Dwelling extensions at Russets, 2B Wyaston Road, Ashbourne

What was proposed

The application sought extensions and alterations including part two-storey and part single-storey additions, a rear extension and a front extension.

“Planning permission is sought for a revised scheme of extensions and alteration works to the dwelling, following the previous scheme being refused at Planning Committee and subsequently receiving a split decision from the Planning Inspectorate.”

“This application proposes an amended scheme to create further living accommodation on the site. The revised scheme proposes the removal of the existing detached garage and the erection of part two storey, part single storey dwelling to the west side of the dwelling, a two- storey rear extension towards to the eastern side of the dwelling (replacing the conservatory) and a single storey front extension in place of the existing lean-to front porch/ extension.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a modern detached red-brick dwelling, a detached garage and access from Wyaston Road within the Ashbourne Settlement Boundary.

“The application property is a modern detached red brick dwelling with some cladded elements. There is a detached hipped roof garage to the west of the dwelling. The site is accessed from the east off Wyaston Road. The property is located within the southern part of Ashbourne and is located within the Ashbourne Settlement Boundary.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

An earlier extension scheme was refused by the committee, after which an appeal dismissed the larger side elements but allowed a single-storey rear extension.

“The key reasons for dismissal where the scale and massing of the two-storey and part single-storey side extension, overdevelopment of the plot, and the overbearing impacts of the extension on the boundary neighbour. The single storey extension element was allowed, as it was considered to be modest and subservient in nature.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the amended design and scale were acceptable and the effect on neighbouring residential amenity was not considered significant enough to refuse.

“The proposed development, as further amended from the previous scheme, is considered on balance to be acceptable in terms of design and scale, and the impact of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties would not be considered significant enough to justify a recommendation of refusal in this case, with reflection given to the previous appeal decision.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

The revised scheme moved and reduced parts of the extension, and officers considered its effects on appearance, privacy, light and neighbouring amenity acceptable subject to conditions.

“The revised scheme includes the removal of the existing garage and extensions to the western side of the dwelling, front of the dwelling and eastern (rear) end of the dwelling. As with the previous scheme, the most impactful extension in respect to residential amenity is the extension to the western side of the dwelling.”

“As the side/ rear extension remains two storey it is acknowledged that the development will result in some overshadowing/ loss of light to the rear part of the rear garden of 12 Duncombe Drive.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, while councillors and the town council objected over scale, design, neighbouring impact, overshadowing and parking.

“Derbyshire County Council Highways No Objection 11.06.2025 Based on the appraisal of the development proposals the Highways Development Management Manager on behalf of the County Council, under Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, has no objection.”

“3.The size of the application would not be in keeping with the rest of the estate. Ashbourne Town Council Objection 18.06.2025 OBJECTION.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Seven neighbouring residents raised concerns including scale, loss of light, overbearing effects, highways, parking, drainage, landscaping and harm to the area.

“7 Letters of representation have been received from neighbouring residents in respect of the proposals. A summary of the concerns pertaining to material planning considerations are detailed below:”

“The scale of the development • Impact on the residential amenity of neighbours including loss of light and Overshadowing/ overbearing presence near common boundary • Highway safety concerns • Impact on parking • Development not in keeping with surrounding area • Height of the development • Surface water drainage issues • Contrary to Plan Policies • Harm to the character and appearance of area. • Impact on landscaping and biodiversity 7.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL”

Officer report

Who spoke

A town council representative and three local residents spoke against the application, while the applicant spoke in support.

The committee’s view

A motion was proposed to refuse the application because it conflicted with design and extension policies and failed to satisfy the local plan’s requirements.

“It was moved by Councillor Stuart Lees to refuse the application as it conflicts with planning policies PD1 and PD6 and fails HC10 of the adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan, seconded by Councillor Peter Dobbs and…”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was refused because the two-storey extensions would harm the host dwelling and area, and the development would remove a hedgerow affecting residential amenity.

“The proposed two storey extensions would, by reason of their design, scale and location, detract from the well-proportioned design of the host dwelling, harming the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies PD1 and HC10 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan.”

“The proposed development would result in the loss of a hedgerow, adversely impacting residential amenity contrary to Policy PD6 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan.”

Minutes