Self-build dwelling and garage at Land adjacent to High View, Sutherland Road, Longsdon

What was proposed

An outline application proposed one self-build dwelling, a detached garage and access, with all other matters reserved.

“The proposal is in outline only with all matters reserved save for details of access into the site from the highway. There is no substantive information to consider at this stage as to the size or form of the dwelling or the garage, nor of the materials or design appearance.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is rising land outside a development boundary, within the Green Belt, with woodland behind and High View to the south.

“The site extends to some 988m2 (stated in the application form) occupying rising ground which fronts on to the east side of Sutherland Road. It lies at a point just over 500m south of the junction of Sutherland Road with the main A53 Newcastle Road at the Wheel Inn, Longsdon. There is little development on the entire length of the east side of Sutherland Road. Some eight properties form a ribbon of development along the first 120m south from the Newcastle Road junction.”

“The application site has a c. 20m tarmacadam access with gates set back c. 5m from the road edge with modern suburban brick piers and brick walling making a curved return to the road front. A dry stone wall fronts the roadside boundary behind which there is a medium to tall Leylandii hedge. The tarmac drive is bounded by dry stone wall for its 20m length into the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications concerned access, while a 2017 outline application for one dwelling was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“10/00711/FUL – new access – retrospective – refused…”

“SMD/2017/0694 – application for: outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of a single dwelling – refused – dismissed on appeal…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would harm the character and appearance of the area and drainage information was insufficient.

“Whilst Severn Trent Water recommend a drainage condition there remains significant concern on the part of the LPA that the requirements of this condition can in reality be met. The application states that the arrangements for foul sewage drainage are at present unknown. Given the uncertainties it is concluded that there is insufficient information and this should be added as a further reason for refusal.”

“In comparison with adjacent and nearby development on Sutherland Road especially on its same east side the development of this site would inevitably stand out prominently and be at odds with the more set back and secluded position of its neighbour at High View. It would also have a dominant relationship to dwellings on the opposite side of Sutherland Road.”

Officer report

What residents said

Nineteen representations objected over Green Belt, access, drainage, privacy, character, sustainability and infrastructure; one supported the proposal.

“In response to the neighbour / site publicity there were initially some 19 representations raising objections on the following grounds: Green Belt - Previous appeal decision (2018) should stand - this is not an infill plot - it does not sit within a continuous built-up area of the village - it amounts to ribbon development, pushing the built line of the village out into countryside - none of the Green Belt exceptions apply - history of previous refusals - if a dwelling…”

“- There are no public sewers in Sutherland Road. Can a septic tank be sited to ensure safe and compliant drainage, bearing in mind regulations in relation to distances from the property, fences, trees and hedges? - Water drainage in Sutherland Road is already a problem - The drainage strategy is fundamentally flawed: - the site relies on a package treatment plant but the plot is too small to legally and safely host such a system.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, while the applicant and agent spoke in support.

Members’ concerns

Members considered infill, biodiversity net gain, landscaping, access, character, the dwelling’s forward position, drainage and potential tree harm.

“In terms of the application being considered as infill, the Officer advised that an Appeal Inspector had not previously deemed a proposed development on this site to be infill.”

“Consideration was given to the proposed access to the development. Members expressed concerns regarding character and appearance a property would have on this site, the forward position of the proposed dwelling given the topography, uncertainty surrounding drainage arrangements and the potential harm to trees.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the reasons and policies in the report, with delegated authority for non-substantive wording changes.

“That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;”

“In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/in formatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s Decision.”

Minutes