Two dwellings at Swinderby Road, South Scarle

What was proposed

The application proposed two detached four-bedroom dwellings with attached garages, including an additional garage for a neighbouring dwelling.

“This application seeks permission for 2 detached dwellings with attached garages. Plot 1 would include an additional double garage for the use of the neighbouring dwelling which is currently under construction (approved under 24/01244/FUL). The proposed dwellings would be L-shaped, positioned around a central ‘courtyard’ area. An access is proposed between the 2 dwellings to allow agricultural access to the land to the east (which is owned by the applicant).”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was agricultural land in open countryside beside South Scarle, outside the conservation area and near listed buildings including St Helena’s Church.

“The Site 1.1 The application site lies within the open countryside, next to the village of South Scarle. The site is currently agricultural land and is adjacent to a site which has recently been granted planning permission for a new dwelling (currently under construction), and a bungalow which has permission to be demolished and a new dwelling built in its place. The village is within a conservation area, however the site lies outside of this.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Earlier advice raised countryside concerns, while permissions had been granted for a nearby dwelling and a replacement dwelling sharing the access.

“PREAPP/00204/25 – Advice given on the potential for residential development. Concerns about countryside location balanced against lack of housing land supply.”

“24/01244/FUL - Demolish agricultural barn. Erect 1 dwelling. Granted permission. 24/01244/FUL and 25/02052/S73 share the same access as the application site however for the most part relate to the adjacent sites to the west of the application site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing benefits outweighed low-level conservation-area harm and other impacts were considered acceptable.

“Although the site is adjacent to the conservation area, no part falls within it. The conservation team have identified a low level of harm to the setting of the conservation area due to the scale of the dwellings and the reduction in openness to the east of the conservation area.”

“This harm amounts to ‘less than substantial harm’ and is considered to be at the lower end of the scale, as the design of the dwellings reflects characteristics of the conservation area. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF requires less than substantial harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The South Scarle Parish Meeting Chair spoke against the application and the agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members questioned the village’s sustainability, the countryside location, the development’s size, heritage effects, public benefit and possible barn owl impacts.

“Members considered the application, and it was commented that South Scarle was an unsustainable village, a car was required to get to any public transport. The site location was outside the village envelope and in open countryside. The Planning Committee had recently refused an application for planning in principle on a site across the road form this location, on the basis of SP1 and DM8 – being in the open countryside.”

“During the debate of this item, the Chair indicated that the meeting duration had expired therefore a motion was moved and seconded to continue the meeting. A motion was voted on with unanimous agreement to continue for a further hour.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee unanimously rejected approval, and all recorded votes supported refusal against the officer recommendation.

“AGREED Moved Councillor L Dales and Seconded Councillor D Moore (unanimously) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused. Reason for refusal: SP1 – unsustainable location; DM8 – open space: DM9 – Character and appearance of the open countryside; and DM5 – over intensive. The wording for reason of refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development.”

“In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.”

Minutes