. The application has also not been submitted with any legal agreement to secure the dwelling as a custom/self-”

“3.The proposed detached domestic ancillary storage building would cause an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers due to its siting and scale. Its relationship with neighbouring boundaries would cause unacceptable dominating impacts for the occupiers of Langmead and Beech House when they are utilising their private rear gardens.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways raised no objection, archaeology recommended recording conditions, and a resident objected to the rural edge, scale, access, drainage, design and buildings.

“Failure to address existing foul drainage infrastructure- The application provides no evidence demonstrating: • the precise location of the existing sewer; • whether buildings or infrastructure would conflict with required easements; • how future maintenance access would be protected; • whether the relevant sewerage undertaker has confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable.”

“Inappropriate Design Response- The formal Georgian-style country house, together with its associated outbuildings, engineered access, extensive hardstanding and formal landscaping, creates a suburban estate character that is inconsistent with the informal rural setting of the village edge. Cumulative Urbanisation- The applicant refers to previous planning permissions in the locality. However, each application must be considered on its own merits.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant supported the proposal as a family self-build near village facilities and argued that the site formed part of the settlement.

The vote

Three members voted for the proposal and two abstained, with permission refused in line with the officer recommendation.

“With three votes cast in favour of the proposal and two abstentions, it was agreed that planning permission be REFUSED in line with the Officer recommendation.”

Minutes