Up to three dwellings at 36 Suckley Road, Leigh, Worcester

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to three dwellings and associated works, while retaining the existing dwelling.

“The application seeks permission in principle for the construction of up to three dwellings and associated works, with the retention of the existing dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains an existing dwelling, soft landscaping, hedgerows, trees and part of an historic orchard, with homes nearby.

“The application site comprises land located on the southern side of Suckley Road. The site, which comprises an existing dwellinghouse, is predominantly soft- landscaped in nature and the southern section includes part of an historic orchard which extends to the south of the site. The site is bounded by hedgerows to the north, east, south and west and there are several trees located within and adjacent to the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous application for a two-storey rear extension at the site was recorded as APL in February 2025, with no pre-application engagement.

“M/24/01618/HP. Two Storey rear extension. Suckley Road, Leigh, Worcester, WR6 5LE. APL. Feb 27 2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was outside development boundaries, poorly connected by sustainable travel and conflicted with planning policies.

“Principle of Development 7.2.1 The application site is located outside of a development boundary, with the nearest development boundaries being located (‘as the crow flies’), approximately 1.6km to the south-west (Leigh Sinton), 3.4km to the north-west (Alfrick) and 3.2km to the north-east (Rushwick). As such, the application site is located within ‘open countryside’.”

“In light of the above, it is considered that future occupiers of the proposed development would be poorly connected to key services by sustainable travel modes and heavily reliant on a motor vehicle due to the location of the application site in relation to key residential amenities, the poor standard of the local walking and cycling environment, and the limited nature of local bus services.”

Officer report

Planning balance

The proposal’s housing and construction benefits were given limited weight, while conflict with the neighbourhood plan was considered to outweigh them.

“It is noted that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and that the application proposes the provision of up to three additional dwellings. However, as this would represent a modest contribution to housing shortfalls, the fact that the proposal would provide housing is afforded limited weight in the planning balance.”

“As outlined previously, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that “in situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made and b)…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, contaminated-land officers raised no objections, and highway advice was provided without stating there was no objection.

“Worcestershire Regulatory Services (Contaminated Land): No objections.”

“County Highways Authority: Outlined that the application meets the criteria to be considered under Worcestershire County Council’s Highways Standing Advice document and recommended that the document is referred to. It was further stated that standing advice does not mean that there is no objection to the planning application.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Three representations opposed the proposal, citing privacy, traffic, views, disruption, sunlight, parking, infrastructure, biodiversity, noise and density.

“The material planning objections raised have been summarised by the case officer to include: • There will be a total loss of privacy. • There will be extra traffic along the road and there is enough already. • Views will be blocked. • The surrounding properties will be negatively impacted by severe disruption during the building works. • Surrounding properties will suffer a lack of sunlight.”

“The removal of the hedgerow would represent a significant loss of biodiversity and green space. • There will be an increase in ambient noise levels. • The proposed density is out of step with the more spacious layout of nearby properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The case officer presented the application, the applicant’s agent spoke in support, the ward member spoke, and five other councillors spoke.

The committee vote

A motion to refuse planning permission was proposed and seconded, then passed with seven votes for, none against and three abstentions.

“A motion to REFUSE planning permission, in line with officer recommendation, was proposed by Councillor P Whatley, seconded by Councillor D Godwin and…”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was refused in line with the officer recommendation because the committee adopted the stated planning reason.

“Permission in Principle should be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation as set out in the agenda.”

Minutes