Pictured above: Poole Hill Road, Poole. Image credit: Google Street View
Submitted by David Norbury
The following decisions regarding accommodation applications were recently announced:
The prospect of a traditional-style shepherd’s hut to provide holiday accommodation in the countryside in Poole, Cheshire, has sparked objection. The feature film was offered by Robert Edleston, Poolehill House, Poole Hill Road.
Mr Edleston told Cheshire East Council planning officers that the Shepherd’s Hut will provide short-term vacation accommodation to serve visitors to the locality.
He said there was a growing demand from out-of-town travelers looking for self-catering accommodation for a short stay in the countryside, especially for guests attending weddings at nearby venues. .
The Worleston & District Parish Council made no comment, but three letters were submitted.
The comments included setting a precedent for similar proposals, changing the rural character of the area and the existing supply of holiday accommodation.
The proposal clearly targeted tourism and outdoor recreation, according to a report. The question was whether the Shepherd’s Hut was essential to the operation of the business.
Mr Edleston’s own market research had suggested that there was a growing need for this type of accommodation in East Cheshire. This had been confirmed by the tourism manager of the town.
The shepherd’s hut would be partly hidden from the road and would not be too visible. There would be no significant damage to the general character or appearance of the area, and the proposal would clearly benefit the rural economy.
It would be located close to Nantwich services and would have access to cycle and walking trails, including the nearby Shropshire Union Canal towpath.
The nearest neighboring properties were located more than 50 meters away, and this was considered sufficient to avoid any significant damage to the living conditions of the occupants of these properties by aspects such as eclipse or loss of privacy.
The cabin would not lead to a significant increase in noise and nuisance.
It was not uncommon to find this type of vacation rental accommodation in the countryside, and the shepherd’s hut style was not considered to be a significant visual damage to the wider landscape.
In recommending approval, the planners concluded that the proposal was considered acceptable in principle and would not negatively impact existing visual or residential amenities.
It would also contribute to the rural economy, sport and recreation, and the economy of visitors. Cheshire East Council has agreed that the feature may be approved.
An extension was proposed to a modern detached property in Shavington, Cheshire, where open campaign policies applied. The request was made by Mr. and Mrs. McMeeken at 2 Broomhall Drive.
Mr and Mrs McMeeken told Cheshire East Council planning officers that they are seeking approval for the addition of a floor to the side of the three-story dwelling facing Rope Lane and located in a prominent position on the corner of Broomhall Drive and Rope Lane.
The app featured folding doors and a gable window overlooking the back garden of the house. Shavington Parish Council made no comment and there was no further representation.
Planners explained that extensions of existing houses in the countryside were permitted exceptions when the new construction was not disproportionate to the original dwelling.
The expansion would result in an overall increase in floor space, but this was acceptable given the additional space on the second and third floors of the accommodation.
The design of the proposed extensions should be in keeping with the character of the area, and the new construction would extend from the existing kitchen to provide an additional open plan family room. This was also acceptable because the design was appropriate.
The proposal was deemed unlikely to have a negative impact on nearby amenities. No change will be made to the parking and access procedures.
In recommending approval, the planners concluded that the location and design was acceptable in the open countryside and strategic green space and would not negatively impact the amenities of adjacent properties.
Cheshire East Council has agreed that Mr. and Mrs. McMeeken may be granted permission.
Revised plans have been submitted to retain part of an existing dwelling in Calveley, Cheshire, originally slated for demolition. The request was raised at Eschol, School Lane, by Mr. R. Smith.
The property is a detached house set in the countryside, according to Cheshire East Council planning officers.
A prior authorization gave its approval for a two-storey extension in the central part of the house and involved some demolitions. This extension had been implemented.
Calveley Parish Council made no comment and there was no further representation. The proposals involved keeping part of the dwelling previously identified for demolition, the planners said.
This part of the house had a floor space of 22 square meters, and given that previous proposals only represented a 12% increase, the impact on the countryside was acceptable.
The treatment of a proposed gable was similar to that of a larger gable that had been constructed, and overall the proposals were considered to be consistent with the character of the dwelling.
They would not have a negative impact on the visual amenities of the locality, and due to the location of the property, there were no amenity issues.
The planners concluded that the proposal was considered to be of appropriate design and would not affect neighbors’ amenities. As such, the application was recommended for approval.
The Cheshire East council agreed that Mr Smith should have permission.
New floor-to-ceiling windows and a porch proposed at a detached property in Winterley, Cheshire would have been of an acceptable design. The plaintiff, MN Egerton, filed the plans at 383 Crewe Road.
Mr Egerton told Cheshire East Council planning officers that elements would be added to the facade of the two-story house. The surrounding area is residential, according to a report.
With two floor-to-ceiling windows on the ground floor, the entire proposal would be covered with a canopy spanning the width of the property. The planners explained that an investigation of the authorized development had been undertaken before submitting the request.
This identified that the modifications would not fall under the authorized development and that a building permit was required, as an extension of a main elevation to a highway did not meet the requirements.
There was no comment from Haslington Parish Council and no other representation.
Ownership of the site is within the limits of the Village of Winterley, where the principle of residential development is acceptable, subject, in this case, to aspects of residential design and amenity, the report says. .
The proposed development was considered to be of an appropriate size for the dwelling and the corresponding plaster would not be out of character.
During the site visit, it was noted that there was a variety of awnings and front porches, and the design of the front porch was found to be acceptable.
Along the street bay, windows were a common feature, and the property already had some type of bay window for the ground floor windows. The windows on the upper floor had to be replaced to match the new design of the bay windows.
The proposed porch posed no layout issues and the new bay windows would not protrude beyond the existing windows.
There would be no change to the terms of access and parking at the home. The planners concluded that the proposal was of an acceptable design that would have minimal impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties.
They recommended approval and Cheshire East Council granted permission to Mr. Egerton.
Make your neighborhood shine by becoming a zone ambassador.
Click here to find out more!