Semi-detached dwelling at 22 Whatton Road, Kegworth, Derby

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey semi-detached dwelling in the former garage space, using the existing access and providing two parking spaces.

“Proposals and Background Planning permission is sought for the erection of a semi-detached single storey dwelling and associated works at 22 Whatton Road, Kegworth. The dwelling would be built within the space previously occupied by a garage which was approved to be demolished under 25/00799/DEM. The proposed dwelling would utilise the existing vehicular access to the site and parking would be provided for two vehicles in front of the dwelling.”

“Amended plans have been provided during the course of the application following officer concerns over the extent of hardsurfacing to the frontage of the host and proposed dwelling. As a result, amended plans were received which increases the level of soft landscaping to the proposal.”

Officer report

The site and setting

The site lies within Kegworth’s settlement boundary and the adopted Local Plan’s Limits to Development; the host dwelling is understood to be an HMO.

“The site is located within the Limits to Development, as defined by the Policy Map to the adopted Local Plan (2021) and is situated within the settlement boundary of Kegworth.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A previous two-storey dwelling was refused and dismissed on appeal, while later applications approved or refused garage, extension and demolition works.

“19/00938/FUL Erection of one no detached two-storey dwelling – refused 08.11.2019 and dismissed at appeal 31.07.2020 21/00273/CLP Certificate of lawful proposed development for the conversion of integral garage to habitable room – permitted 09.04.2021 24/01380/CLP Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use for Erection of a two-storey rear extension – refused 23.12.2024 24/01381/CLP Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use for conversion of garage into habitable accommodation and single…”

“The detached dwelling submitted under application reference 19/00938/FUL was refused by the Council on the following ground:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the proposal acceptable in principle, well designed, and without significant harm to amenity, highways, drainage or ecology.

“In this case, it is acknowledged that there would be no conflict with the spatial strategy due to the site’s location within the defined Limits to Development of Kegworth, which is a 'Local Service Centre'. Accordingly, the site is considered to be highly sustainable and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.”

“The proposal is not considered to result in significantly detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity and flood risk.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected to the street scene, overdevelopment, parking and incomplete host-property plans, while highways and environmental protection raised no objections.

“Kegworth Parish Council – On the following grounds:”

“- Detrimental impact on the street scene - Overdevelopment of the site. - Insufficient parking - Incomplete plans of the host property…”

Officer report

What residents said

Thirteen third parties raised concerns about amenity, parking, traffic, appearance, drainage, noise, the HMO, construction, landscaping and other site matters.

“Thirteen third parties raised objections which are summarised as follows: Grounds of Objections…”

“Construction noise concerns from works to the host dwelling and concerns the development will result in the same…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent urged approval, while Councillor Sutton urged refusal because of character, living standards, sensitive intensification and design concerns.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the site’s intensification, separation from the neighbour, character, visual impact and whether parking was adequate for the inhabitants.

“A discussion was had during which several questions of clarity were addressed by the planning officers. Members raised concerns about the intensification of the site, highlighting the lack of distance from the neighbouring property. Planning officers advised that concerns relating to separation distances were primarily visual in nature and noted that, from a planning perspective, the proposed development could be constructed up to the site boundary.”

“Members also noted that the character and appearance of the dwelling was not in keeping with surrounding properties, and concerns were raised around whether the number of parking spaces was adequate for the number of inhabitants.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application under Policy D1 and NPPF Policies Dp3 and L2 because over-intensive development would harm the street scene, visual amenities and character.

“Members had a further discussion where they raised concerns regarding over- intensification of the site resulting in harm to the street scene and visual amenity and character.”

“The application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy D1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies Dp3 and L2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and that it would result in an over-intensive form of development that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area.”

Minutes