Two dwellings at Land To The East Of Oakham Road, Ashwell

The site and surroundings

The site was a 0.5-hectare paddock outside Ashwell’s planned limits, between existing homes, with open grassland beyond and low flood risk.

“Site & Surroundings 1. The application site comprises relatively flat area of paddock land in open countryside to the south of the village centre of Ashwell. The site measures 0.5 hectares and wedged shaped parcel of land outside the “Planned Development Limits” of Ashwell village. On the western boundary the site is bounded by hedging whilst to the north is no. 1 Water Lane and to the south no.20 Oakham Road both bungalows.”

“The site is located within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Maps. Therefore, the site is assessed as having low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding). However, if permission were to be granted then there are safeguarding concerning flood risk mitigation and drainage strategy attached to this report.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier application for two differently designed dwellings was withdrawn, while the current scheme reduced the buildings’ height, bulk and visual impact.

“The applicant’s agents have re-designed the dwellings to 1.5 storeys. This is now a low-profile design in keeping with the two adjoining residential properties which are bungalows. The applicants propose a cross-wing design, which lowers the eaves and ridge height by 1.5m and ridge height by 1.5m when compared to the previous withdrawn application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised design suited the village, highway concerns were addressed, and housing-supply considerations outweighed countryside policy conflict.

“Policy CS19 – Promoting Good Design and Policy SP15 of the SAPDPD seeks to promote good design. This policy is concerned with distinctiveness and sense of place and being appropriate in terms of scale, height, footprint, layout, appearance /character, materials, and relationship to adjoining traditional design of the village residential properties and the surrounding landscape.”

“Policy VC3 Street Character seeks to ensure that developments preserve and introduce characteristics of the village walls, boundaries, driveways, pavement, kerbing, signage and lighting and street furniture. Officer Evaluation Five-year housing land supply and the tilted balance 41.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection subject to conditions, ecology supported the scheme with biodiversity conditions, and drainage safeguards addressed flood-risk concerns.

“Summary LLFA The LLFA comment has been requested in view of neighbour’s and PC concerns. Informal discussions have taken place. This will ensure that the drainage design is robust and compliant, subject to safeguarding conditions and national standards. Trees- Comments from Forestry Officer Tree protection plan needed…”

“No objection subject to conditions which are included as part of the decision.. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in strict accordance with the measures stated in section 6 of the Ecological Appraisal (Allied Ecology, Jan 2025).”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Residents and the parish council objected over flooding, access, highway safety, scale, loss of light and privacy, village character and biodiversity.

“Ashwell Parish Council is not unsympathetic to the development of this site but has several objections to the current application: Whilst we acknowledge the attempt to keep the height of the two houses as low as possible, we do not feel that these 2 storey houses would be in keeping with the bungalows on either side of the development.”

“Concerns that the development will result in increased Flood Risk particularly upon Oakham Road • Flooding in rear garden • Adverse impact due to access upon Highway Safety on a busy road and junction. • Proposed housing scheme although reduced to 1.5 storeys still out of proportion to the adjoining properties also causing loss of light privacy and show impact on adjoining side lounge and separate sitting room.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the agent, who said the revised proposal reduced the dwellings’ height and massing and made them appear as bungalows from the street.

The committee’s view

Members considered the site an appropriate infill gap, with housing-supply considerations favouring approval and no significant harm to amenity, highways or village character.

“Officers described the site as a wedge-shaped paddock outside the planned limits of development but forming an infill gap between two bungalows. The site is adjacent to, but not within, the conservation area, and a previous application for larger dwellings was withdrawn in favour of the current, reduced scheme.”

“Although the site was outside the planned limits of development, the lack of a five-year housing land supply meant the planning balance favoured approval. The proposal was considered an appropriate infill development, with no significant adverse impact on residential amenity, highway safety, or the character of Ashwell.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor A West proposed approval, the motion was seconded, and eleven members voted in favour.

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

“Upon being put to the vote, with eleven votes in favour, the motion was unanimously carried.”

Minutes