Agenda item

Planning Application DC/22/0746/FUL - Land adjacent Roseway, Bury Road, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/22/032)

Report No: DEV/WS/22/032


Planning application - one dwelling above garages with integral staircase


Planning application - one dwelling above garages with integral staircase


This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.


It was referred to the Delegation Panel as Stanton Parish Council did not object to the proposal which was contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of refusal for the reasons set out in Paragraph 42 of Report No DEV/WS/22/032.


As part of the Officer’s presentation attention was drawn to the extant permission which applied to the site.


Speaker:      Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the application


A number of the Committee referenced other similar nearby developments, in response the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded Members of the need to determine each application on its own merits.


Councillor Ian Houlder voiced reservations with the design of the proposal and proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.


Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and with 2 against, it was resolved that




Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:


  1. Policy DM5 (Development in the countryside) sets out forms of development that will be permitted in the countryside (affordable, rural workers dwellings, replacement dwellings and infill where there is a cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings).

Policy DM27 permits dwellings in the rural area subject to certain criteria, amongst which are a requirement for dwellings to be proposed adjacent to or fronting an existing highway. In this regard, therefore, conflict with DM27 is identified. The dwelling is proposed above a garage, in a location where a single storey garage structure was previously proposed. However, the position of the proposed dwelling is set back behind those dwellings at the front, away from the road frontage in a way that does not comply with the requirement for it to be within a ‘frontage’ and ‘adjacent to or fronting a road’.

In this case the dwelling is proposed back from the road, behind the extant dwellings on the frontage and it does not therefore comply with the provisions of DM27. As a consequence of this, conflict is also identified with the requirements of Policies DM5 and CS1.

  1. The NPPF states development should be “visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping”, should be “sympathetic to local character history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting” and maintain a strong sense of place… building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live”. It further states “Development that is not well designed should be refused.

Local policies in DM2 and DM22 further support these principles, as does DM27. It is considered that the proposal with its lack of fenestration, high eaves line and blank rear elevation, along with its scale, would have a hostile and intrusive impact within this location to the rear of the consented properties, and as a result is considered to be discordant and out of context. On the basis of its design therefore it should not be supported. The proposal also fails the requirements of DM27 in that it must be ‘commensurate with the scale and character of existing dwellings’, proposing as it does an otherwise unusual built form, of an overtly suburban character, materially at odds with the prevailing character. The proposal would be visible within the streetscene, assisted by the clearance of the site and the removal of the trees and landscaped boundary along the north boundary with the neighbouring property, Oaklands. Taken together these factors lead to a conclusion that the proposal is not considered to be ‘well designed’.

As a consequence the proposal is considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and contrary to the provisions of policies DM2. DM22 and DM27. 


(On conclusion of this item Councillor Ian Houlder left the meeting at 3.27pm.)

Supporting documents: