Agenda item

The Head of Planning submitted plans deposited as applications to develop land under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

25/0455/FUL, 11, Woodlea, Middlesbrough, TS8 0TX, Retrospective reposition of front door to side, replacement of rear window with glazed double doors, and alterations to windows to side

The Development Control Manager presented an application that sought part retrospective planning permission for several external alterations, including the repositioning of the front door to the side, the replacement of the rear window with glazed double doors, and alterations to the side windows.

The application site was a single-storey bungalow located at the end of a turning head on a cul-de-sac within the Woodlea estate, off Coulby Farm Way. It was within an established residential area comprising mainly two-storey detached dwellings, with some single-storey properties towards the western end. Dwellings were set back from the road, with Stainton Way to the north of the site.

The proposal involved alterations to the principal elevation, including removal of the front door and canopy, replacement with cream render across the elevation, and black composite cladding on the western half. A new bay window was proposed to replace the existing window, retaining a common design feature within the area. Additional changes included repositioning the side door, modifying side windows, and replacing the rear window with glazed French doors. The design incorporated high-quality materials and modern features, with massing considered subservient to the plot. While black cladding was noted as uncommon within the estate, its inclusion was deemed acceptable to break up the render and maintain visual balance.

The proposal was in accordance with relevant design policies and was not expected to harm the character or appearance of the dwelling or street scene. Members noted that the application complied with national and local planning policies, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Policy CS5: Design, Policy DC1: General Development, and the Middlesbrough Urban Design SPD (UDSPD).

Of 15 neighbour consultations, 11 responses were received, comprising 4 objections and 7 in support. Objections related to inaccuracies in the plans and references to white render rather than cream. Revised plans were submitted correcting directional labels and specifying cream render to match neighbouring dwellings. Some objectors expressed frustration with the consultation process; however, while letters were sent only to immediate neighbours, the process was open to all, and anyone could submit comments regardless of residence.

Members queried whether the proposed cladding would be painted and whether conditions could be imposed regarding this. The Officer advised that there was no existing condition to prevent painting, but an amendment to the recommendation could be proposed to include such a condition. It was noted that the cladding was plastic and therefore should not require painting, unlike timber cladding.

A further query was raised regarding whether planning permission was required for cladding, and the Officer confirmed that permission was necessary for alterations to the front of the property, including any material changes.

The Chair invited a resident to speak in support of the application, and the following key points were highlighted:

•          The alterations were in accordance with both local and national planning policies.

•          The amendments did not increase the building’s footprint, ensuring the development would not dominate the street scene or adversely affect the character of the area.

•          The use of high-quality materials, including cream render and modern fenestration, was consistent with contemporary design standards to modernise the property.

•          Important architectural elements, such as the bay window, were retained and updated in a manner consistent with the design guidance set out in the Middlesbrough Urban Design SPD.

•          While the black composite cladding was a modern addition, it served to break up what would otherwise have been a large expanse of render, contributing to a balanced and visually appealing frontage. The cream render aligned with finishes found on other properties in the estate.

•          The alterations did not result in any loss of privacy or amenity for neighbouring properties. Side windows replaced existing ones and did not overlook primary windows of adjacent dwellings.

•          Several neighbours had expressed support, highlighting the positive impact on the area’s appearance, the desirability of modernisation, and the benefit to the community’s long-term appeal.

•          The work did not affect landscaping, trees, or access to the property.

•          Other properties within the area had similar updates, which demonstrated that such changes were not out of character for the area.

Members sought clarification on how long the resident supporting the application had lived in the area, and it was confirmed that this had been 40 years.

It was also questioned whether the plans would result in the living room having more natural light, and it was confirmed that, whilst the resident could not speak on behalf of the applicants, a review of the plans indicated that this would be the case.

ORDERED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed within the report.