Rear home extension at 34 Nether Street, Rougham

The site

The site contains a modest thatched cottage in countryside, outside a settlement boundary, and the cottage is a non-designated heritage asset.

“The application site comprises a modest thatched cottage (No. 34) located along Nether Street in Rougham. The site lies outside of any defined…”

“No. 34 itself is not statutorily listed, but it has been identified by the Conservation Officer as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). This classification is based on the building’s architectural and historic interest. Despite some unsympathetic alterations over time, the cottage retains a number of traditional features that contribute significantly to its historic character and local distinctiveness.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A detached outbuilding at the property was granted permission in July 2023.

“DC/23/0560/HH Householder planning application - detached outbuilding Application Granted 28 July 2023”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council submitted support, the applicant spoke in support, and the ward member opened the debate.

What members debated

Members weighed protection of the heritage asset against modern family living, discussed the extension’s size and screening, and considered ecological and tree conditions.

“Considerable discussion took place with a number of Members recognising the need to protect a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) but likewise appreciating the need to accommodate modern family living at a property, in order to make it sustainable.”

“Councillor Peter Armitage asked if the incomplete ecological assessment could be conditioned, together with tree protection, and was assured by Officers that this could be done.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation was proposed, seconded and passed with 12 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

“Accordingly, Councillor Bull proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal. This was duly seconded by Councillor Phil Wittam.”

“Accordingly, upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion, 1 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Permission was granted because members considered the scheme subjective, respectful of the original dwelling, non-dominant and suitably screened by landscaping.

“Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as on balance when considering policies LP17 and LP36, it was considered that the scheme was subjective and respected the original dwelling, was not dominant and was suitably screened by landscaping.”

Minutes

Conditions to be added

Conditions would cover standard matters, materials, ecology and tree protection, with consultation on the conditions if required.

“The Head of Planning confirmed that relevant conditions to be appended to the permission would be compiled. These would include standard conditions alongside a requirement for the receipt of materials, in order to protect the character and appearance of the dwelling. Ecology and tree protection, as previously raised, would be included. Consultation on conditions would take place with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Committee if required.”

Minutes