Six two-bedroom apartments at Dorset Road, Belmont

What was proposed

The proposal was for six self-contained two-bedroom apartments above existing garages, with private outdoor space, parking, a lift, stairs, refuse and cycle stores.

“The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a first floor extension with accommodation in roof space above existing garages to provide 6 self contained residential units and provision of private amenity spaces, refuse and cycle stores, parking at front, a passenger lift and two external staircases.”

“This application seeks permission for the erection of a first floor extension with accommodation in roof space above existing garages to provide 6 self contained residential apartments and provision of private amenity spaces, refuse and cycle stores, parking at front, a passenger lift and two external staircases.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains two blocks of flats and 27 garages, with a bowling club and park to the north and mainly residential development nearby.

“The application site is located on the northern side of Dorset Road, and is currently occupied by two blocks of flatted development known as 1-15 Sandringham Court and 1-12 Buckingham Court. To the northern edge of the site are a group of 27 single storey garages.”

“To the north of the site is Sutton Bowling Club, and beyond that Overton Park. To the south and east is predominantly two storey residential development, and to the west is currently a vacant ambulance station and grounds.”

Officer report

Earlier advice

There was no relevant planning history, but earlier pre-application advice accepted housing in principle and raised concerns about design, parking, access, trees and the number of units.

“PRE2022/00076 - Removal of existing garage roofs and insertion of a podium to create 5 new residential units above with additional car parking spaces, amended landscaping, cycle parking, new access stairs, new garage doors and refuse storage and cycle parking facilities. The key elements of the advice provided from the council to the applicant were: ● Principle of residential development accepted. ● Building above garages raises concerns. Report Page 2”

“PRE2024/00085 was submitted which was a follow up to the previous submission. The key elements of the advice provided from the council to the applicant were: ● The principle of new housing at this site is acceptable. ● Unit numbers increased from 5-8. The applicant is advised to reduce the number of units to overcome concerns. ● The design is not acceptable and needs revisiting. ● The conflict between pedestrians and vehicles has been overcome.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Council consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, including measures for highways, trees, landscaping, biodiversity, construction, waste and environmental protection.

“Internal Consultation Comments Received Sustainability Officer This planning application is acceptable with respect to Local Plan Policies 31, 32 and 33 subject to conditions as detailed in the draft decision notice. Highways Engineer Following the submission of a revised transport statement and Swept Path diagrams, there is no objection to the proposed parking provision, layout or impact on highway safety.”

“Conditions are recommended relating to a Construction Method Statement, Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition, Noise from Ventilation/Air Handing/Fixed plant, restriction of noise from plant and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM). Tree and Landscape Officer No objections subject to the recommended conditions relating to tree protection, site visit and landscaping.”

Officer report

Objections received

Thirty households submitted 39 objection letters citing parking, traffic, design, loss of openness, noise, privacy, daylight, trees and possible effects on bats.

“Parking and Highway Safety ○ Increase in parking pressure ○ Increase in traffic ○ Impact from construction traffic and increase in noise ○ Maneuvering of vehicles on site will be problematic ○ Conflict with parking pressure from The Avenue School…”

“Neighbour Amenity ○ Disturbance from construction works ○ The proposal would increase noise disturbance ○ Overlooking and loss of privacy ○ Impact on outlook, loss of view ○ Reduction in daylight to garages ○ Reduction in open feel to the site ○ Adequate bin storage should be provided ○ Loss of light…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector representing residents and the ward councillor spoke against the proposal, focusing on residents’ amenity, parking, transport, trees and overdevelopment.

How the committee voted

Members rejected the officer recommendation, then unanimously agreed a motion to refuse planning permission.

“Planning Committee 5 August 2026 5 DM2025/00363 - Garages To The Rear Of Sandringham Court And Buckingham Court, Dorset Road, Belmont SM2 6NG (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted.”

“An alternative motion was proposed by Councillor Jayne McCoy and seconded by Councillor Alison Long to refuse planning permission for the following headline reasons: • Overdevelopment outside of Area of Potential Intensification • Severe impact on parking and transport (baseline figures inaccurate, significant pressure due to proximity from school, overspill, impact on traffic) • Unacceptable impact on amenity of adjoining properties mainly overlooking and privacy A poll…”

Minutes