11-bedroom house in multiple occupation at 3A Wharf Lane, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and constructing a three-storey, 11-bedroom house in multiple occupation with parking and amenity space.

“Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three-storey building (top floor in roof-space) containing 11 bedrooms to be occupied as a house in multiple occupation, with associated parking and amenity space - revised scheme of CHE/24/00023/FUL”

Officer report

The site

The site was vacant, contained two dilapidated buildings, and was accessed by a single-width driveway between existing properties.

“The site is a vacant area of land to the rear of 3 and 5 Wharf Lane, on which stands a two-storey Victorian workshop building and a single storey outbuilding/garage, both in a dilapidated condition. The site is situated behind terraced housing on Wharf Lane to the north and Sheffield Road to the west. Immediately adjacent to the southern boundary is Sunny Springs which is a narrow private road. To the north and east are the rear gardens of dwellings on Wharf Lane.”

“Access to the site is taken through an opening between No 1 and 3 Wharf Lane via a single width driveway leading to the buildings and to the rear of surrounding buildings with a complex arrangement of outdoor spaces for the adjacent dwellings. It is noted that at least 5 premises on the Sheffield Road frontage appear to utilise the rear yard/amenity space for off-road parking with access taken through the same entrance on Wharf Lane.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier 12-bedroom scheme was refused, while other schemes for multiple occupation, apartments and flats were withdrawn or granted permission.

“CHE/24/00023/FUL - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three-storey building (top floor in roof-space) containing 12 bedrooms to be occupied as a house in multiple occupation, with associated parking and amenity space – Refused 04.02.2025”

“CHE/21/00804/FUL - Erection 9 new apartments – Withdrawn 18.02.2022 5 3.2 CHE/17/00218/FUL - Conversion of vacant former joiners workshop to form three numbers flats. Addition of 1 extra dwelling and enlargement of the site - received 14/06/2017 – Conditional Permission 19.09.2017”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the building’s design harmed local character and bedrooms in the roof space provided poor outlook and internal space.

“The proposal would appear as a two storey building with accommodation within the roof space. A stepped design is proposed to reflect the land level changes across the site. The building has a traditional approach to the design, with proposed materials including brick and tile.”

“The proposed building would have a projecting gable and a notably larger footprint and form than the building it is to replace. The relatively low pitch to the roof, the high eaves line which proposes a large area between the upper windows and the eaves line are not traditional design features of such buildings. The fenestration design to the elevations also has a domestic appearance at odds with the form of the building with multiple blocked ‘window tax’ type windows.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, the Coal Authority, wildlife and drainage consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while nine public comments were received.

“Ward Members No comments received Strategic Planning No objections, confirms principle of development is acceptable Highway Authority No objections and recommends conditions Coal Authority No objections and recommends conditions Derbyshire Wildlife Trust No objections and recommends conditions CBC Environmental Health No comments received CBC Design Services Drainage No objections Yorkshire Water No objections and recommends conditions CBC Private Sector Housing No comments…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and the agent addressed the committee, and an additional resident’s letter was read out and summarised.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the unpleasant derelict site, earlier schemes with smaller rooms, differing constraints, housing comments and the planning judgement on living accommodation.

“The Committee considered the report as well as considering the derelict site which they noted was unpleasant for residents and discussed previous schemes that had been approved with smaller rooms. It was accepted that each application is on its own merits. This application is for a new build, which will have different constraints than, for example, a conversion scheme.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted eight in favour with two abstentions to reject the officer recommendation, then unanimously delegated preparation of conditions.

“The proposal to go against the officer’s recommendation was voted on and 8 were in favour and 2 abstained. The application was approved; the…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was granted, with approval and condition preparation delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager.

“That the officer recommendation not be upheld, and the application be GRANTED. Members delegated the approval and preparation of the conditions to the Development and Conservation Manager. It was agreed if the applicant did not agree the Conditions, then they would come back to the Planning Committee for a decision.”

Minutes