Two self-build homes at Land At 50A Main Street, Lowdham

The site

The site is grassland behind commercial premises on Main Street, with existing access, neighbouring homes, level changes and low on-site flood risk.

“No. 50 which fronts onto Main Street, and is within the same ownership as the application site, is currently occupied by a number of businesses including a book shop, a beauty salon and a hair salon. To the west on the opposite side of Main Street is the village Post Office and a children’s day nursery. The remainder of the area is predominantly residential in nature.”

“Photograph taken from the east facing back towards the rear of 50 Main Street 1.5 In terms of site constraints, the application site is largely located within Flood Zone 1 on the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone map, and is therefore has a low risk of flooding. The site is also at a low risk from surface water flooding.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous proposal for five townhouses was refused because of design, amenity, highway, biodiversity, tree and drainage concerns.

“Main Street and Ton Lane. Relevant Planning History 2.1. 24/00558/FUL - Five 2 bedroom townhouses. Application Refused on 08.07.2024 on the following grounds:- 1. Due to the back land and elevated position of the site, and the cramped layout with no garden space, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.”

“In addition, the proposed car parking spaces are below the minimum dimensions set out in the Council's adopted Parking Standards SPD, and there is insufficient turning space within the site. For these reasons it is considered the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport), DM5, and Part 9 of the NPPF. 3.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised scheme would make a small housing contribution and avoid significant harm to character, amenity, highways, flooding or trees.

“Planning Committee is the appropriate body to consider the content of this report. A Legal Advisor will be present at the meeting to assist on any legal points which may arise during consideration of the application. Conclusion 9.1. The principle of residential development in this Principal Village location is considered acceptable, and the two proposed dwellings would make a small but important contribution to housing land supply in the District.”

“The existing trees on the site would be suitably protected, and ecological enhancements would be secured. For the reasons outlined above, the proposals are considered to accord with the aforementioned policies, and the guidance contained within the NPPF and the NPPG when taken as a whole. Conditions 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council and local residents objected over overbearing development, flooding, highways, parking, amenity, design, trees, biodiversity and land stability.

“Consultations and Representations Please Note: Comments below are provided in summary - for comments in full please see the online planning file. Statutory Consultations 6.1. Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways) – Raised concerns:- Access to the proposed dwellings is via an existing private drive currently serving the commercial premises at 50A Main Street. Proposals involve removal of the front boundary wall, widening the access to approximately 5.9 metres.”

“Representations/Non-Statutory Consultation 6.6 29 comments have been received from local residents objecting to the application on the following grounds:- - Highway safety, narrow site entrance, increase in traffic, congestion and parking. Lack of adequate bin storage. - Increase in surface water drainage and silt run-off from the site, lack of on-site attenuation, increase risk of properties flooding downstream.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident, the parish council representative and the applicant spoke, while the local ward member spoke against the application.

What members debated

Members discussed overbearing street impact, housing need, traffic and visibility, flooding, local residents remaining in the village and the highway objection.

“Members considered the application, and it was commented that the proposed two storey properties would be overbearing on the street scene. Other Members commented that the proposed development was for two small, two bed room semi- detached properties and not family homes.”

“In answer to a Member question regarding the Highway objection, it was confirmed that there would not be a loss of commercial space in the car park. Car parking proposed was in line with SPDs and guidance. There would be some improvement with visibility with the removal of part of the wall. The turning area had been satisfied, from a highway safety point of view and was adequate in terms of the planning application.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the application by seven votes to five, subject to conditions, amended plans and a self-build undertaking.

“AGREED (with 7 votes For and 5 votes Against) that Planning Permission be approved, subject to: (i) the conditions contained within the report, subject to the amendment of Condition 02 to amend the plans regarding the removal of the ground source heat pump from the parking area; and (ii) the signing of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the dwellings as self-build.”

Minutes