Agenda item

Demolish existing bungalow and erect replacement dwelling.

The Case Officer, supported by plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies. The site was located just south of the defined settlement boundary and involved the replacement of a long-vacant dwelling. Access was via a private drive, with open fields to the south. The site was visible from several public rights of way, and the removal of trees had increased visibility of the existing structure. Two adjacent trees were noted on neighbouring land.

The site context plan and history of refused applications were presented, demonstrating how previous reasons for refusal had been addressed. The proposed site plan reflected pre-application advice and included a reduced footprint. Proposed elevations were compared with the previously refused scheme. Materials and the addition of rear-facing solar panels were highlighted. The Highway Engineer raised no objections, and no harm to residential amenity was identified. Drainage had been a key concern, and the officer outlined the measures taken to resolve this. The application was for a self-build dwelling. Biodiversity replacement measures had been secured through an ecological assessment.

Public Participation

Giles Moir stated the applicants were not commercial developers but building a family home. He noted refusal related to biodiversity details, not planning principle. Pre-application advice led to reduced scale and use of materials reflecting the area’s character. He raised no objection, subject to conditions. Tree felling occurred before the applicants owned the site; the current scheme included new tree planting and solar panels. Surface water disposal and drainage were addressed. He concluded the proposal enhanced the area and provided a new home for the applicants.

Members questions and comments

• Noted the applicant had collaborated and sought professional advice, taking comments on board.
• Welcomed the inclusion of water butts in the proposal.
• Identified surface water as the only issue, but acknowledged the report was comprehensive.
• Commended planning officers for their efforts in producing a more suitable application.
• Referenced concerns previously raised by the Parish Council.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to grant as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Andy Skeats, and seconded by Cllr Beryl Ezzard, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant subject to a s106, either Recommendation

A) Grant, subject to the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the Legal Services manager to secure the following: (i) The Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) self-build exemption and (ii) A payment of £4,826 as financial compensation for the loss of trees and scrub habitat on the site.

Or

B) REFUSE permission for the reasons set out within the report if the agreement was not completed by 4 February 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.