Two-storey home extension at Windermere, Ashover, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application sought a two-storey rear and side extension, a replacement single-storey extension and removal of a domestic outbuilding.

“This planning application seeks permission for a two-storey rear and side extension, along with a replacement single storey extension. The proposed plans are illustrated in Figure 3 below.”

“The application has been amended to reduce the scale and volume of the proposed side and rear extension.”

Officer report

The site

The site is an isolated detached dwelling in open countryside, surrounded by fields and within a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity.

“The application site is an isolated detached dwelling located in open countryside which is located in a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (pAMES). The dwelling was previously contained behind a strong band of mature trees, however a number of these have been removed from site. Fields surround the site on all sides.”

“The site comprises an extended dwelling, a traditional range of outbuildings and a modern garage/workshop arranged around a central yard area. Access to the site is provided via a 120m driveway extending west from Bath Lane into the application site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a rear conservatory and a pitched roof over an existing rear extension.

“94/00026/FL | Erection of a conservatory to the rear (Conditionally Approved)”

“12/00277/FLH | Construction of a new pitched roof over existing rear extension (Conditionally Approved)”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the design, landscape, amenity, highway and ecological effects acceptable, with the outbuilding’s removal improving the site’s appearance.

“The site is in an open countryside location which is within a primary area of multiple environmental sensitivity, which is considered of great sensitivity. In this instance Local Plan policy SDC3 is applicable and supports development provided it does not cause significant harm to the character, quality, distinctiveness, or sensitivity of the landscape, or to important features or views, or other perceptual qualities such as tranquility.”

“Additionally, the removal of the substantial detached outbuilding will remove a structure which has an approximate volume of 190m³ and currently occupies a prominent position within the site and contributes to a fragmented appearance of the built form. The removal of this structure, together with the consolidation of development around the main dwelling, would create a more coherent and visually balanced arrangement within the landscape.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The ward member and parish council raised no comments, while the wildlife trust had no objection subject to lighting and biodiversity conditions.

“Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions securing a sensitive lighting strategy to protect bats and other nocturnal wildlife, together with biodiversity enhancement measures including the incorporation of an integrated bat box and bird nesting brick within the development.”

Officer report

Public representations

The application was publicised through neighbour letters and a site notice, but no third-party representations were received.

“The application was publicised by way of neighbour letters, and the display of a site notices. A Site notice was placed adjacent to the application site which expired on 22.07.2026.”

“No third party representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the agent before considering the application.

Members’ discussion

Members asked why permitted development rights would be removed, and officers said this would prevent cumulative harm from uncontrolled future development.

“During consideration of the application, Members sought clarification as to why certain permitted development rights were proposed to be withdrawn.. Officers explained that the permitted development rights were to be removed as it was viewed that further uncontrolled extensions or outbuildings would, in officer view, cause culminative harm to the countryside and landscape character and would therefore ensure that for any future planned extension, planning permission would be…”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to conditionally approve the application, in line with the officer recommendation, was approved.

“At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor N Baker and Councillor K Rouse moved and seconded a Motion to conditionally approve the application, in line with officer recommendation. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.”

Minutes

The decision

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

“That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to the listed conditions, with the final wording delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).”

Minutes