Custom self-build dwelling at Land Rear of 1 To 3 Griffin Close, Walsoken

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for one custom or self-build dwelling, with only access decided at this stage.

“OUTLINE APPLICATION SELF-BUILD: Proposed Custom/Self-Build Dwelling Location:”

“Land Rear of 1 To 3 Griffin Close Griffin Close Walsoken Norfolk PE14 7BW Applicant:”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was countryside in Flood Zone 1, south of Griffin Close and east of Green Lane near Broadend Road and Burrettgate Road.

“The application site is located to the south of Griffin Close, a fairly newly established enclave of development east of Green Lane close to its junction with Broadend Road where it meets Burrettgate Road in the parish of Walsoken.”

“The site lies within an area classed as countryside and within Flood Zone 1 of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions included five dwellings, a barn conversion, agricultural building conversions and retrospective residential use; an identical self-build application was refused.

“25/01060/F: Application Permitted: 26/08/25 - Retrospective change of use of land to residential and retention of existing garden room (Delegated decision)”

“25/00284/O: Application Refused: 11/04/25 - OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED FOR: Proposed Custom/Self-Build Dwelling (Delegated decision)”

Officer report

Character and access concerns

The dwelling was considered capable of protecting neighbours, but its location would encourage private car use and its tandem form would harm local character.

“Griffin Close is a very small development of 5no. dwellings which replicated the format of the former agricultural buildings. The proposal would result in an unplanned, piecemeal form of backland/tandem development which would not respect or enhance the local character but would feel rather contrived.”

“The proposal is in outline form and therefore the final layout and design of the dwelling is not presently known, however, it would be possible to design a dwelling which would not adversely affect the existing neighbours (in terms of overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing impacts) and could potentially comply with Policy LP21 of the Local Plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and consultees supported or raised no objection, with advice about contamination, flooding warnings, evacuation planning and drainage matters.

“IDB: NO OBJECTION – Advice offered relating to Byelaw matters.”

“District Emergency Planning Officer: NO OBJECTION - Due to the location in an area at risk of becoming isolated from safe access/egress (dry island) during extreme flooding, it is advised that the occupants sign up to the Environment Agency’s Flood Warning service and prepare a flood evacuation plan.”

Officer report

Support from local people

Ten supporting representations described the land as waste ground, considered the location sustainable and cited nearby amenities, housing need and surrounding development.

“REPRESENTATIONS TEN items of SUPPORT received on the following summarised grounds:”

“New dwelling would greatly improve the character and appearance which is just a piece of waste land • Site is not prime agricultural land • The site is sustainable – close to local amenities not far from a footpath that leads to local shop, school and park • Site is close to an existing development of 5 dwellings and another 300 coming soon • Shortage of housing in this area • Sure that the applicants would ensure a sympathetic design of house to the existing area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative, a supporting speaker and Councillor Kirk addressed the committee in support of the application.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the site context, self-build housing need, completing the area and the limited policy conflicts.

“Committee members discussed the site’s context, the need for self- build housing, that the proposal would complete the development of the area and the minor nature of policy conflicts.”

“The Planning Control Manager clarified that what she had heard from the debate was that Members considered that the proposal would enhance the form and character of the area and that weight should be given to fact that this was a custom and self-build project which outweighed the minor conflict with the Local Plan in terms of its location.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the application subject to conditions and a legal agreement by twelve votes to one.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to approve the application subject to conditions to be agreed with the Chair and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the custom and self-build development and, after having been put to the vote, was carried 12 votes for and 1 against.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was approved against the officer recommendation because members considered it would enhance the area and the self-build need outweighed the location conflict.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved, contrary to recommendation, subject to conditions to be agreed with the Chair and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the custom and self-build development.”

“The proposal enhanced the form and character of the area and the need for custom and self-build housing outweighs the minor conflict with the development plan in terms of its location and as a result complies with Policy LP31.”

Minutes