Detached three-bedroom dwelling at Sandy Nook, Kensington Grove, Stalybridge

What was proposed

The application sought one detached three-bedroom house with parking, a rear garden and shared access from Kensington Grove.

“Planning permission is sought for 1No. detached dwellinghouse to be located adjacent to the north-facing gable of No. Sandy Nook, positioned on a largely perpendicular alignment to the existing house.”

“The submitted drawings show that the proposed dwelling would benefit from off-street car parking for 1no. vehicle to the front of the dwelling, in addition to an enclosed private garden to the rear.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a raised, uneven plot beside No. 1 Sandy Nook, used for vehicle parking and building-material storage beside open green space.

“The application relates to a plot of land within the hamlet of Sandy Nook, accessed from Kensington Grove, which has a no through road highway arrangement. Sandy Nook comprises a single pair of semi-detached dwellings, Nos. 1 and 2 Sandy Nook. The existing semi-detached properties occupy an isolated position within an area of land that is bounded by Forester Drive to the north and Vaudrey Street to the east.”

“The application site is located adjacent to the northfacing gable of No. Sandy Nook and shares a private driveway leading from Kensington Grove to the west of the site. The application site itself is currently used for the parking of vehicles and the storage of building materials.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications included approved extensions, a refused granny-flat annex, a lawfulness certificate and an appeal allowing the annex.

“Appeal decision APP/G4240/A/14/2228710 Proposed Granny Flat Annex. Appeal allowed 26.02.2015”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the dwelling would be visually intrusive, incongruous and harmful to the area’s character, appearance and openness.

“The cumulative effect of the proposal’s inappropriate siting, scale and design would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the streetscape and the wider locality, which would not be adequately mitigated by landscaping or screening. As such, the development would fail to achieve the high standard of design required by the development plan and would not improve the character or quality of the area or the way it functions.”

“Refuse planning permission for the following reason: By reason of its elevated and visually exposed siting immediately adjoining the open green space, and its scale, orientation and design, the proposed detached dwelling would appear as an intrusive and incongruous form of development that encroaches into an otherwise open and spacious area.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Nine letters from seven households objected on grounds including scale, design, privacy, parking, traffic, construction effects, wildlife and visual harm.

“Development is too big • Conflict with land use policy • Represents an over intensification of the plot • The proposed property is too large for the constrained size of the site and would be visually squeezed into a small space • The size and design are disproportionate to the scale of the site • Concern over noise/hours of operation • Consider that there will be loss of day/sunlight/overshadowing • Concerns over overlooking issues and impact on privacy • The proposal is…”

“Concerns over the visual amenity of the proposal • The development is considered to set a precedent • Concern over traffic generation and parking matters • The proposal will exacerbate existing parking/access issues • The parking in the area is already limited due to the nearby school and church • Concerns regarding construction activity and vehicle parking Page 45”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the Panel in support of the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to conditions.

“Proposed Development Proposed detached 3 bedroom dwelling house. [name withheld] addressed the Panel in support of the application. Decision RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to conditions…”

Minutes