Retrospective planning permission refused for Stockton property
Stockton councillors have overwhelmingly rejected plans to demolish a bungalow and build a new house on Bishopton Road, even though the bungalow had already been demolished and a new building is partly constructed.
Plans had previously been approved that would see extensions and alterations to the existing bungalow. This however, ended up being far from reality when the bungalow was demolished and an entirely new building was partially constructed in its place.
Numerous speeches from councillors received applause from the public gallery, as committee members spoke negatively about the current situation.
One local resident said there’s been “no active building on the site for at least a year” and councillors railed against the officer recommendation to approve the retrospective application.
Simon Grundy, planning services manager at Stockton Council, had his work cut out with a total of nine unhappy residents voicing their concern, anguish and upset at how the situation had unfolded thus far. Many questions were directed at Mr Grundy, who maintained that on planning grounds, the recommendation was to grant approval.
Carolyn Thompson, who neighbours the application site, was visibly emotional sharing her thoughts at the meeting. Her comments touched on many issues, including the antisocial behaviour that the application site attracts, which she said had included weapons being thrown at herself and her husband, as well as building materials and rocks being chucked at them.
Another resident, Paul Moppett, highlighted the “yobbos” who “make life difficult for local residents” and said the site reassembled a “flytippers’ paradise”.
Conservative Councillor Dan Fagan said: “What we are seeing here is a sequential and deliberate breach of planning regulations and planning law.”
He said he believed that the overall look and size of the proposed building would not be in keeping with the surrounding area, adding: “What would be acceptable in planning terms, I would suggest which would solve all the issues would be to demolish the building, clear the site and if the developer wishes to continue with the development on that site, it can be compliant and legally binding with the original plans, that were approved.”
Council papers, presented to the meeting, said: “There is an unauthorised and incomplete dwelling and various building detritus owing to the construction of the property ceasing”.
Papers said that a dormer bungalow on the Stockton site was previously given permission for extensions and alterations, adding: “However, the property was demolished and construction of the replacement dwelling was ultimately halted due to non-compliance with previous planning permissions.
“Retrospective planning permission is being sought for the demolition of the existing original dwelling, and part of the partially completed dwelling house to create a single dwelling.”
This plan attracted 10 objections ahead of the meeting, raising concerns including privacy, overlooking, loss of light, overbearing, trees, the existing garage, boundary treatments, appearance, antisocial behaviour, litter, vermin, planning conditions, building contractors, health and safety, security and flooding.
Council officers recommend this plan for approval subject to conditions, including knocking down and rebuilding the existing back of the partly-built home, to abide by separation distances with a neighbouring house and make the garden bigger.
They said the incomplete home was “of a buff yellow brick” which was “out of keeping with the surroundings”, but its appearance “could be made acceptable” and would be sympathetic overall with the area’s character for a modern home.
When pictures were shown of the partly-built dwelling at the council meeting, Thornaby Independent Association Councillor Sylvia Walmsley described the colour of the new building as “horrendous”, adding “there’s no way that’s in keeping with the street scene”.
Meanwhile Labour Councillor Norma Stephenson spoke more widely about the application, saying: “I don’t know how we have let ourselves get into this position.”
Most read:
Several reasons for refusal were listed by councillors, including that the render was not in keeping with the area.
Additionally, it was deemed to be contrary to privacy requirements for existing and future residents. Many members were shocked by what they had witnessed and after almost 90 minutes, thirteen voted against the officer recommendations, with one abstention.
The planning agent, who did not attend the committee meeting, did not respond to a request for comment.