Detached bungalow at Land to rear of 18 Moor Park Road, Northwood

What was proposed

The application proposed one detached bungalow with parking, a new vehicle crossover, landscaping, cycle parking and refuse storage.

“Proposal: Erection of 1no. detached bungalow, with associated parking (including installation of new vehicular crossover), landscaping, cycle parkin g and refuse storage. Summary of Recommendation:”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 1no. detached bungalow, with associated parking (including installation of a new vehicular crossover) landscapin g, cycle parking and refuse storage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was part of the rear garden of 18 Moor Park Road, on a corner facing Grove Road, within a suburban area of detached homes.

“The application site is a rectangular block of land located within the rear garden of the corner site of 18 Moor Park Road which sits on the north-eastern corner of Moor Park Road and Grove Road. The plot currently forms part of the rear garden of No.18 and consists of a variety of soft landscaping and shrub planting. The site is not subject to any specific planning constraints, including not being located within a Conservation Area or an Area of Special Local Character.”

“The street scene along Moor Park Road and Grove Road is generally characterised by large two storey detached dwellings in a variety of ages, architectural styles and materials. The area is suburban in nature with the south- eastern end of Grove Road consisting of the rear gardens of 18 Moor Park Road and 2 Grove Road. On the opposite side of Grove Road, the site faces No.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for semi-detached homes and a two-storey house were refused, with the latter appeal dismissed because of harm to the area’s character.

“Two previous applications to develop the site with a pair of semi-detached dwellings (ref. 74971/APP/2019/3169) and a two-storey 5-bedroom house respectively (ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792) have been refused with the most recent two-storey dwelling being dismissed at appeal due to the impact on the character and appearance of the area.”

“The applicant has worked cooperatively with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) through the pre-application and application processes and has provided a revised scheme that planning officers consider addresses previous concerns raised. The key changes from the previously refused applications involve a significant reduction in the overall scale of the development which would now sit more comfortably within the street scene.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the reduced single-storey design proportionate, visually suitable, acceptable for neighbours and highways, and capable of delivering biodiversity net gain.

“The dwelling’s position set away from the boundaries and single storey design ensures it would not cause a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity. Conditions are also recommended removing the right to extend under permitted development. Both landscaping and biodiversity measures would provide a 10% uplift in Biodiversit y Net Gain as required.”

Officer report

What people said

The petitioner opposed the scheme, while the agent said the revised proposal addressed earlier concerns through its smaller scale, landscaping and road setback.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned the appeal decision and future development; officers said the revised scheme complied with policy, protected privacy and included controls on extensions.

“Members acknowledged that this was back garden development and sought clarity on the Planning Inspector’s previous comments that any development would harm the street scene. They also queried whether conditions could prevent further development. Officers confirmed that the appeal decision had been considered however the revised scheme complied with policy DMH6. The reduced scale maintained local character and…”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The recommendation was moved and seconded, five Members voted for it, one abstained, and the application was approved as recommended.

“Although Members empathised with the petitioner’s concerns, it was noted that the new application met policy requirements and that overturning the officer recommendation would be difficult. The recommendation was therefore moved, seconded, and, when put to a vote, five Members voted in favour and one abstained.”

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.”

Minutes