Two bungalows at Serendipity, Great Ellingham

What was proposed

The application sought two detached, single-storey, four-bedroom bungalows with integral double garages.

“DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of two detached, single storey, four bedroom dwellinghouses, with integral double garages. The dwellings would measure approximately 5.4 metres in height to the ridgeline (at its highest point) and approximately 2.6 metres in height to the eaves.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.47-hectare meadow site lies east of Bow Street, outside Great Ellingham’s settlement boundary, with housing to the north and farmland elsewhere.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The application site, which measures approximately 0.47ha, is located on land to the East of Bow Street, Great Ellingham. It is outside of the defined settlement boundary for Great Ellingham.”

“The site comprises meadow land, with trees / hedging present along the boundaries, to the South, East and West. Residential development is present to the North of the site, extending in a linear pattern along Bow Street. To the South, East and West (beyond the public highway) is open agricultural land.”

Officer report

Earlier application

A previous application for two self-build bungalows on the site was withdrawn.

“RELEVANT HISTORY There have been a number of historic planning applications on this site; the following are the most recent/relevant:”

“Planning Reference: 3PL/2023/0788/F Description: Erection of 2no. self-build bungalows – withdrawn…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal was contrary to the development plan and relevant national policies.

“CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be contrary to the development plan and relevant national policies, as set out within the Officer report. It is accordingly recommended for refusal.”

“RECOMMENDATION The application is recommended for refusal for the following grounds:”

Officer report

Main reasons for refusal

The reasons concerned an unsustainable location, countryside impact, trees, surface-water flood risk, ecology, biodiversity net gain and missing information.

“Section 14 of the NPPF and Policy ENV 09 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted 2023) seek to minimise the risks of flooding by directing new development away from areas at highest risk of flooding and for new development not to increase flood risk elsewhere. Where development is proposed in a flood risk area, a District wide sequential test should be applied to all sources of flooding (fluvial and surface water).”

“Insufficient information has been submitted in order to properly assess the ecological / biodiversity impacts, having particular regard to European Protected Species (Bats), contrary to policy ENV 02 of the Breckland Local Plan (adopted 2023), as well as having regard to paragraph 187 of the NPPF (2025). 6.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

The parish council and ecology and tree officers objected, while highways, contaminated land, environmental health and historic environment consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“GREAT ELLINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL Objection - The application is outside of the development boundary for Great Ellingham. There are highway concerns for the amount of vehicular traffic that would be generated along a single track road with no pavements. The flood risk is great and many of the residents have been adversely affected by flooding in recent time.”

“LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY No objection, subject to conditions. CONTAMINATED LAND No objection, subject to conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH No objection, subject to conditions. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SERVICE No objection, subject to conditions. TREE AND OUNTRYSIDE OFFICER Objection, concerns relating to plot 2 and likely impact on existing category a and b trees.”

Officer report

Public comments

Seventeen representations were received: one supporting the bungalows and sixteen objecting, mainly over highways, location, flooding, amenity, ecology, trees and rural character.

“A Site Notice was put up on 12 May 2025 and three neighbours directly consulted. Seventeen representations have been received, one in support and sixteen objections. Main points raised include:”

“- Design, character and appearance concerns – The site contributes to the undeveloped rural setting of Bow Street. Development of site to two large houses would adversely impact the character and appearance of the area. Overdevelopment in a sensitive rural area. Loss of arable / grazing land. Style and massing of proposed dwellings should be justified. Loss of green infrastructure.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward representative spoke in support, alongside the agent and an objector.

Members considered the application

Members considered the application and explored its details in light of prevailing policies and guidance.

“Consideration was given to the report presented by Naomi Minto, Development Management Planner.”

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

Minutes

The vote

Members voted nine to one in agreement with the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

“DECISION: Members voted 9 x 1 in agreement with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.”

Minutes