Replacement dwelling and annex at Lilac Cottage, Henley-in-Arden

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a rear extension and lawful development involving a dwelling, outbuildings and garden land, while an earlier application was withdrawn.

“Proposal Decision and date 24/03155/HHPA Single storey rear extension of 8mx5.2m to improve existing kitchen/living area and provide an improved bedroom GRANTED 22.01.2025 23/00526/LDE Lawful development certificate for erection of dwelling house, erection of no. 4 incidental domestic outbuildings and use of land as garden land. GRANTED 01.09.2023 22/01778/LDE rection of dwelling house in 1986 in the garden of Lilac Cottage.”

Officer report

Officers advised refusal

Officers recommended refusal because there was no formally evidenced local housing need or legal restriction, and the proposal raised location, annex, scale and landscape concerns.

“The planning statement suggests that the application is based on satisfying the personal need of the applicant and that this constitutes a locally identified need. However, this is not the policy requirements which are to ensure consistency in the decision making process. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the personal desires of the applicant meet the requirements of being a locally identified need.”

“Conclusion of Local Needs Scheme As discussed above, I find that the application does not meet a locally identified need as evidenced by a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Housing Needs Survey. Additionally, the application site does not fall within or adjacent to a village and I have no legal agreement to secure such dwelling as a local needs dwelling.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish meeting chair supported the application, while the applicant and another person answered questions and the ward member addressed the committee.

Members’ view

Members judged that the replacement would not be significantly larger or out of character and would have a sympathetic, non-dominant appearance.

“Members judgment was that the proposed replacement dwelling was not significantly larger than the existing and would not have been out of character for the area, the principle is acceptable under AS.10 and CS.20. Members concluded that the proposed replacement dwelling would have a sympathetic appearance and would not suburbanise the site or become visually dominant and would accord with CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 of the Core Strategy.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to grant permission was proposed and seconded, then approved unanimously.

“Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting, a Motion of GRANT, subject to conditions and notes and for the reasons detailed below, was proposed by Councillor Parry and seconded by Councillor Ballinger.”

“That Planning Application 25/02052/FUL be GRANTED for the following reasons, and subject to the following conditions, and the agreement of the applicant in respect to the pre-commencement condition and notes (the detailed wording of which be delegated to officers):”

Minutes

Permission and conditions

Permission was granted subject to conditions covering the plans, climate change, materials, trees, the annex, landscaping, ecology, dwelling numbers and self-build use.

“Time 2. Plans 3. Climate change checklist 4. Materials schedule to be submitted 5. Accord with Arboricultural Impact Assessment 6. Ancillary annexe condition 7. Water butts 8. Bins 9. Landscaping scheme to be submitted 10.Accord with bat survey measures 11.External lighting to be submitted…”

Minutes