Underground eco home in Whitwell gains retrospective planning approval from Rutland County Council

An underground house built significantly bigger than allowed has received retrospective council approval.

The latest round in the long-running saga of the eco Field House in Whitwell played out at Rutland County Council last night (Tuesday, April 15) as the planning committee agreed ‘major changes’ to what permission was granted back in 2022.

Extra bedrooms, removal of glass panels, a wood-burning flue and a floor space almost two-thirds bigger, coming in at 206 sq metres in rather than the 126 sq metres agreed, led residents to report the build project to enforcement officers at Rutland County Council.

Despite concerns from one councillor, who claimed at last night's meeting she was being ‘almost blackmailed’, retrospective permission was granted.

The earth-covered home in a conservation area close to the Noel Arms pub has courted controversy since before a spade hit the ground. Rutland’s planning committee refused the original application in 2021 saying it would be ‘visually intrusive’ but it was then approved on appeal the following year.

Planning officer Paul Milne had recommended yesterday's committee meeting approved the changes, saying the proposal "has minimal visual impact" with "only glimpse through to the dwelling from adjacent public roads and footpaths".

He concluded: "The building does not have a significantly greater impact on the visual amenity or the landscape character of the area.”

Church warden Tony Godwin, speaking on behalf of 23 villagers, said: “This larger building will have a greater impact. It is 64% greater in internal area."

He added that it was also 40% taller with less landscaping to conceal it. "Size matters in the setting of a small restrained village as Whitwell,” he said.

Mr Godwin also felt changes to the building's design made it look "pedestrian, even commercial" and that it had lost the "striking contemporary appearance the appeal inspector reported”.

Ward councillor for the area Kiloran Heckels (Con) had urged the committee to refuse it.

She said the home was visible from the village entrance and "lacks the wow factor".

She said: “As the NPPF [national planning police framework] stated, effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. I cannot state the importance of maintaining public trust in the planning process.

“Effective enforcement is important. If you get planning permission to build a building, you should build that building and not a different one. I urge you therefore to turn down the application.”

But planning manager Justin Johnson said taking enforcement action was "always a last resort", in line with government guidance.

He added: “What we say in our report is that if there is potential for the breach to be resolved through a planning application, then we will seek to do so, so that’s what enforcement officers did. They saw that there was a breach, they discussed it with officers, we felt that there might be potential for it to be resolved through an application.”

The owners had applied for retrospective planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. John Dickie from the building firm was at the meeting and said there had always been an intention to apply for retrospective planning, as in a scheme of this type changes often occurred. He said the property, which is still unfinished, ‘preserves the defining characteristics of the original scheme’.

When asked by Coun Andrew Browne (Ind) why they went ahead without permission, Mr Dickie said: "It is often the case, when you look at developing working drawings, that changes come to light. The scheme needs to be amended in a number of ways. It was through practical considerations that we decided to change some elements of the scheme, the design evolved to the scheme that you see before you now."

He said if the permission were refused, the owners would ‘almost certainly’ appeal again.

Coun Kevin Corby (Ind) said the scheme was ‘not his cup of tea’ and Coun Christine Wise (Lib Dem) said the changes were not minor but major.

She said: “My feeling that we are being almost blackmailed into accepting this is not a planning concern. This is ‘accept what we have built or we will take you to appeal’.

"For me, if this was a good build we should have had planning permission earlier than this stage. I really have this feeling that I am being put in an impossible position, but that is not a planning concern.”

The committee was told by officers it had to consider the application as if it were a normal application, rather than one coming in after the event.

Ten committee members voted to allow the retrospective planning and one abstained.