‘Self-build’ homes plan rejected by watchdog
APPEAL OVER EIGHT HOUSES NEAR HEALTH CENTRE IS LOST
for “self-build” homes near Market Harborough have been rejected by the government’s planning watchdog.
The scheme, put forward by Alec Welton, the owner of Archway Health and WellBeing Centre, would have seen up to eight “sustainable” properties built in Lubenham.
The proposal, for land in Harborough Road, was turned down by Harborough District Council planning officials over fears the homes – described as self-build – would harm the area.
However, Mr Welton insisted the scheme would be beneficial and appealed that decision.
But the Planning Inspectorate has now upheld the council’s decision.
Inspector Jonathan Edwards said the harm the proposal would do to the area was the “overriding factor” in his decision.
Plans for the homes first emerged in September 2021, when Mr Welton showcased his idea for up to seven properties on land next to the car park of his wellbeing centre.
An eighth property, described as the “owner’s house” in planning documents, would have been sited further away from the others.
Mr Welton said in the documents that seven of the homes would be three-bedroomed properties available on the open market, while the four-bedroom owner’s house would not be for sale.
The homes would be made from sustainable materials, the docuPROPOSALS ments stated, and generate their own heating.
However, the idea met much opposition, with district councillors turning it down in June last year. The authority labelled the scheme “anomalous” and said it would “stand out as an incongruous feature on this semi-rural approach into Market Harborough”.
The Planning Inspectorate’s Mr Edwards said in his conclusion the homes’ location, next to the car park, would “significantly undermine” the aesthetic of the current wooded land, and that plans to limit this would not off-set the “highly noticeable” houses.
The inspector did acknowledge several letters of support for the homes, some of which said it was a “commendable idea” and one that would “put Market Harborough on the map”.
However, he did not feel any of those supporters addressed the concerns raised about the plan.
He said: “The comments made are noted but they do not address the harm I have identified.
“Also, they do not in themselves provide justification to allow development.”
Mr Edwards also acknowledged a short-term jobs boost from construction of the homes, as well as the “energy neutral” plans, but said he found the location to be a main problem.
“The significant harm identified is the overriding factor. The proposal’s benefits and other considerations provide insufficient justification to grant planning permission.”