Single rural dwelling at Land to the north west of Church Mews, Pitsford

What was proposed

The application proposed one dwelling with outbuildings, a pavilion, solar panels, a plant room, pond, driveway and landscaping.

“Development: Construction of a single dwelling and associated outbuildings, pavilion, ground mounted solar panels and associated plant room, new pond, new access driveway and soft and hard landscaping.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal failed the exceptional design test and harmed the character and appearance of the site and surroundings.

“It is recognised that the proposal would provide a bespoke family home and would make a minor contribution to the Council’s housing land supply, albeit there is no identified local need (the Pitsford Housing Needs Survey is out of date) for a dwelling of this size. The dwelling would achieve a high level of energy efficiency; however, all developments should strive to deliver sustainable design and contribute to reduce carbon emissions.”

“The proposal lacks the architectural clarity, material authenticity and compositional coherence necessary to be considered “truly outstanding” or to reflect the highest standards in architecture. It would also result in harm to the character and appearance of the site that would not represent a significant enhancement to the immediate setting, and the proposal would not be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

Officer report

Objections from others

Twenty-eight objections and six comments raised concerns about isolation, design, landscape, heritage, traffic, flooding, ecology, lighting, privacy and construction.

“Application site not rural or isolated. Not visually remote. • Outside of the village confines. • Impact on the character of the area, heritage assets and landscape. Inappropriate location. • Impact on ridge and furrow. • Impact on views, including those within the CAAMP. • Impact of additional traffic on highway safety. • Does not accord with the criteria set out under paragraph 84 e) of the NPPF.”

“Neighbours would not agree to discharge of surface water onto their land. • Impact on ecology, wildlife and contamination. • Increased noise and light pollution. • Potential for other uses, including commercial uses. • Impact on overlooking from overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing (impact on land quality). • Set precedent for other large houses adjoining the village and Pitsford reservoir, and outside of the village.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, citing its siting and scale, effects on local character, biodiversity, wildlife and flood risk.

The committee vote

Councillors proposed and seconded refusal; ten voted for, none against and one abstained.

“It was proposed by Councillor Rupert Frost and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Harris that application 2024/4446/FULL be refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation for the reason set out in the report. The motion was put to the vote with ten votes cast in favour of the proposal, no votes cast against with one abstention, therefore the motion was carried, and the application was refused.”

Minutes