Understanding planning · 13 min read
Planning application documents: what to read first
Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.
Application overview
Erection of two storey block containing 2 x two bed flats
Proposal details
- Reference
- CH/24/012
- Alternative references
- PP-12693806
- Ward
- Rawnsley
- Agent
- R Agnihotry
- UPRN
- 200001154068
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 19 of 19
| Document | Published | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Refused 11.3.24 - Design and access statementPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Proposed SectionsPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Proposed Side and Rear ElevationsPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Proposed Front and Side ElevationsPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Existing Side and Rear ElevationsPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Existing Front and Side ElevationsPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Proposed Roof PlanPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Proposed First Floor PlanPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Proposed Ground Floor PlanPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Existing Site PlanPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Application Form - Without Personal DataPAPPFRM | Not published | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Site Location PlanPREFDWG | 15 Jan 2024 | View |
| Refused 11.3.24 - Site Block PlanPREFDWG | 15 Jan 2024 | View |
| Environmental Health commentsPCONSULT | 25 Jan 2024 | View |
| Natural England commentsPCONSULT | 1 Feb 2024 | View |
| Natural England Annex APCONSULT | 1 Feb 2024 | View |
| Highways commentsPCONSULT | 20 Feb 2024 | View |
| Policy commentsPCONSULT | 21 Feb 2024 | View |
| Decision NoticePDECNOT | 11 Mar 2024 | View |
Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.
Application timeline
Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.
Consultation expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourcePublicity end date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceStatutory expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceDecision due date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council source
Decision & conditions
Decision NoticePlanning conditions
- The scheme, by reason of introducing built development onto a Greenfield site, that does not abut any other built development to the west does not constitute the development of a small infill site as required by Policy CP6 of the Cannock Chase Local Plan. The principle of development is not considered to be acceptable and the proposal is in conflict with CP1 and CP6 of the Local Plan and relevant paragraphs contained within the NPPF.
- The development proposal fails to provide sufficient off-highway parking to serve the proposal, in conflict with Policy CP10 of the Local Plan, Cannock Chase Local Development Framework Parking Standards, Travel Plans and Developer Contributions for Sustainable Transport and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).
- The development proposal would infringe upon the 45-degree daylight standard as set out within the Appendix B of the Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in respect of the relationship between the new building and the rear windows of principle habitable rooms serving no. 37 Ironstone Road. Impacts of this type are contrary to the Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Local Plan Policy CP3 and Paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF.
- The development proposal would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the amenity of existing and future occupiers of no. 37 Ironstone Road, by causing an adverse effect upon the reasonable enjoyment of the retained garden by virtue of the bulk and massing of the proposed apartment building. Impacts of this type are contrary to Local Plan Policy CP3 and Paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF. On balance the application is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development.
