10 homes at 45 Manor View, Stevenage

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a vacant care home and building two houses, eight flats, landscaping, parking and access works.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 1.1 The application site comprises a vacant building which previously operated as an 8- bedroom care home that provided personal care to people with a learning disability or autism. Since 2023 the site has been leased by the applicant to a private provider, but this lease ceased in December 2025, and the site has been vacant since then.”

“THE CURRENT APPLICATION 3.1 This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing vacant care home (Class C2) building and erection of 10 no. dwellings (Class C3) and associated landscaping, car parks and access arrangements. The scheme would provide 2no. three-bedroom dwellinghouses and 8no. one-bedroom flats in a three-storey building.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a prominent corner site beside the A602, Manor View and open space in a mainly residential area.

“The site is located on a prominent corner position at the junction of Oaks Cross and the A602 Broadhall Way, which is formed of a large roundabout with pedestrian and cycle subway access. Manor View is a small residential road accessed of Oaks Cross to the south of the site. The site sits slightly proud of the finished highway level due to grass banks between the site, foot/cycleway and vehicular highway edge.”

“The site is fairly open with boundary treatments only visible around the private amenity space to the north of the existing single storey buildings. To the north, the site sits around and abuts an area of green open space which fronts the roundabout and provides a green break between the built form of properties off Manor View and the A602 dual-carriageway.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Two earlier tree applications were granted consent in 2011 and 2018.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISORY 2.1 11/00511/TPTPO Crown reduction of 10% and reduce lower laterals of 1no. Willow tree (T9) and removal of 4no.Ash trees (T1, T2, T3 & T4) protected by TPO52 28.10.2011. Tree consent granted.”

“18/00233/TPTPO Pollard 1no. Willow tree (T9) protected by Tree Preservation Order 52 04.06.2018. Tree consent granted.”

Officer report

Objections raised

Nine representations raised concerns about parking, consultation, proximity, scale, wildlife, privacy, light, noise, overdevelopment, covenants and cycle storage.

“DC88 • Developer only offered one day for their consultation • Site was not vacant at time of submission (December 2025) • Proposed dwellings too close to existing dwellings • Scale not in keeping with the area • Believe there are bats in the area • Swift bricks should be conditioned • Will devalue surrounding houses • Loss of light and shadowing • Noise and disturbance from increase in residents • Overdevelopment of the site • Covenants on site to remain as care home •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident objected, and the applicant’s agent supported the proposal and highlighted its housing and affordable housing benefits.

What members discussed

Members heard that measurements came from the submitted plans, the scheme met relevant standards, and no daylight and sunlight assessment was required.

“The Senior Planning Officer advised that measurements had been taken using the Council’s industry standard digital mapping software. It was confirmed that the distances reported had been calculated from the submitted plans. Officers stated that they could not account for the differing measurements referred to by the objector but were satisfied that the proposal met the relevant requirements.”

“In response to questions regarding daylight and sunlight impacts, officers advised that there was no requirement for either the applicant or the Council to undertake a daylight and sunlight assessments. It was noted that such assessments would not normally be expected for two-storey residential development within an established urban area where acceptable separation distances had been achieved.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Committee granted permission subject to conditions, a legal agreement securing contributions and delegated authority over conditions.

“Officers concluded that the benefits of delivering new housing, affordable housing and the redevelopment of a brownfield site significantly outweighed any identified harm and therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.”

“A recorded vote* was taken on the application and it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below and delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, to amend or add to the conditions subject to which the permission would be granted, where such amendments or additions would satisfy the relevant national policy tests and would most…”

Minutes