Replacement two-storey dwelling at 8 Langham Road, Blakeney, Holt

What was proposed

The application sought a replacement two-storey dwelling after the existing dwelling had been demolished and partly rebuilt.

“BLAKENEY – PF/25/0522 – Demolition of two-storey dwelling and erection of replacement two-storey dwelling (part-retrospective) at 8 Langham Road, Blakeney, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 7PG”

“The application seeks to erect a two-storey dwelling to replace an existing two-storey dwelling which has already been demolished and part-rebuilt – this follows the approval of three previous applications on the site, one to extend the existing dwelling and two subsequent applications to vary the design. The site lies along the west side of Langham Road which is lined with residential properties, within the development boundary of Blakeney.”

Officer report

Site and surroundings

The site is in Blakeney’s development boundary and residential area, among homes, with a doctor’s surgery to the south.

“Within a Settlement Boundary (Blakeney) Within a Residential Area Within the Norfolk Coast National Landscape Landscape Character Area – Rolling Heath and Arable…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Approval was recommended because the principle, design, residential amenity, landscape impact and parking were considered acceptable subject to conditions.

“As the property lies within a residential area of Blakeney and between existing buildings, it is considered that the development would not have any wider detrimental landscape impact. Accordingly, it is considered that proposed development complies with the requirements of Policies EN 1 and EN 2 of the Core Strategy and Policies 6, 7 and 9 of the Neighbourhood Plan.”

“It is clear that the development has evolved to the point where the situation has necessitated the rebuilding, rather than extension of, the existing property. However, as explained above, the principle of development remains acceptable. The relationship with the neighbouring property is to an extent uncomfortable, however, it is not considered that any impact in terms of loss of light and being overbearing, would be significantly detrimental.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council objected to the planning process, while one public objection concerned the replacement building’s bulk, appearance, height and overbearing effect.

“Cley Parish Council - Comment, raising the following matters: • This property has shown a complete abuse of the planning system, and contempt of the entire planning process.”

“the new building's bulk and appearance are completely out of proportion compared with neighbouring properties. • object to the new roofline because of its intimating height and overbearing nature.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council statement was read, and the local member spoke against approval because of the neighbourhood plan, amenity, streetscape and parking.

The votes

Members first rejected the recommendation for approval, then voted to refuse the application by nine votes to two, with one abstention.

“IT WAS RESOLVED by 2 votes for, 9 votes against, with 1 abstention to reject the recommendation.”

“IT WAS RESOLVED by 9 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention to refuse the application.”

Minutes