Seven homes and coach house conversion at Land Adjacent To Back Lane, Drighlington

What was proposed

The application sought two coach house dwellings and five new homes, with access, parking, landscaping, boundary works and a pedestrian link.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of the existing coach house/stables building into two dwellings and the erection of five new dwellings within the paddock area, together with associated access, landscaping and parking works. The coach house/stables would be converted into a two-bedroom dwelling (122sqm) and a three-bedroom dwelling (213sqm), both arranged over two floors.”

“A total of two parking spaces per dwelling would be provided, together with one visitor parking space and a communal bin storage area near the site entrance. A Landscape Plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment accompany the application. The landscaping strategy seeks to retain and enhance the site's green infrastructure, including TPO-protected trees along the Whitehall Road frontage, biodiversity enhancements and a new pedestrian link connecting the site to Back Lane.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included a grassed paddock beside historic buildings, mature trees and boundary walls, with an unauthorised cabin under enforcement investigation.

“The site comprises of a piece of land extending from Back Lane along the north and northwestern boundaries to Whitehall Road (A58) which forms the sites south-eastern boundary. A private access road runs along the south-western boundary beyond which are 2 storey semi-detached dwellings. The north-eastern boundary is defined by a further section of Back Lane and a cluster of historical buildings.”

“The immediate area features the grade II listed Lumb House located adjacent to the north-western boundary/fronting Back Lane, together with its associated former coach house / stables. Two large, detached dwellings, constructed in 2021, are also situated along this section of Back Lane. The remainder of the site comprises a substantial paddock area laid to grass.”

Officer report

Earlier proposals and enforcement

A previous ten-home scheme was refused, while earlier advice addressed housing, access, drainage, trees and heritage; one enforcement case remained active.

“The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed scheme fails to respect the scale, roof form, proportions, layout, and spatial character of properties within the immediate locality. It also fails to provide a suitable mixture of residential house types and sufficient space between the dwellings, resulting in a wall of built development which has no principal frontage onto Whitehall Road and no defensible space to the property frontages.”

“Two pre-application enquiries PREAPP/19/00272 and PREAPP/21/00165 in 2019 and 2021 were made, prior to the 2024, refused scheme. Both sort advice on developing the site for housing together with the conversion of the curtilage listed former stables. Officers provide detailed planning advice relating to the principle of development, highway and pedestrian, safety, drainage, land contamination, trees / landscaping, as well as the impact on heritage assets.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that developing the paddock would lose valuable greenfield character, harm heritage settings and fail to provide acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

“The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development of the paddock site would result in the loss of an undeveloped greenfield site which makes a valuable contribution to the visual, historic and spatial character of the area. The site forms an attractive open area bound by mature trees and historic boundary walls and contributes positively to the character of Whitehall Road and Back Lane and the wider townscape.”

“The Local Planning Authority considers that, notwithstanding the heritage benefits associated with the restoration and re-use of the former coach house, the proposed residential development within the paddock would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of Grade I listed Lumb Hall, Grade II listed Lumb House and associated listed structures through harmful changes to their setting.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Several consultees had no objection in principle, but highways, ecology, drainage and heritage information or revisions remained outstanding.

“Highways Authority - No objection in principle, however the Highway Authority considers that further information and revisions are required before the proposal can be supported. Key outstanding concerns: • Pedestrian accessibility Existing footways on Whitehall Road remain substandard in width and should be widened to 2.0m. The proposed pedestrian route within the site remains too narrow and should also be widened to 2.0m to meet Inclusive Mobility guidance.”

“Conservation Team - The Conservation Officer considers that the application site makes a positive contribution to the setting and significance of nearby heritage assets, including Grade I listed Lumb Hall, Grade II listed Lumb House and the Old Vicarage.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Four letters supported housing, restoration and accessible homes, while five letters opposed impacts on heritage, character, amenity, highways, trees and wildlife.

“- Restoration and re-use of the existing historic barns which are in a poor condition - Making use of an underused site and bring it back into a beneficial use. - Provision of additional housing. - The development is small-scale and a sympathetic form. - Improve the visual appearance of the site. - The proposal would not give rise to significant highway or infrastructure impacts - Additional residents would support local services and businesses.”

“- The revised scheme fails to overcome the reasons for refusal of application 23/06437/FU. - Impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings and local character. - The layout and design of the development, loss of trees and biodiversity. - Impacts on residential amenity including noise and overlooking. - Impacts on highway safety and access from Back Lane and its junction with Whitehall Road. - Absence of clarity regarding planning obligations.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel about the central green space, biodiversity, public access and possible boundary wall repairs.

Members’ debate

Members discussed greenfield policy, heritage, bungalow suitability, the coach house, biodiversity, the boundary wall and the effect on Plots 1 and 2.

“Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to questions raised, which included the following: • Clarification was provided in relation to the differences between Greenfield, Green Belt and Grey Belt, highlighting Policy H2. • It was noted that heritage status is an important consideration when undertaking decision-making on applications.”

“The following comments were provided by Panel Members: • The proposed development would not negatively affect the area, as it was far enough away from the heritage buildings. However, more trees needed to be planted for biodiversity. • There was a need for more bungalows in this area. • The boundary wall for the site needs repairing. • The Coach House requires a sympathetic repair, like that of Lumb House. • True bungalows are only over one floor not two floors.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members moved and seconded the officer recommendation and resolved to refuse the application for the reasons in the officer report.

“Upon voting, a motion was put forward to move the officer recommendation, as per the submitted report. This was moved and seconded, and it was RESOLVED – To refuse the application for the reasons set out in the submitted report.”

Minutes