Self-build replacement dwelling at Keepers Cottage Moorside Lane Pott Shrigley

What was proposed

The application sought to demolish Keepers Cottage, build a substantially larger four-bedroom dwelling and re-landscape the site.

“The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling, Keepers Cottage, and replacement with a significantly larger 4-bedroom dwelling.”

“Policy DMH9.A permits the replacement of a dwelling provided the dwelling to be replaced does not have heritage significance or contribute positively towards the valued landscape character or built environment. DMH9.C requires larger replacement dwellings to demonstrate significant overall enhancement of the site and landscape.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The cottage is an isolated early Victorian gamekeeper’s cottage, a non-designated heritage asset near Lyme Park and several public footpaths.

“Keepers Cottage is a relatively isolated dwelling located on the south east side of Moorside Lane, off Bakestonedale Road, Pott Shrigley. The exact age of the property is unknown; however, it is believed to date from between 1840-1848 and to be an example of an early Victorian gamekeepers’ cottage. It is a non-designated heritage asset historically associated with the nearby Grade II* Listed Shrigley Hall and Lyme Park.”

“The property is in close proximity to the boundary of Lyme Park and the associated Grade II* Listed Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for a new dwelling were refused in 2023 and 2024, while an agricultural building and yard scheme was granted in 2023.

“2022 – Agricultural Building, Creation of Yard Area, Alterations to Access. Erection of Retaining Walls, and Rebuilding of Store (NP/CEC/0222/0213) – Granted June 2023.”

“2023 – Demolition of existing house and construction of a new dwelling (NP/CEC/0122/0080). Refused April 2023 due to loss of a heritage asset, inappropriate design, impact on landscape and insufficient climate change and sustainability mitigation.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the cottage significant, the replacement too large and harmful to the landscape, and the original tree information insufficient.

“The replacement dwelling is significantly larger than the existing and is not considered to achieve the significant overall enhancement to the valued character and appearance of the site and landscape required by DMH9.C. Conversely, the new would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the site and area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and the parish council raised no objection, while the National Park’s built environment team objected and its ecology team raised conditional requirements.

“Peak District National Park Authority Built Environment: Objection. The building is a non- designated heritage asset. Its total loss would be contrary to the first purpose of the National Parks Act and planning policy. Please refer to comments for NP/CEC/0324/0285 and NP/CEC/0122/0080.”

“Peak District National Park Authority Ecology: No objection subject to a precautionary approach to works being undertaken, and inclusion of bat boxes. Retention/provision of integral features are preferred to compensate for the loss of potential roosting features.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter and the applicant spoke during public participation.

What members discussed

Members discussed the dwelling’s size and design, the current building’s historic significance, repair viability and the duration of its deterioration.

“Some Members had visited the site in 2024 in connection with an earlier application on the site.”

“The following points were discussed: • The size and design of the proposed dwelling and how it does not reflect the historic nature of the current building • The Senior Conservation Officer was present to clarify the significance and heritage of the current building • The viability of the current property and the repairs required • The duration of the deterioration of the current property…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members proposed and seconded refusal, and the motion was carried; one councillor asked for a vote against refusal to be recorded.

“A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

“K Potter requested that her vote against the motion to refuse this application be recorded.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because it would cause heritage harm and the replacement dwelling would harm the site, setting and wider landscape.

“The proposal would result in the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset and would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of Lyme Park (Grade II* Park) and Lyme Park Conservation Area. There are no material planning considerations which outweigh the harm resulting from the loss of the building, and no public benefits which outweigh the harm to the setting of designated heritage assets.”

“The proposal would have an unacceptable design and would harm the character and appearance of the site, its setting and the wider landscape, contrary to Policies GSP1, GSP3, L1, DMC3 and DMH9.”

Minutes