Childminding and rear extension at 42 Birmingham Lane, Meltham, Holmfirth

What was proposed

The application sought mixed residential and childminding use for up to nine children, plus a single-storey rear extension and raised decking.

“The application is seeking permission for the change of use from class C3 (dwellinghouse) to mixed use dwellinghouse and class E(f) (childminders), and single storey rear extension and raised decking. The application has been submitted retrospectively having been subject to enforcement investigations.”

“The retrospective single storey rear extension has a projection of 3m and width of 8.4m. The overall height of the building will be 5m and eaves of 3.8m. The rear extension is set in from the shared party wall by 0.2m. The rear extension has been constructed from matching brickwork with a sloped tiled roof form. The raised decking will project off of the single storey rear extension by 3m and have a width of 5.3m. The decking is raised off the ground by 1.3m.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the childcare use and extension were acceptable in principle, with controls addressing residential amenity, noise and highways.

“In terms of extending and making alterations to a property, Policy LP24 of the KLP is relevant, in conjunction with the House Extensions and Alterations SPD and Chapter 12 of the NPPF, regarding design. In this case, the principle of the single storey rear extension and decking is considered acceptable and will be assessed against all other material planning considerations, including visual and residential amenity, as well as highway safety.”

“The Local Planning Authority (LPA) consider this partial change of use, which would operate during normal working hours, to support a modest childminding business which is run by the occupant of the dwelling, to be acceptable in principle.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Supporters and objectors addressed the committee, along with the applicant’s representative and the local member.

The committee vote

The committee voted six in favour and none against delegating approval and issuing the decision notice with conditions.

“RESOLVED – That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to approve the application, issue the decision notice and complete the list of conditions including matters relating to;”

“A Recorded Vote was taken in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42 (5) as follows; For: Councillors Homewood, J Lawson, Lee-Richards, McGrath, Sokhal and Ullah (6 votes) Against: (no votes)”

Minutes