Four detached dwellings at Land Between 16-18 Bourne Road, Colsterworth

What was proposed

The application sought four detached three- and four-bedroom homes, with garages, parking and access from Bourne Road.

“The scheme is for the construction of 4no.detached residential properties served of a private drive from Bourne Road which would be located between 14 and 18 Bourne Road. The dwellings would be a mix of three- and four-bedroom properties. A minimum of two parking spaces would be provided for each dwelling.”

“The applicant has provided the following information in support of the application including the following: “The site already benefits from planning permission for residential development. The revised proposal: -Retains detached dwellings. Retains generous private gardens. Retains landscaping and planting. -Retains the approved access road. -Retains the overall site layout principles.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a 0.48-hectare paddock behind existing Bourne Road properties, with a public right of way crossing it.

“The application site is an open area of paddock/grass land to the rear (south) of the existing properties that front Bourne Road. the site area is approximately 0.48 hectares. The site is located to the east of the site is 24 Bourne Road, to the west is 12 Bourne Road. To the south of the site is a small residential development of 6no. dwellings served off a private drive from Stamford Road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Five dwellings were previously refused, while permission was later granted for three dwellings and related details were approved.

“S24/1487 – Construction of 5 No. dwellings (2 no. bungalows and 3 no. houses), removal of 1 no. tree, hedgerow and formation of associated car parking and landscaping - Land off Bourne Road Colsterworth – Refused Planning Permission – 29 th January 2025. The reasons for refusal relate to form and character and residential amenity. S25/0455 - Construction of 3no.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended approval because the development was acceptable in principle and would not cause unacceptable harm to character, amenity, highways, drainage or biodiversity.

“In all settlements defined in Policy SP2, infill development, which is in accordance with all other relevant Local Plan policies, will be supported provided that: a. it is within a substantially built-up frontage or re-development opportunity (previously development land); b. it is within the main built-up part of the settlement; c. it does not cause harm or unacceptable impact upon the occupier’s amenity of adjacent properties; d.”

“Impact on the character of the Area 7.4.1 Policy DE1 seeks to ensure development is appropriate for its context. Further, paragraph 135 of the NPPF provides that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways raised no objection, environmental protection had no comments, and the parish council objected over character, amenity, highways, biodiversity and overdevelopment.

“LCC highways and SuDs 5.4 Initial Comments: Comments received in relation to the existing public right of way that runs through the site. Final Comments: No objection-This proposal is for the construction of 4no. dwellings with associated car parking and external landscaping. The vehicular junction meets the visibility guidelines set out in Manual for Streets.”

“Residential Amenity Impact • Overlooking due to reduced separation • Increased noise and activity • Construction disturbance Cumulative Impact and Unsustainable Growth Incremental infill contributes to infrastructure strain, character erosion and unwarranted ad hoc growth. In conclusion this represents unsustainable, unplanned development, contrary to strategic policy framework. Overall Planning Balance Under NPPF para.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor spoke against the proposal, and the applicant spoke in support.

What members debated

Members questioned overlooking, possible alternatives to dividing the larger approved home, existing foundations and the proposal’s financial viability.

“- Further clarification was sought around properties that would be overlooked by the development. The Speaker raised concerns on plot 12 and 16. - A suggestion was made on whether the previously approved six bedroom property could be split into two semi-detached dwellings without changing the layout of the development. As movement of the boundaries was causing overlooking concerns with neighbouring properties.”

“The Applicant highlighted the proposal was made around financial viability of the sales of the properties.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the stated conditions, with Plot C also requiring permanent footpath diversion before occupation.

“It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions in the report:”

“Plot C on the site layout plan hereby approved must not be occupied until the legal alignment of public footpath (Colsterworth/10/1) has been subject to formal, permanent diversion as shown on Site Plan Drawing No. G or an alternative route that has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.”

Minutes