Two detached dwellings at Land Adj Bens Cottage, Bow Street

What was proposed

The application sought two detached, two-storey, four-bedroom homes with detached two-bay garages or carports.

“DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of two detached, two storey, four bedroom dwellinghouses, with detached, two bay garage / car ports. The dwellings would measure approximately 8.0 metres in height to the ridgeline (at its highest point) and approximately 5.0 metres in height to the eaves.”

Officer report

The site

The approximately 0.33-hectare site formed part of an arable field outside Great Ellingham’s settlement boundary, with hedges, trees and open agricultural land nearby.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The application site, which measures approximately 0.33ha, 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 currently forms part of a larger arable field, with trees / hedging present along the boundaries, to the North and South of the site. Meadow land is present to the North of the site with residential development beyond, extending in a linear pattern along Bow Street, to the North and South of the site. To the East and West, beyond the public highway, is open agricultural land.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the development was contrary to the development plan and 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.”

“The proposed dwellings would be outside of the defined settlement boundary for Great Ellingham and remote from local services and facilities. In the absence of convenient and safe walking and cycling routes to larger settlements, future occupants would be largely dependent on transport by car for access to work, shopping, leisure and other purposes.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while ecology, highways, contamination and historic environment consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“GREAT ELLINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL Objection - The application is outside of the development boundary for Great Ellingham. The Parish Council have concerns over the amount of vehicular traffic along this single track road and the issue of local flooding. There is very strong objection among the local residents for another development along this narrow single track road.”

“In view of Great Ellingham’s dark sky status, Councillors request that a lighting clause is included in any permission granted. ECOLOGY No objection, subject to conditions. LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY No objection, subject to conditions. CONTAMINATED LAND No objection, subject to conditions. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SERVICE No objection, subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Eighteen representations included one supporting comment and seventeen objections about traffic, flooding, access, amenity, ecology, design and the countryside setting.

“REPRESENTATIONS A Site Notice was put up on 12 May 2025 and two neighbours directly consulted. Eighteen representations have been received, one in support of the proposals and seventeen objections. The main points raised include: In support/comments - In general in support – access should be moved away from adjacent dwelling and re-positioned in a central position on site to improve highway safety. Speed limit for Bow Street should be max 30mph. No safe access to bus stops.”

“- Design, character and appearance concerns – Increased housing and associated traffic would irrevocably damage the rural character of the lane. Overdevelopment in a sensitive rural area. The large scale size and modern design of the dwellings is not in keeping with existing development, which is predominantly cottage style. Loss of agricultural land. Without careful design control, the dwellings will appear incongruous and dominate the landscape.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward representative spoke in support, alongside the agent, while an objector also addressed the committee.

Members’ consideration

Members explored the application against prevailing policies and guidance, and a motion to approve subject to a tree survey was proposed and seconded.

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

“A recommendation to approve the application was proposed and seconded subject to a satisfactory tree survey being submitted and the conditions being delegated to the Planning Officers…”

Minutes

The votes

The first vote was tied at five votes each, then the chairman supported refusal and a further vote passed refusal by seven votes to three.

“DECISION: The vote was tied, 5 x votes in support of the application and 5 x votes against. The Chairman then used his casting vote and voted in support of the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.”

“A further vote was then taken on the substantive recommendation of refusal.”

Minutes