Detached three-bedroom home at 3 Newbigg, Westwoodside, Doncaster

What was proposed

Permission was sought for a detached three-bedroom dwelling with an integral garage, parking, garden, driveway and access from Commonside.

“PA/2022/444: Application for approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission PA/2019/1779 dated 12/03/2020 for one dwelling – approved with conditions 09/09/2022 PA/2025/372: Application for a lawful development certificate to confirm the commencement of development relating to applications PA/2019/1779 and PA/2022/444 (for one dwelling) – refused 14/05/2025 ASSESSMENT…”

“It is bordered by a close- boarded fence along its northern and eastern sides, by a wall along part of its eastern side and along the full extent of its western side, and by a close-boarded fence and wall to the south. Proposal Planning permission is sought to erect a 3-bedroom detached dwelling with an integral garage and associated off-street parking, garden and driveway, with means of access proposed via a 3.2-metre-wide driveway onto Commonside to the south.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was suitable for housing and the proposal was considered acceptable in principle, visually, for neighbours and for highway safety.

“Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy applies and sets out a sequential approach for new development. In respect of Westwoodside (rural settlement), it states that development should be focused within the defined settlement boundary to meet identified local needs. The proposal would result in the delivery of a market dwelling within the defined settlement boundary for Westwoodside and would contribute towards delivering housing supply in North Lincolnshire.”

“These existing boundary treatments are considered sufficient to mitigate potential loss of amenity arising from noise, disturbance and car lights from the comings and goings of vehicles to and from the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised privacy concerns, the applicant explained the changed circumstances, and Councillor J Kennedy supported the objections.

Members’ debate

Councillors C Ross and C Sherwood supported approval, while Councillors D Southern and J Matthews considered a site visit necessary.

“Councillor D Southern believed that, following the observations made by the objector, members should visit the site to allow them to make an informed decision.”

“Councillor J Matthews believed a site visit was important.”

Minutes

The vote

The amendment to defer the application for a site visit was carried, followed by the substantive motion.

“That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.”

Minutes