One detached dwelling at Land Adj 140 Derby Road, Stanley

What was proposed

The application proposed one reduced-scale, two-storey detached dwelling between 136 and 140 Derby Road, set back about 15.5 metres from the highway.

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of one detached dwelling. The proposal is two-storeys high and is sited between number 136 and 140 Derby Road. It is set back approximately 15.5m from the back edge of the public highway. Visually the site presents a gap in the street between dwellings to either side, one in which, ordinarily, a dwelling may be expected to be located. However, the site has never been developed as such.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant, overgrown site lies in the Green Belt between two homes, on land rising above a narrow road without footways.

“The application site is situated on the north-western side of Derby Road, approx. 0.6km to the south of Stanley village. The site is vacant and overgrown and measures approximately 50m (average) deep x 12m in width. The land on the site slopes up markedly from the Derby Road before levelling out at a height approx. 2.0m above road level.”

“The site is situated between two existing dwellings at 136 and 140 Derby Road. These dwellings are part of a row of five that are located in the Green Belt, and outside the village envelope of Stanley. No.140 is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, which sits on higher ground than the application site, and No.136 is a detached bungalow, which sits on lower ground than the application site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for a dwelling were refused, including applications refused in 2008 and 2017; the 2008 appeal was dismissed.

“Several planning applications were made to erect a dwelling on this site, from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s. They were all refused permission; any appeals lodged against the refusals were also dismissed. In more recent years, the following applications were received:”

“Ref ERE/0318/0030 an outline application for one dwelling was refused in April 2017 for the following reasons:”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was limited infill, acceptable in design, and would not cause significant harm to neighbours or highway safety.

“Following submission, Officers requested amendments to the design and also the height of the proposed dwelling to reduce its impact on the amenity of adjacent occupiers. Accordingly, amendments were submitted to address Officer concerns. The surrounding area is a mixture of styles, heights, materials and designs of dwellings. The amended plans show a proposed dwelling of a functional design and reduced scale.”

“The proposal is considered to constitute limited infilling and is not therefore inappropriate development. It is of an acceptable design which will not adversely impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties, the character of the street scene, or highway safety. The application is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Nine representations raised concerns about Green Belt harm, the dwelling’s effect on neighbours, highway safety, ecology, biodiversity and the need for housing.

“Adjoining occupiers were notified of the proposals and a site notice was displayed. A press notice advertising the proposals was placed in the local paper. 9 representations have been received from nearby occupiers (and a planning consultant instructed by a nearby resident) and can be summarised as follows:”

“Previous planning applications have always been refused on this site due to its Green Belt designation which remain valid today. • The proposed dwelling would be overbearing within the street and specifically on number 136, a bungalow. • Highway safety though a 30mph traffic travels at greater speeds. • Loss of light, aspect and privacy as a result of the proposals height. • The proposal would result in a loss of openness and would cause visual harm.”

Officer report

Public speakers

Two speakers opposed the application, citing the Green Belt, pedestrian and highway safety, loss of sunlight and views, and previous refusals.

Members’ consideration

Members considered the speakers’ concerns and were advised that the proposal should be assessed as possible limited infilling, with no normal daylight shading at the neighbouring homes identified.

“Prior to the members debate, the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the site has a long planning history and that the application should be assessed on whether it qualifies for limited infilling within a village. It was also clarified that number 140 to the south of the proposal would not be shaded by the development during normal daylight hours, and number 136 to the north of the proposal would not experience shade at the front of the dwelling.”

“Members of the committee considered the points raised by the speakers, in addition to the matters covered in the report and:”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions in the report.

“RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.”

Minutes