Detached self-build dwelling at Vacant land between 27 and 33 Watery Lane, Ulverston

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a mixed two- and three-storey detached self-build dwelling on vacant land between two homes.

“Planning Application Reference No. 2025/1068/FPA Proposal: Erection of detached self-build dwelling previously approved under planning permission S/2005/0888 (part retrospective) Location: Vacant land between 27 and 33 Watery Lane ULVERSTON LA12 9DD Applicant: [name withheld]: 16 th September 2025 Reason for Committee Level Decision: The officer recommendation of refusal is contrary to the Town Council recommendation of support.”

“SITE AND PROPOSAL 3.1 The application site consists of an area of vacant land between two two-storey semi- detached dwellings. The other dwellings within the streetscene are two-storey. There is a three-storey flat block to the north-west of the site. To the rear of the site is a small industrial yard. There is no indication of contamination within the site and there isn’t a historic landfill site in close proximity to the site.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site lies within a built-up residential area, and an earlier dwelling permission was not lawfully commenced because a flood-risk condition was not discharged.

“SUMMARY 1.1 The application site consists of a building plot between two two-storey semi- detached dwellings within a built-up area of Ulverston. The application site was granted planning permission for a dwelling in 2005 and foundations were dug; however, a Lawful Development Certificate determined in 2024 confirmed that a flood risk pre-commencement condition imposed on the original permission wasn’t discharged and, therefore, the 2005 planning permission wasn’t…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the dwelling would be too prominent and would harm the neighbouring dwelling through overbearing effects and overshadowing.

“The current application seeks planning permission for a mixed two and three- storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling would cause harm to the streetscene due to its scale and unduly prominent design. Additionally, the proposal would cause significant harm to residential amenity due to overbearance and overshadowing on the residential amenity of the adjacent dwelling and its main amenity space.”

“The adverse impacts relate to NPPF paragraphs 129(d and e), 135 (b, c, d, and f), and 139. Due to the level of harm identified relating to visual impact and impacts on residential amenity, the presumption in favour of approving the application does not apply and, therefore, the application is recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The application is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning consultant addressed the committee in support of the application, and members were told that support letters had been submitted.

Members’ discussion

Members noted the need for housing and positive elements, but considered the design and overall proposal harmful to wider visual amenity.

“During discussion on the application, members noted the need for housing in the area and that that there were a number of positive elements to the application.”

“Members noted that they felt conflicted on the application, it was felt that the principle of the development was acceptable and that the positioning of the proposed dwelling would reduce the impact on the neighbouring properties. However, members noted that the design and overall proposal set out in the application was the key issue as it would harm the wider visual amenity of the area.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A motion to refuse was moved and seconded, and the committee resolved to refuse permission for visual and residential amenity reasons.

“Following further debate on the application, a motion to refuse the application was moved and seconded.”

“RESOLVED, that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: Reason (1) The proposed dwelling, due to its height, scale, and visually unbalanced design would be unduly prominent in the streetscene and cause harm to the wider visual amenity of the area.”

Minutes