Home extensions and alterations at 62 Hilltop Road, Dronfield

What was proposed

The application sought part retrospective rear extensions, a two-storey side extension and alterations to existing openings.

“Proposal Description: Part retrospective single storey rear extensions, two storey side extension and alterations to existing openings (resubmission of previously approved application 24/00766/FLH (Amended title and Amended plans) (Further Amended plans)”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached bungalow with front parking, neighbouring homes and a paddock beyond the rear garden.

“The application site is a detached bungalow located on the southwestern side of Hilltop Road.”

“Residential properties adjoin the site to the east and west. To the rear, beyond the residential garden, is a paddock area which is subject to a current application for three detached bungalows (25/00337/FL).”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included withdrawn and refused housing schemes, while a previous householder extension application was approved and a rear bungalow scheme remained pending.

“24/00058/FL - Demolition of existing bungalow and proposed 4no. dormer bungalows with garages and 1no. two-storey detached house with integral garage - plots 1-5 (Revised scheme of 23/00788/FL) (Further amended plans) – Refused…”

“24/00766/FLH - Proposed single storey rear extensions, two storey side extension and alterations to existing openings (Amended Plans) (Amended Title) – Approved…”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the extensions acceptable in design, neighbouring amenity and highway terms, with ecological matters addressed by conditions.

“No. 64 Hilltop Road adjoins the application site to the southeast. Given the size and positioning of the extensions at No. 64 along with the size, siting and scale of the proposed extensions, Officers are of the view that the proposal would not result in a significant overbearing impact or loss of light to the rear of No. 64. The size of the store has been increased since the previous application, however this increase is not considered to be harmful.”

“The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its design, impact on neighbouring amenity and highways matters.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Thirteen residents objected to the larger and overbearing design, privacy and light impacts, inaccurate descriptions and departure from approved plans.

“- Deviated from originally approved scheme and conditioned plans - Substantially bigger in size and mass to the previously approved scheme - Extension visible from the street, at odds and not in keeping with the character of the street scene - Not in keeping with neighbouring properties - Overbearing nature - Described as a dormer but it’s a two storey extension - Application form states no works have commenced but that’s not the case - Changes undermine the planning…”

“- As a result of its form, height, massing, scale, elevational treatment, material and rooflines, fails to meet ‘good design’ required by Policy SDC12(c) - The original area of the sloped roof design of the 2nd story room (IM/HR/24/06 Rev E) at the rear of the extension was approx. 10 m2. The proposed full rectangular area of the 2nd story room is approx. 17.4 m2, an increase of approx. 75%.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the local ward member, an objector and the applicant before considering the application.

Committee discussion

Members considered planning policies and raised questions about differences between the proposal and previously approved plans.

“Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. This included Local Plan policy LC5, concerning residential extensions, and Local Plan policy SDC12, concerning High Quality Design and Place Making.”

“Committee discussed the application. Some Members raised queries regarding the difference between this proposal and previously approved plans.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the application subject to conditions was moved, seconded and approved.

“At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor T Lacey and Councillor K Rouse moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, subject to conditions. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was conditionally approved, with the final wording of conditions delegated to the Planning Manager.

“That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).”

Minutes