Dormer bungalow extensions at 2 The Willows, Stockton-on-Tees

What was proposed

The application proposed raising the roof, several extensions and 1.8-metre boundary treatment for the existing dormer bungalow.

“Proposal 6. Planning permission is sought for the increase of the roof height of the existing host dwelling to 1.5 storey involving raising the ridge height by approximately 1.2 metres; from 5.7 metres to 6.8 metres in total height. The existing eaves height of approximately 2.8 metres would remain largely consistent throughout, with some extended portions of the host dwelling having enlarged eaves of approximately 4.7 metres.”

“Also included in the proposal is the erection of a single storey extension to the front, a single storey extension to the side and a 1.8 metre high boundary treatment within the curtilage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The detached bungalow sits among other homes on a private way and is screened by mature vegetation, with protected trees on the site.

“Site and Surroundings 3. The application site, hereby referred to as the Site, is a detached dormer bungalow located within Stockton-on-Tees.”

“The Site is within a verdant setting and is well screened by mature vegetation to all boundaries. A Tree Preservation Order covers several mature trees on Site (322 S2/5378 00.8.5.322).”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications included approved extensions and dormer windows, while proposals for additional dwellings were refused.

“Background 1. The planning history of the application site is summarised below:”

“Outline application for the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3no detached dwellings (Ref: 99/0815/P) – Refused 20th July 1999 • Alterations & extension to provide new double garage, conservatory & porch & dormer windows to provide attic bedrooms (Ref: 00/0553/P) – Approved with Conditions 19th May 2000 • Outline application for the erection of 1no dwelling and new access (Ref: 99/1498/P) - Refused 2nd June 2000 • Extension to side to provide games room with…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the revised design proportionate and coherent, with privacy, trees, parking and highway safety concerns addressed through design and conditions.

“The design and scale of the extensions were assessed against Local Plan policies and the NPPF, concluding that the revised scheme is proportionate to the plot size and would be largely coherent with surrounding development. Amenity concerns such as overlooking, privacy, and overbearing effects were mitigated through design changes, obscure glazing, and boundary treatments, while tree protection measures are to be secured by condition.”

“In accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegation, the application is to be determined by Planning Committee as the application involves development on land which an interest is held by a Council Member (or their spouse/partner) or by any member of the Council staff (or their spouse/partner) and an objection representation has been received to the planning Application.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways raised no objection, while residents objected on privacy, design, flooding, security, waste and construction access grounds.

“Standard Advice Highways Transport & Design Manager No objections, subject to any increase in parking provision being met in accordance with the Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Document SPD3.”

“Concerns regarding overlooking/window separation distance • Concerns regarding reduced privacy • Concerns regarding scale/design • Concerns regarding overbearing • Concerns regarding dwelling to plot ratios • Concerns regarding typographical errors on submitted drawings • Concerns regarding localised flooding • Concerns regarding ASB and security of the Site • Concerns regarding waste • Concerns regarding access and damage to the private way during construction period…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors questioned the property’s height, character and terrace safeguards, while the agent referred to the fixed window, application timescale and separation distances.

Members’ discussion

Members asked about separation distances and construction-site safety, and officers said distances were achieved but the project was too small for construction conditions.

“- In terms of the site being untidy officers explained that the project was too small to condition construction activity.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted to approve the planning application.

“A vote took place and the planning application was approved.”

Minutes

The decision and conditions

The application was approved with conditions covering timing, approved plans, materials, trees, boundaries, obscure glazing and preventing use of the flat roof as a terrace.

“Obscure Glazing Notwithstanding the submitted drawings, the window on the south-western facing principal elevation at first floor serving an en-suite of the development hereby approved, shall be fitted with obscure glazing to at least obscuration factor 4. This window shall be maintained as such and be retained for the lifetime of the development.”

“Balcony/Raised terrace The roof of the approved single storey flat roof extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden, terrace or other external amenity space at any time.”

Minutes