Agenda item

Church End, 29 Middle Street, Croxton Kerrial

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Richard Botterill

Location: Church End, 29 Middle Street, 29 Middle Street, Croxton Kerrial

Proposal: Construction of new dwelling and alterations to existing access.

 

 The Case Officer (GBA) reported that:

 

This is a full planning application for one house on land off Middle Street, Croxton Kerrial.

 

Two updates following the publication of the report:-

a)         Two further separate representations from the residents of 27 Middle Street who maintain concern of how the size and position of the proposed building would be an overbearing impact on their home and view of the village from the approach. There is also concern of the windows of the proposed building will be directly visible to and from bedroom windows.

As previously commented, there is no objection to the principle of the building, rather the current size in relation to our home and the remainder of the village with suggested changes.

b)         The parish council have responded showing an appreciation for the reduced the height of the house and the scale by removing the garage and changing the overall design. They have no objection to the house in principal but are concerned about the height, relationship to the Grade II* listed church and the impact on the northern entrance to the village. Consider it needs to be ‘hankered down into the landscape with other suggestions made which align with the views of the MBC planning department.

 

Despite this the applicant wishes to have determination as the house currently sits and is designed.

 

This is a single dwelling proposal with all matters of design, access and landscaping for consideration. Whilst located in a sustainable village and therefore being acceptable in principle the specific location on this site is deemed to have an impact on the conservation area and the grade II* listed church. The development of this site would result in the loss of what is considered one of the most important aspects of green infrastructure within the conservation area, where the open, undeveloped nature of the site accommodates expansive views from the approach / departure into the village, and most significantly towards the adjacent Grade II* listed St John the Baptist Church.

For this reason on balance, it is considered that the benefits of one house in an area where there is many allocations for housing already does not outweigh the  impacts of impact to the conservation area and listed building.

 

In reference to the concerns over neighbour amenity it is viewed that the 8.6m distance is sufficient for a one and half storey extension.

There is also no window proposed on this side to be considered an impact in terms of privacy.

 

However owing to the concerns of heritage impact, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Richard Botterill, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         There is no adverse effect on the church

·         No adverse effect on the conservation area

·         No views of church from the proposal site

·         72m from site to the church

·         Other approved applications have had a greater impact on the church

·         It is in keeping with local buildings

·         The building is set down into the site

·         There is no policy protection on the site

·         This application creates no harm

·         There are lots of benefits to the application

·         This will create a new building within the village to attract new villagers

 

A Cllr questioned the relative size of the dwelling

 

Mr Botterill responded that the dwelling is of a similar size to the neighbouring properties, and that he is happy to accept any conditions relating to this.

 

A Cllr queried the Parish Councils stance to the application.

 

Mr Botterill responded that the Parish Council is now neutral to the application, after the amended plans were submitted.

 

The Case Officer (GBA) confirmed that the Parish Council is now neutral to the application.

 

A Cllr queried whether there is a policy for agricultural need need within the local plan.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that it relates to exceptional circumstances, and that the policy in the emerging Local Plan is very similar to NPPF paragraph 55.

 

A Cllr commented that this application has limited impact on the church when entering the village from the direction from Knipton.

 

A Cllr stated the agreement with the previous comments.

 

A Cllr stated that farmhouses need to be large dwellings, so had no issues with the proposed size of the dwelling.

 

A Cllr queried whether the dwelling classed as a farmhouse or not.

 

A Cllr answered that the new dwelling would be surrounded by their farmland.

The Applications and Advice Manager responded that this application is not presented as agricultural need.

 

A Cllr stated that this application could be really nice, and create a good entrance to the village. It is Belvoir Estate land that is farmed, but that is not a planning issue. There is no garage included within this application.

 

The Case Officer (GBA) commented that the garage was removed when amended plans were submitted.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to permit the application, as there would be no adverse effects on the setting of the church or the conservation area.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the motion to permit. Cllr Cumbers proposed a condition that permitted development rights be removed from the new dwelling. Cllr Wyatt agreed to the condition.

 

A Cllr commented that this application will affect the church and agree with the Officer’s report, so cannot support the motion to permit.

 

A Cllr commented that the ridge height had been reduced with the amended plans submitted.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to permit.

 

8 Councillors supported the motion.

2 Councillors opposed the motion.

0 Councillors abstained from the vote.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT, subject to conditions the details of which were delegated to the Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services, for the following reasons:

 

It is considered that the development would meet a housing need and there would be no adverse effects on the setting of the church or the conservation area or unacceptable impact on surrounding properties. The development was therefore in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, adopted Local Plan and emerging Local Plan policies.

 

Cllr Botterill returned to the meeting at 20:21