16 homes at Land To The Rear Of 52 Luffenham Road, Ketton

What was proposed

The application sought reserved matters approval for appearance, layout, landscaping and scale for 16 dwellings.

“2024/1254/MAR ITEM 1 Proposal: ApplicaƟon for approval of Reserved MaƩers (Appearance, Layout, Landscaping and Scale) for the erecƟon of 16 dwellings pursuant to CondiƟons 2 and 3 of outline planning permission 2021/0751/MAO.”

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Outline planning permission was granted for up to 16 dwellings in a field within the planned limits of development for Ketton located on the northern side of A621, with access located between No. 52 and 54 Luffenham Road. Neither dwelling forms part of the application site. The principle of development is established, and reserved matters are submitted for the appearance, layout, landscaping and scale of the development for 16 dwellings.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an agricultural field within Ketton, surrounded by homes, with rising and falling ground levels and mature trees.

“Site & Surroundings 1. The application site is located within the planned limits of development for Ketton on the northern side of A621 Luffenham Road, when approaching Ketton from the west. It is an irregular shaped agricultural field approximately 0.82 hectares surrounded by residential properties on all sides.”

“The site levels increase from approximately 44.97m at the site entrance to approximately 50.12m on the Site’s northern most boundary. Ground levels also drop across the site in a west-easterly direction from a high point of approximately 50.12m to approximately 46.21m.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Sixty-six responses objected on grounds including privacy, overlooking, traffic, parking, infrastructure, housing need, environmental effects, construction and layout.

“A total of 66 responses have been received at the time of writing this report, raising objections on a number of different grounds. The comments received have been summarized with the aid of AI software and grouped under separate headings; Loss of Privacy, Outlook & Amenity • Overlooking of neighbouring bungalows from upper-floor windows • Loss of privacy in gardens and living spaces • Overbearing impact due to height, proximity, and orientation of plots • Loss of views…”

“06/06/2023 V1 • Likely overspill parking onto surrounding roads • Existing parking pressures already significant, especially near school • Concerns larger homes → more vehicles per household infrastructure & Services • Village infrastructure already stretched (GPs, dentists, schools) • Schools oversubscribed; concern development will worsen this • Lack of evidence of upgrades to services (healthcare, transport, amenities) • Doubts over ability of village to accommodate…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a member of the public opposing the recommendation and the agent speaking in support.

The committee debate

Members considered the outline permission, revised plans, neighbour concerns, separation distances and conditions covering construction, boundaries and privacy.

“Residents raised concerns that the original indicative outline plan showed single- storey bungalows adjacent to existing bungalows, whereas the current proposal included two-storey chalet-style homes in the north-west corner. There were concerns about potential overlooking from upper-floor windows and suggested a wall instead of a hedge next to their parking bays for greater privacy.”

“In response, officers advised that the indicative outline layout was not fixed and that the nearest proposed dwelling was a chalet bungalow with a ridge height of just over six metres. He stated that the separation distances between properties were considered acceptable.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded, then carried with three votes in favour and four abstentions.

“It was proposed by Councillor T Smith and seconded that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report.”

“Upon being put to the vote, with three votes in favour and four abstentions, the motion was carried.”

Minutes