Dwelling rebuild and extension at Shawfield, Main Street, Bleasby

The site and surroundings

The bungalow lies near the Bleasby Conservation Area, open land and two listed buildings, with private gardens, drives, fences, hedges and trees.

“The Site 1.1 The application relates to a modern brick bungalow located on the edge of the Bleasby Conservation Area. The dwelling is set well back from the public highway and is accessed via long private drive running north-east from Main Street, which serves another neighbouring property known as Garden Cottage. The neighbouring properties also comprise of mostly large and modern detached dwellings with their associated private drives and garden spaces.”

“There is a private loose gravel drive south of the dwelling and private garden area to the sides and rear. Boundary treatments consist of wooden fences and hedges and trees are dotted to the north and east.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the design, heritage, neighbour amenity, highways, ecology and flood-risk effects acceptable.

“The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to CP12 and DM7 in this respect. Impact on Flood Risk 7.33. Part of the application site (including the area where the dwelling is located) lies within Flood Zone 2 whereas land immediately around the dwelling is located within Flood Zone 1 according to Environment Agency flood data. The area to which the proposed development is located is at low risk of surface water flooding.”

“Extract of flood map. The proposed development is considered to be ‘minor development’ in accordance with the NPPG (householder development), as such Flood Risk Standing Advice applies. Paragraph 176 of the NPPF advises that applications for minor development should not be subject to the sequential or exception tests but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments. 7.36.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eight residents raised concerns about the changed design, demolition, privacy, overbearing effects, materials, heritage, conservation-area harm and dormers compared with rooflights.

“The proposal would represent a significant change from that proposal and the dormers would not respect privacy to neighbouring dwellings; Demolition work has already commenced (08/01/2026), with the roof completely demolished; Harm to the setting, appearance, character and amenity of this rural conservation area; More visible from the public footpath which borders Shawfield; Change in materials would make the building over-bearing and not in keeping with the existing…”

“Rooflights provide more light than dormers; Windows to Pilkington level 4 obscure glazing reduces the level of light to the rooms and increases the likelihood of clear glass future replacements; Should be rebuilt to the previous height with rooflights in the west elevation to protect the privacy of the surrounding occupants. Appraisal 7.1.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the committee in objection, and the Senior Planning Officer presented photographs and plans of the proposal.

Members’ concerns

Members were concerned about the extent of demolition and considered that the proposal had an overbearing effect on the conservation area and a neighbouring property.

“Members considered the application, and concern was raised regarding the amount of demolition that had taken place on the dwelling although the application was for part demolition and rebuilding of dwelling, single storey extension, roof re- construction to a slightly higher ridge height, introduction of dormer windows and external alterations, although part of the works were retrospective.”

“After extensive debate, the key concern was detrimental impact on the special character and appearance of the conservation area.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee rejected the approval motion by four votes to eight, then voted six to four with one abstention to refuse permission.

“A vote was taken and lost for approval with 4 votes For and 8 votes Against.”

“AGREED Moved Councillor K Melton and Seconded Councillor C Brooks (with 6 votes For, 4 votes Against and 1 Abstention) that Planning Permission be refused. Reason for refusal: overbearing impact on the Conservation area. The wording for reason of refusal: The increased roof height and addition of dormer windows would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of Bleasby Conservation Area which would not be outweighed by public benefits.”

Minutes