Listed building extension at Old Hall, Creamery Lane, Parwich

The site and its setting

Old Hall is a Grade II listed dwelling in Parwich Conservation Area, on an elevated site near neighbouring properties and outbuildings.

“Old Hall is a Grade II listed building located within the northern area of Parwich and the Designated Parwich Conservation Area (CA).”

“The dwelling sits within a large curtilage in an elevated position overlooking Parwich. Outbuildings are located immediately to the north. Creamery Lane and access bounds the curtilage to the south west.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Several earlier extension and listed building applications were refused or withdrawn because heritage information or conservation of the asset was inadequate.

“2026 – NP/DDD/0126/0014 – Listed Building consent – rear / side extension and internal alterations. New Glasshouse. Application refused as the proposal failed to demonstrate that the development could conserve the significance of the heritage asset, or that any harm would be outweighed by public benefits, contrary to policy.”

“2023 – NP/DDD/0723/0831 – Listed Building consent – replacement rear / side extension, 1925 stairwell extension, internal alterations and standalone garden room. Application withdrawn as officers advised insufficient information to fully assess the proposal as a detailed heritage statement is required.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the extension too dominant and incongruous, harmful to historic fabric and significance, with public benefits insufficient to outweigh the harm.

“To that end, the proposal remains a bold, dominant, incongruous addition which is clearly not subordinate and would obscure much of the rear of the building resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of the building. The obtrusive, unsympathetic and alien addition would result in harm upon the details and architectural features, completely harming the character and appearance of the grade II building.”

“The previously refused applications asserted that an extension in this location would help to improve the thermal performance of the building, over time reducing heating costs which in the long term may secure further longevity. However, this is not considered to be a public benefit of any significance as the continued use of the building at present is highly likely. As such, this can be afforded very limited weight.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, the parish council supported the scheme, and six current letters supported its design and residential benefits.

“Derbyshire County Council (Highways): No objection to the proposal as there would not be an unacceptable impact upon Highway Safety or a severe impact on congestion.”

“Design and scale of proposal is modest and respects the host building and is of a high standard. • Scheme allows Old Hall to remain legible. Glazed link demonstrates stages of the property and avoids competition with the existing building. • Extension will sit comfortably within its setting • Improve quality of life for owners. • Proposal is discreet and does not infringe on the quality of the Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Other public comments

Four additional early support letters were given very limited weight because they predated the current application’s submission and validation.

“In addition to the representations received above, 4 letters of support were also submitted by the agent in the early stages of the application. Officers cannot confirm what proposals the letters respond to because all 4 letters pre-date the submission and validation date of the current application. Therefore, Officers have afforded these letters very limited weight.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One person spoke under the public participation scheme at the meeting.

Members’ discussion

Members considered a nearby right of way, the acceptability of glazed additions, the extension’s coverage, and the loss of historic windows.

“The following points were discussed by Members: • Potential impact on a Right of Way adjacent to the site, which was confirmed a significant distance away from the site rather than along the boundary. • Glazed additions could be acceptable on a Listed Building in principle and in some instances were historic.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded and carried.

“A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded, put the vote and carried.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was refused because its design, scale, massing and loss of historic fabric would fail to conserve the listed building and its setting.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“By virtue of the poor incongruous design, inappropriate scale and massing, and harm to and loss of historic fabric the development would fail to conserve the significance of the listed building and its setting and the arising harm would not be outweighed by public benefits, contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP3 and L3, Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5, DMC7, DMC8, DMH7 and the NPPF.”

Minutes