Planning granted 'within an area of significant local value'
The latest planning news from Cheshire
Written by David Norbury
Frodsham
An extension was proposed to a dwelling within an area of significant local value in Cheshire West and Chester. John Boote applied for the new build at 45 Howey Lane in Frodsham.
Mr Boote told planning officers at Cheshire West and Chester Council he was seeking the single storey extension at the side of the two storey dwelling. It would have a flat roof.
The detached two-storey property, located on Howey Lane in a residential area of the town, was identified as a sensitive area within Frodsham according to a report. It was within an area of significant local environmental value adjacent to but not within the Overton St Lawrence's Conservation Area.
READ MORE
Frodsham Town Council had no objection and there were no representations from occupiers who were notified. The proposed extension would largely match the existing dwelling, comprising brickwork with a rendered white finish. The roof would be timber and the windows would match the existing according to a report. Folding doors would be grey.
The application as a whole was considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the original dwelling, surrounding properties and the wider setting. House extensions advice required that single storey side extensions would normally only be supported where the side elevation was set in at least 1m from the side boundary and where the development would not create a terracing effect.
Mr Boote's proposed extension was set in from the side boundary by 1.1m, was sufficiently set back from the front and met the guidance. The site was within an area of significant local environmental value but no natural assets or trees would be removed.
Set adjacent to the conservation area it was believed the character and appearance of the conservation area would at least be preserved by the extension. Proposed windows on the side and folding doors on the rear were in similar positions to existing windows and it was considered the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on quality of life having particular regard to residential amenity.
In reaching this view regard had been had to the relative positions of windows, separation distances and other aspects. The proposed development would not increase the number of bedrooms and sufficient parking would remain.
Subject to conditions planning officers recommended approval and Cheshire West and Chester Council agreed planning permission should be granted to Mr Boote.
Helsby
Neighbours objected when plans went in for a dwelling in the garden of a Cheshire West and Chester property. The outline application was lodged by Mr and Mrs David and Mina Laundy at 12 Homeway in Helsby.
Mr and Mrs Laundy told planning officers at Cheshire West and Chester Council they were seeking the erection of one detached dwelling within the garden at no 12 with car parking spaces for both properties. The plans involved a side garden associated with a semi-detached dwelling positioned at the head of the residential cul-de-sac according to a report.
Six neighbours objected raising concerns including the capacity of the road to accommodate an increase in vehicular traffic and on street parking, a reduction in highway safety caused by an increase in vehicles turning outside the house and a reduction in privacy for residents of neighbouring properties. Reduced light to surrounding properties and gardens, the inconsistency of the proposed design with the existing character of the streetscene and a reduction in amenity space for the dwelling were also mentioned along with a general reduction of green space.
READ MORE
Limited infill housing was generally supported in that location according to the report. The creation of new dwellings on garden land would only be supported where this did not result in an undue loss of garden land or cause unacceptable harm to the character of the surrounding area.
Properties on Homeway were of the same probably early 20th century design. A gable end would face the road which would be an 'alien feature' while the proposed dwelling would be on an oblique angle to Homeway which would be out of keeping.
The proposed development would appear unduly cramped and would not reflect the character of the immediate area. Any proposed dwelling would significantly reduce the amount of light to side windows of the existing property and would also reduce the amount of light within the rear garden.
The rear garden itself would not be of an appropriate quality and the new build would also have an adverse impact on the outlook of several neighbouring properties. Recommending refusal, planning officers concluded the proposed dwelling would not respect the prevailing character of the surrounding residential area and would have a detrimental impact upon residential amenity.
It would not provide an adequate quality of life for future occupants and would result in a significant adverse impact on residential amenity at 12 Homeway. The application was refused.
Helsby
An extension to a terraced property in Cheshire West and Chester would require permission, it was decided. The application arose at 92 Chester Road in Helsby where prior approval for the householder development was sought by Mrs J Brocklehurst.
Planning officers at Cheshire West and Chester Council were told by Mrs Brocklehurst she was looking for a single storey rear extension to the dwelling. The brick built infill feature would have a pitched and flat roof.
