Two dwellings at Land Off Swinderby Road, South Scarle

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for two dwellings, with access from Swinderby Road; detailed design would be considered later.

“The application seeks Permission in Principle (the first of a 2-stage process) for residential development of 2 dwellings. No specific details are required at this stage, an indicative plan has however been provided showing the potential layout of the housing.”

“As the proposal is for permission in principle, no elevational details or plans have been submitted at this stage – details would be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage if permission in principle is approved. Documents assessed in this appraisal: • Site Location Plan received 25/527-01 • Site Layout Plan 25/527-02A”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a field beside the village, outside its conservation area, near listed buildings, and mainly at low flood risk.

“This application is being referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the application represents a departure from the development plan. The Site 1.1 The site is a field on the northern side of Swinderby Road in South Scarle. The field is located outside but adjacent to South Scarle Conservation Area with nearby Grade II Listed Buildings both to the east and south of the site.”

“The site is within Flood Zone 1 and at low risk of surface water flooding. There is a small part of the site that is at a higher risk of surface water flooding.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier planning history included a pre-application for two self-build homes with a play area and parking, and permitted electricity works.

“Relevant Planning History PREAPP/00093/25 - Two single storey 'self-build' dwellings alongside new play area and car parking for local church. (Response provided 18.07.2025) 20/01362/ELE - Replacement of sections of low voltage overhead power line and…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the location, land use and amount of development were acceptable in principle, subject to later technical details.

“It should be noted that conditions cannot be attached to a Permission in Principle. Conditions would be attached to the Technical Details Consent. The Permission in Principle and the Technical Details Consent together form the full permission. No development can commence until both have been approved.”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council and residents objected over countryside development, access safety, flooding, heritage, services, character, nature and other concerns.

“South Scarle Parish Council – Object to the proposal based on proposed buildings being within open countryside, vehicular access onto Swinderby road being hazardous, question over why a play park is needed and consideration that the advantages of the scheme presented in the application aren’t considered advantages. There were also questions over whether the car park is also proposed as it is shown on the plans. 6.4.”

“Neighbour & Public consultations – 15 comments were received with concerns, with 1 photo also received. The concerns are highways safety, flooding, concern over a policy from the 70s and 80s which restricted building in South Scarle, heritage harm and the lack of need for an additional play park, concerns over the carpark, lack of public services, location within the Green Belt, concerns over flooding and concerns the dwelling would be out of place with the existing…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident representing the parish meeting spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed the countryside location, village boundary, bus service, agricultural land, housing need, train access, missing pavements and possible flooding.

“Members considered the application, and the Ward Member commented that this proposed development was in the open countryside and outside of the village envelope. The bus service provided was not functional for work/school travel. The current street scene was old farm buildings. The current land use was 3B agricultural land and was not infill in the village envelope. There were six properties currently up for sale, with a need for bungalows.”

Minutes

How members voted

A vote for approval was lost, with four votes in favour, eight against and one abstention; a recorded vote followed against the officer recommendation.

“A vote was taken for approval and lost with 4 votes For, 8 votes Against and 1 Abstention.”

“Councillor Vote C Brooks Against L Dales For S Forde Abstention A Freeman For M Home For K Melton Abstention D Moore For P Rainbow For S Saddington For M Shakeshaft Against M Spoors For L Tift For T Wildgust Against…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission, citing unsustainable development under Policy SP1 and development in the open countryside under Policy DM8.

“AGREED Moved Councillor L Dales and Seconded Councillor D Moore (with 8 votes For, 3 votes Against and 2 Abstentions) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:”

“The wording for refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development, in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair and Vice-Chair.”

Minutes