Two new homes at Holmfield, Old Tupton, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing bungalow, building a two-storey house and bungalow, and creating a new access while closing the existing one.

“As amended, the proposed development seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing bungalow, which is identified as Holmfield, and construction of two new dwellings on the site. The proposals include the construction of a new two-storey dwelling, which would effectively replace the existing bungalow. The proposed two-storey property would front Ankerbold Road and is identified in the submitted details as Plot 1.”

“The proposals include the creation of a new vehicular access point, to Ankerbold Road, at the south-eastern corner of the site. In addition, a new driveway would be installed adjacent to the southern edge of the application site, allowing for vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed bungalow, which is identified as Plot 2 in the submitted drawings. It is intended that the existing vehicular access would subsequently be closed.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a spacious residential plot within Tupton’s settlement limits, surrounded by detached homes, Church View Drive properties and a major housing development.

“The application site comprises a detached bungalow situated within a spacious, linear parcel of land located on the western side of Ankerbold Road, Old Tupton. The site is situated within the defined Settlement Development Limits (SDL) for Tupton.”

“The site forms part of a ribbon of residential development along the western side of Ankerbold Road and is flanked by detached properties which are situated in substantial parcels of land. The neighbouring properties on Ankerbold Road comprise detached dwellings identified as Greenacre and Summerfield, which are respectively situated to the north and south of the application site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a detached garage and an attached garage with conservatory, while a later five-home application was returned without a decision.

“02/00840/FL – Proposed erection of attached garage and conservatory – Conditionally Approved.”

“22/01126/FL – The demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of 5 dwellings comprising of x4 2 storey semi-detached and x1 1.5 storey dwellings – Application returned (no decision).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions, considering the development visually acceptable, protective of amenity and highway-safe, with technical matters controlled by conditions.

“In this case, Officers are of the view that the proposed development represents an acceptable form of development within the defined Settlement Development Limits of Tupton. Officers consider that the proposed development would represent an acceptable visual addition to the site and surrounding streetscene.”

“On the basis of the above considerations, Officers recommend that planning permission is APPROVED subject to conditions, with the final wording delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management):-”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental health, wildlife and arboricultural officers raised no objections subject to conditions, while the parish council objected over traffic movement.

“Derbyshire County Council (DCC) Highways Officers were consulted on the application, initially requesting additional information pertaining to the proposed access. Subsequent to receipt of amended plans, DCC issued a further, updated consultation response, which raises no objections to the proposed development from a highway safety perspective, subject to the inclusion of conditions. See Assessment below for further details.”

“NEDDC Environmental Health Officers were consulted on the application, raising no objections to the proposed development, subject to the inclusion of planning conditions relating to measures to minimise the spread of airbourne…”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Nineteen objections raised concerns about amenity, privacy, overlooking, traffic, construction disturbance, biodiversity, trees, design, parking and cumulative development.

“Concerns that the proposed bungalow (Plot 2) would result in unacceptable and harmful impacts on the residential amenity levels currently enjoyed by the occupiers of properties on Church View Drive. These concerns include loss of outlook, dominating impact and loss of light. • Concerns relating to disturbance during the construction phase.”

“Highway safety concerns relating to visibility splays, with concerns regarding the telegraph pole within the proposed visibility splay. • Potential light pollution from PIR security lighting and security cameras etc. • Impact on value of neighbouring properties. Officer note: Officers are of the view that the impact of development on property values does not represent a material planning consideration.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the local ward member and three objectors before considering the application.

The committee debate

Members differed on whether the effect on neighbouring amenity was significant enough to refuse, while some supported the housing contribution within the settlement limits.

“Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. This included Local Plan Policy SDC12, concerning high quality design and place making, and Local Plan Policy SS7, concerning development on unallocated land within settlement with defined settlement development limits.”

“Committee discussed the application. Some Members suggested that the amenity of neighbouring properties would be significantly impacted. Some Members suggested that whilst there was an impact on amenity, it was not significant or material enough to refuse the application. Some Members supported the proposal as it contributed to housing need and lay within the SDL of Tupton.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve in line with the officer recommendation was moved, seconded and approved by the committee.

“At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor K Rouse and Councillor T Lacey moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, in line with officer recommendation, subject to conditions. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was conditionally approved, with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager.

“RESOLVED – That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to…”

Minutes