Dormers and home extensions at 11 Stockdove Way, Thornton, Cleveleys

What was proposed

The application sought dormers, changes to bay windows and the front wall, black window frames, chimney removal and a rear extension.

“Proposal Proposed 2No front dormers and 1No side dormer, alterations to front bay windows and front boundary wall, installation of new black uPVC window frames, removal of chimney stacks and single storey rear extension.”

“The application seeks planning permission for 2 front dormers and 1 side dormer, alterations to front bay windows and front boundary wall, installation of black UPVC window frames, removal of chimney stacks and single storey rear extension. The front bay windows have been completed, the chimney stacks have been removed and the single storey rear extension was partially completed at the time of compiling this report.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached rendered dwelling with a red tiled roof, a partly enclosed front garden, a driveway and a detached garage.

“The application site is a detached rendered dwelling with a red tiled roof which is located on the north side of Stockdove Way, Cleveleys. The front garden is partly enclosed by a 1m high red brick wall with brick piers. Part of the front garden is flagged and this is continued at the rear. The driveway leads to a detached garage.”

“The dwelling extends at the rear to provide for first floor accommodation within the roof space. An existing single storey extension has been demolished to provide for a single storey extension with hipped roof which is being applied as part of this application.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier rear extension application was refused, while a later application to create a care home for up to three children was refused but allowed on appeal.

“82/01469 - Extension to rear to provide separate living accommodation - Refused…”

“25/00709/FUL - Proposed change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to residential care home (Class C2) for up to three children - Refused - Appeal Allowed.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the proposal proportionate and well designed, with no adverse effect on neighbouring amenity, highways, parking, flooding or ecology.

“Overall, the proposed extensions and alterations are considered to be proportionate, well designed and would respect the character of the main dwelling and that of the surrounding area in line with Policy CDMP3.”

“The proposed extensions and alterations are considered to be visually acceptable and would not result in an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, subject to a condition requiring obscure glazing to be provided in the east facing dormer window. Matters relating to flood risk have been assessed as being acceptable subject to proceeding in accordance with the submitted FRA .”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Nine objections raised concerns about overlooking, privacy, overdevelopment, design, flooding, the historic cottage exhibition and works already completed.

“At the time of compiling this report there have been 9 letters of objection . The matters raised primarily relate to the following issues:”

“The removal of the chimney stacks has already taken place • The dormers will result in an overlooking issues and will impact neighbours privacy • An unauthorised rear extension is in the process of being constructed • The extensions are too large for the dwelling - overdevelopment • The proposed changes are not in keeping with the surrounding area • The application dwelling was part of the 1906 Cleveleys Cottage Exhibition • The dwelling is subject to groundwater and…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two people spoke against the application, while the agent and the applicant spoke in support.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the appeal and the property’s possible future use, while one member considered the site overdeveloped but not harmful to the street scene.

“The Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control clarified that it was the landowner’s choice which permission to implement as a response to the concerns raised regarding the successful appeal, allowing for the property to be changed into a children’s home. He added that as the permissions conflicted, those issues could be resolved by the applicant through a variation of the conditions if they chose to convert the site into a children’s care home.”

“Councillor Livesey commented that while he did believe the site to be over developed, he didn’t believe it to affect the street scene.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application as recommended, subject to conditions covering the timescale, approved plans, materials, flood mitigation and bathroom window privacy.

“Councillor Belshaw proposed the recommendation to grant planning permission for the proposed development subject to conditions and to authorise the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control to make changes to the wording of the conditions as may be appropriate as long as the changes would not materially affect what the condition is trying to achieve or the permission overall. Councillor Livesey seconded the proposal.”

“The development shall be carried out strictly using those materials specified on the approved plan(s) Drawing No 2025-10-02 REV B unless other minor variations are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after the date of this permission and before implementation.”

Minutes