One self-build dwelling at The Brew House Fuchsia Row, Thaxted

What was proposed

The application proposed one self-build dwelling with landscaping, parking and access, described as a detached one-and-a-half-storey house.

“PROPOSAL: Erection of 1 no. self-build dwelling with associated landscaping parking and access.”

“The applicant seeks planning permission to erect 1 no. self-build dwelling with associated landscaping parking and access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was part of the garden of a modern dwelling within the conservation area, enclosed by mature hedging and vegetation.

“The site forms part of the private gardens of The Brew House, a modern dwelling situated along the southern edge of Thaxted Conservation Area. To the west of the site is another modern dwelling Dovehouse Yard. The application site would be located towards the southern part of Fishmarket Road. The plot currently forms part of the private garden of The Brew House and benefits from a generous lawn area enclosed by mature hedging and vegetation.”

“The proposed development site lies to the south of several designated and non-designated heritage assets. The Tithe Map and apportionment of 1842 indicate that the land formed part of a paddock owned by John Webb and occupied by Laurence Hill Webb, with no functional or ownership connection to the listed buildings on Fishmarket Street. By the 1877 Ordnance Survey, the land appears lightly treed, and the 1897 25-inch OS map depicts it as open ground.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and advice

Earlier applications included refused extensions, an approved detached garage and pre-application advice for a self-build dwelling.

“Proposal UTT/25/1662/PA Advice Given 26.08.2025 Proposed self-build dwelling with associated access and parking. UTT/0244/03/FUL Refused and Appeal dismissed 06.06.2003 Part two/single storey rear extension UTT/0246/03/CA Refused 06.06.2003 Part two/single storey rear extension UTT/1329/04/FUL Approved 21.09.2004 Erection of detached double garage/garden store…”

“Pre-application advice was sought for the construction of one dwelling at the site. Officer advice was given in August 2025 (UTT/25/1662/PA) which was considered that the proposal would represent the effective re-use of previously developed land in a sustainable location which would have public benefits towards the district’s housing stock.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered policy-compliant, appropriately designed, accessible, and beneficial through housing delivery and reuse of land.

“The NPPF describes the importance of maintaining a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, increased weight should be given to housing delivery when considering the planning balance in the determination of planning applications, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF (paragraph 11).”

“Accordingly, the proposals are considered to represent a well-designed and policy-compliant scheme that accords with the NPPF, the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan and the emerging Uttlesford Local Plan (2021-2041). It is therefore recommended that permission be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Highway Authority, ecology officers and conservation officers raised no objection or recommended approval subject to conditions, while the parish council supported the application with construction safeguards.

“From a highway and transportation perspective the Highway Authority stated that the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to compliance conditions.”

“Place Services (Ecology) – Recommend approval subject to attached conditions.”

Officer report

What residents raised

Ten objections concerned construction disturbance, unsafe or restricted access, traffic, neighbouring amenity, biodiversity, landscape, missing details and emergency vehicles.

“A site notice was displayed near the site and adjoining occupiers notified by post.”

“- Noise and general disturbance from construction vehicles. - Failure to provide safe and suitable access - Access is restricted leading to traffic congestion - Impact on neighbouring amenity - Impact on biodiversity and landscape - There are details missing, incorrect information and it is not considerate of any of the neighbours or nearby residents. - Inadequate access for emergency vehicles…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillors spoke against the application, while the applicant and agent spoke in support; the calling councillor recused himself after speaking publicly.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the building’s position near the boundary, the adequacy of an eight-metre gap and the view towards the Guildhall.

“In response to questions from Members, officers: • Said there had been no objections from the Conservation Officer subject to conditions. • Said that 3 TPO trees would be protected and that there were no heritage concerns.”

“Members discussed: • The building being up to the boundary with an 8m gap being sufficient. • There being an excellent view to the Guildhall.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to authorise permission, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

“Councillor Freeman (from the Chair) said that he considered this to be an enchanted spot and proposed approval of the application. This was seconded by Councillor Lemon.”

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development subject to the conditions set out in section 17 of the report- Conditions.”

Minutes