One-bedroom dwelling at 18 Garton Close, Chilwell

What was proposed

The application sought to convert an approved two-storey side extension into a one-bedroom semi-detached dwelling with living space, a bathroom and one parking space.

“The application is brought to committee at request of Councillor Stephen Jeremiah. 1. Purpose of the Report 1.1 The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the two- storey side extension to form a semi-detached new dwelling. 2. Recommendation The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be refused subject to conditions outlined in the appendix. 3.”

“Planning Committee 15 April 2026 Appendix 1. Details of the application 1.1 This application seeks planning permission to change the use of the approved householder side extension into a new dwelling. The new dwelling would have a depth of 6.5m and a width of 5.3m. It would have a gable roof with two dormers on the front roof slope. The side elevation would have a door and the rear elevation would have two windows. The front elevation would have a door and a window.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would be a cramped, contrived subdivision, harm the area’s character and provide poor living conditions for future occupants.

“The benefits of the proposed development are that it would add to the housing supply within a residential area. However, the proposal fails to demonstrate that a new dwelling can be accommodated within the site without resulting in a contrived and cramped form of subdivision that fails to reflect the established character and pattern of the surrounding residential area.”

“In respect of amenity for future occupiers, whilst the new dwelling is considered to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for the future occupiers, the host dwelling will be significantly close to the proposed dwelling which will not only cause a cramped form of development but will also likely cause a cramped form of development which could be particularly overbearing for existing and new occupants of the site.”

Officer report

Neighbours’ objections

Two responses from the same neighbour objected to privacy, enclosure, light, parking, drainage, construction and the change from an extension to a dwelling.

“Seven properties either adjoining or adjacent to the site were consulted and two responses were received from same neighbour raising objections for the following reasons: • Change of use from householder extension to a new dwelling • Loss of privacy due to side door and rear roof windows • Sense of enclosure • Loss of light • Extension not built as approved • Parking issues during construction works • Lack of information about drainage, soil pipe and existing manhole •…”

Officer report

Officers’ main concerns

Officers considered the site too small for an additional dwelling, with an unsuitable garden arrangement and a plot layout unlike neighbouring properties.

“Overall it is considered that the site is of an insufficient size to accommodate an additional dwelling with the necessary garden area and would appear contrived and out of keeping. It is also considered the proposal is a contrived effort in creating a new dwelling within the footprint and massing of a household extension. Accepting such development would set a precedent for additional subdivision of plots immediately adjacent to the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One public speaker, the applicant, made representations before the general debate.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed whether the site, garden and parking were adequate, whether the existing structure mattered and whether the internal space would suit a tenant.

“The Committee gave consideration to the representations before it, with debate covering the appropriateness of the site. Members considered that the site was appropriate for the development, discussing adequacy of the garden and parking provision, the fact that the structure is already built, and whether adequate internal space would be provided to any tenant.”

“It was considered that the development would not be overbearing to existing properties and would be a benefit for the area.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

Permission required approved plans, landscaping and boundary details, landscaping works, and hard-bound access and parking areas with surface-water controls.

“The dwelling shall not be occupied until the landscaping scheme and boundary treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include the following details: a. The hedges to be retained b. Proposed boundary treatment c. Proposed hard surfacing treatment d. Planting, seeding/turfing of soft landscape areas…”

“The proposed dwelling shall not be occupied/brought into use until both accesses and parking or turning areas are surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) for a minimum of 5.5 metres behind the Highway boundary and constructed so as to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway.”

Minutes