The application was specifically for a 'larger' single storey rear extension to a house, according to a report. Occupiers of neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development and no objections to the application were received.
READ MORE
Development was not permitted if the enlarged part of a dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original house and would have a width greater than half the width of the property, a report explained. The proposed extension would extend beyond a side wall to form a wraparound extension spanning the entire width of the dwelling.
It would not comply and would require formal planning permission. Cheshire West and Chester Council said in its opinion the proposed development did not comply with the requirements and refused the application for prior approval.
Helsby
Loss of privacy was raised when plans were raised for an extension to a dwelling in Cheshire West and Chester. The proposal was put forward by Chris McLean at 124 Chester Road in Helsby.
Planning officers at Cheshire West and Chester Council were told by Mr McLean he was intending a two storey rear and side extension and a detached garage. The two-storey extension would be to the rear of the dwelling as would the replacement detached garage.
The detached, three-storey dwelling with a hipped roof had finishes of facing brickwork and two detached garages to the rear, according to a report. It was set back considerably from the streetscene with established soft landscaping screening the property.
READ MORE
Chester Road had a range of dwellings differing in size, shape, design and materials used. Helsby Parish Council had no objection but in response to a neighbour notification concerns were raised regarding a loss of privacy from the addition of windows.
The proposed garage would replace the existing garage albeit slightly larger said the report. It would use matching roof tiles but would introduce render to the external walls.
Although the introduction of new materials would not normally be supported the garage would be located to the rear of the property screened by the existing boundary treatments and the main dwelling itself. The proposed two storey rear extension would not tie into the roof of the main dwelling but this would not be unusual in a Victorian style villa.
The introduction of similar window openings and the use of similar brickwork and slate roof tiles would match the existing main dwelling. As a whole the application was considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the original dwelling, surrounding properties and the wider setting.
The proposed extension would not give rise to any overbearing or overshadowing. Additional windows at first floor, particularly to the side, had the potential for overlooking and it was necessary to include a condition to ensure the windows would be obscure glazed.
Overall the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on quality of life, having particular regard to residential amenity. The proposal would increase the number of bedrooms however, due to the size of the plot, there would be more than sufficient off-road parking available.
Permission was recommended subject to conditions and Cheshire West and Chester Council agreed Mr McLean could have approval.
Tarporley
Alterations, extensions and repairs were proposed at a Grade ll listed building in a Cheshire West and Chester conservation area. They were sought by applicants Mr and Mrs N Gatt at The Manor House, 66 High Street, Tarporley.
Mr and Mrs Gatt told planning officers at Cheshire West and Chester Council they were proposing internal and external alterations, a single storey rear annexe extension, the demolition of an existing rear lean-to extension and the erection of a new flat roof feature. Their plans also included a rear dormer extension, new windows and doors, roof repairs to the main house and replacement roof coverings to outbuildings, the creation of a raised rear terrace, a new front entrance canopy and stone steps and alterations to the driveway to include electric gates with stone pillars.
Tarporley Parish Council did not object to the application but commented the property was in 'a highly visible and prominent position' on the High Street and in a historically sensitive location close to St Helen's Church. Councillors requested that 'careful consideration' should be given to the proposed leaded windows and front porch and the impact these would have on the character of the property and the wider area.
READ MORE
It was further requested the style and character of the roof covering should be retained along with that of the existing pedestrian gate. The parish council objected to the appearance of the proposed gates, commenting they were out of keeping with the historically sensitive area and suggested a traditional timber gate.
The Conservation Officer supported the application having engaged in a 'significant dialogue' with Mr and Mrs Gatt. Planners pointed out all extensions and alterations should be in keeping with the character and appearance of the original dwelling, surrounding properties and the wider setting.
The proposed single-storey annexe extension would incorporate a pitched roof and materials to match the original house. At the rear a dormer extension would incorporate slate cladding to match the existing roof while replacement window frames, doors and the entrance canopy would be of a traditional design.
The replacement roof coverings would be slate which featured on the main house and the vehicular entrance gates would be of a traditional timber design supported on stone piers. It was considered the development would result in no material harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.
Approval was recommended and Cheshire West and Chester Council agreed Mr and Mrs Gatt could have permission.
