Extended bungalow at 22 South Marsh Road, Stallingborough

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached bungalow on a residential street with varied detached homes, with open fields to the north.

“The application is brought to planning committee due to a call-in request from councillor Crofts. SITE The application site is a detached bungalow-type dwelling located on the south side of South Marsh Road. South Marsh Road itself is a residential street consisting of a variety of detached residential bungalows and houses of differing designs and scales. Furthermore, many properties have been extended and altered over time.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers found the proposal acceptable in principle and in design, but considered its increased height and massing harmful to the neighbouring property.

“The roof height of the application site would be increased by approximately 2.5 metres which is considered significant, especially considering the north east elevation sits right along the boundary with the neighbour at 24 South Marsh Road.”

“The Trees and Woodlands Officer, Anglian Water, the Heritage Officer, Stallingborough Borough Council and the Highways Officer offer no objections to the proposed works. The proposal is for development which is subject to a householder application and subsequently is exempt from the mandatory biodiversity net gain. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal represents a detrimental impact to the amenity of the neighbour by reason of dominance and massing.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and several technical consultees raised no objections, while drainage and environmental protection matters were considered acceptable.

“RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND BACKGROUND PAPERS National Planning Policy Framework (2025) NPPF12 - Achieving well designed places NPPF14 - Climate, flooding & coastal change North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (adopted 2018) Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the…”

“Heritage Officer - No heritage input required. Drainage Team - Surface water drainage proposal is satisfactory. Environmental Protection Team - Approval with conditions. Ecology Team - BNG exempt. Stallingborough Parish Council - No objections. Highways Officer - Approval no conditions.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector’s statement was read out, while the applicant and a ward councillor spoke in support of the proposal.

Members’ debate

Members considered the revised design, neighbouring light, surrounding development, consistency and whether the proposal would cause harmful massing.

“Councillor Hudson said that he thought the Planning Committee was right to refuse the application previously. He said that he liked what the applicant had done to the rear of the property and had stopped light blocking the objecting neighbours window. Councillor Hudson said that he thought the compromise worked and would make the bungalow look more in keeping with the area as it looked out of place at present and the design had been altered to solve the light issues.”

“Councillor Mickleburgh said that the proposal was not out of character with the area, and he didn’t think it affected the wider character of the area. He said that there was also only one objection and whilst he understood their concerns, other people hadn’t found it necessary to object and neither had the parish council, so they seemed to think the proposal didn’t affect neighbouring amenity either.”

Minutes

Conditions discussed

The proposer and seconder agreed to proposed conditions before the committee reached its decision.

“Councillor Mickleburgh and Councillor Lindley agreed to the proposed conditions.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted nine to one to approve the application with conditions.

“RESOLVED - That the application be approved with conditions.”

“(Note - the committee voted 9 for 1 against the application to be approved.)”

Minutes

Why members differed

Members considered the design sympathetic, the height comparable to a neighbouring property and the proposal free from adverse overshadowing or massing.

“Councillor Lindley said that the alterations were sympathetic to the street scene and the proposed height was comparable to the next-door property and there was no degree of overshadowing.”

“[name withheld] sought clarification from Councillor Mickleburgh and Councillor Lindley that they didn’t feel that there would be an adverse impact on the neighbouring property in terms of massing.”

Minutes