Dwelling extensions at Thatchers Cottage Redfern Lane Hollinsclough

What was proposed

The application sought rear and southern side extensions creating a kitchen/dining room, utility, WC and an additional bedroom.

“This application proposes the extension of the existing dwelling to create a new kitchen/dining room, utility and WC at ground floor, and an additional bedroom at first floor.”

“The extensions would be to the rear and to the southern gable end and would wrap around the south and western elevations of the existing building.”

Officer report

The site

The two-bedroom dwelling lies west of Hollinsclough, includes a modern agricultural shed, and has a neighbouring property over 150 metres away.

“Thatchers Cottage is a two bedroomed dwelling located 500m west of Hollinsclough. In addition to the dwelling, there is a modern agricultural shed on the site.”

“The dwelling, was granted planning permission in 1998. It was a former agricultural building, which was re-constructed in 1995. An important consideration is that the dwelling was approved subject to a planning condition and S.106 legal agreement restricting the occupation of the dwelling to local occupancy.”

Officer report

Planning history

The dwelling originated from a former agricultural building and is subject to local-occupancy restrictions under a planning condition and legal agreement.

“December 1998 – SM1298135: Conversion of barn to dwelling – Granted Conditionally and subject to S.106 legal agreement to restrict occupancy to local needs.”

“July 1997 – SM0797069: Conversion of stone building to local need dwelling – Refused…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the extensions would exceed affordable-home size limits, undermine affordability and dominate the existing building.

“The dwelling is subject to a planning condition and S.106 legal agreement restricting occupation to local persons. The dwelling is therefore an affordable dwelling which policies seek to be retained in perpetuity. The proposed extensions would increase the floorspace of the dwelling to 146m² significantly above the maximum size set by policy DMH1.”

“The proposed wrap-around form of the extension and its overall scale would dominate the existing structure and harm its character and appearance contrary to development plan policies DMC3 and DMH7.”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

The proposed floorspace would rise from 64.5 square metres to 146.5 square metres, while the wrap-around design would harm the property and landscape.

“Policy DMH1 restricts the size of affordable dwellings to ensure their affordability, with the maximum floorspace area permitted by the policy being 97m 2 for a five person dwelling. Policy DMH7 reflects this stating that sets out that in the case of affordable dwellings, extensions exceeding 10% of the floorspace or which take the floorspace of the house above 97m 2 are not permitted.”

“The proposed extensions would therefore harm the character and appearance of the property and its setting within the landscape contrary to policies DMC3 and DMH7 as well as the adopted design guidance in these regards.”

Officer report

Public support

Eleven letters supported the extensions because they would help keep a local family in the area, provide space and improve the property’s sustainability.

“Eleven letters of support have been received by the Authority during the consultation period on the grounds that the proposals would;”

“Help to keep a local family in the area • Provide space for that local family to grow • Improve the appearance of the property • Improve the sustainability of the property…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter and a councillor speaking as a supporter addressed the committee under the public participation scheme.

Committee discussion

Members considered deferring the application so officers could work with the applicant on an amended scheme meeting the applicant’s and legal agreement’s requirements.

“A motion to defer the application to allow officers to work with the applicant to consider an amended scheme that meets the requirements of the applicant and the requirements of the S106, was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was deferred to negotiate improvements to the extension’s scale and design.

“RESOLVED: That the application be DEFERRED in order to negotiate scale and design improvements.”

Minutes