text: Written by David Norbury
  Prior approval was sought for alterations to a detached dwelling in South Cheshire. Applicant Justine Turpin raised the householder application at 148 Crewe Road, Shavington, Crewe.
  Planning officers at Cheshire East Council were told by Ms Turpin she was intending the demolition of an existing single storey extension and conservatory and the construction of a single storey extension to the rear of the bungalow. This would extend 6.24m beyond the rear wall with a maximum height of 4m and eaves heights of 3m.
  The application was specifically for a 'larger' single storey rear extension to the house. A report said the property was within the Shavington boundary.
  The owners or occupiers of three adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development and no letters of representation were received. Main issues included whether there had been any objections, the report added.
  As the proposal complied with the requirements and no objections had been received the prior approval of the local planning authority was not required, it was explained. Larger extensions to dwelling houses were permitted subject to further information being provided to the local authority and notification to neighbours.
  Planning officers believed the application by Ms Turpin did not require prior approval and this was confirmed.
  Two new classrooms were proposed for a primary school in South Cheshire. The application was submitted by Cheshire East Council at The Dingle Primary on The Dingle, Haslington near Crewe.
  Planning officers said the single storey extension would be added to a corner of the existing school building. A car park extension including cycle parking, a multi use games area (MUGA) on the existing playing fields, the replacement of high-level windows to the school hall and the installation of solar panels to the roof were also included.
  Highways had no objection and there were no representations from Haslington Parish Council or from 15 neighbours who were notified. Local ward councillor Steven Edgar raised detailed aspects around traffic with a large number of houses built in Haslington and Winterley over the past five years and the need for a traffic appraisal.
  The proposed MUGA would occupy an area of the existing school playing field which was designated as protected open space but would provide an alternative all-weather surface, a report explained. The natural turf playing field would still be able to accommodate the school’s sports activities.
  Sport England had required the MUGA to be available for community use but this was not considered necessary given the school did not have facilities for members of the public. The extension to the school would bring it closer to the neighbouring property but it was not believed the proposed development would have any significant effect.
  Proposed replacement windows and solar panels would not raise any amenity concerns. In terms of design the extension to the school would be similar to the existing school.
  Overall it was not considered there would be any significant visual impact on the streetscene or the surrounding open countryside. The school’s pupil capacity would increase from 300 to 420 and there would be four additional staff. It was currently oversubscribed with 378 pupils.
  Drop-off and pick-up took place along The Dingle and the streets off it. The Dingle was busy with parking but there were some parking restrictions to keep the carriageway clear and additional space within the streets a short walk from the school.
  Planning officers concluded the application was acceptable and would not result in a significant visual impact on the streetscene or the locality in general. The effect on residential amenity and highway safety was also acceptable.
  Cheshire East Council agreed permission should be granted subject to conditions.
  A teaching block for children with special educational needs was put forward at a South Cheshire school. The application for full planning permission was made by Dominique Griffiths for the Wistaston Academy Trust at Wistaston Academy, Moreton Road, Crewe.
  Planning officers at Cheshire East Council were told the stand alone, single storey teaching space would be at the front of the primary school. There would be an enclosed play area and the plans included a new area of car parking.
  Crewe Town Council had no objection but among other aspects requested replanting to 'more than replace' removed trees and lost green space. Twenty neighbours were notified and there were no representatlons.
  There were no objections from Environmental Protection or Highways. The proposal for a new building as part of an existing school was acceptable in principle, according to a report.
  There would be encroachment onto protected open space but the proposed development would retain playing fields to the rear of the school whilst providing new play areas associated with the new building to the front. Sport England had been consulted and were satisfied.
  The single storey new build would appear as a typical school type building and the proposed materials, although modern, would be in keeping with the appearance of the school. The building would not appear out of keeping with the streetscene when seen from Moreton Road.
  It would be well away from neighbouring residential properties avoiding any privacy or loss of light issues. Additional off-road parking would be provided and some parking would be relocated.
  The extension would provide for an additional 16 pupils with 10 additional staff. Several young to semi-mature trees would need to be removed but this would not have a significant impact on the wider amenity of the area. A landscape scheme would be included.
  Permission was recommended and Cheshire East Council agreed the academy could have approval.
  Solar panels featured in an application at a South Cheshire school. The request for prior approval was made for The Axis Academy at Lodgefields Drive, Crewe.
  Planning officers at Cheshire East Council were told consent was being sought for the installation of a roof mounted solar system at the school. The school was within the Crewe boundary according to a report.
  The main issue was said to be whether prior approval of the design or external appearance of the development was required, in particular the impact of glare on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. No comments were made by Crewe Town Council.
  One letter of representation was received from the occupier of a neighbouring dwelling expressing concern over further development on the site.
  Planners explained, however, a prior approval application was a matter of whether the proposed development was permitted development or not. As such representations were not taken into account.
  The proposal had been assessed in relation to its external appearance and any possible impact of glare.
  The solar panels would be installed on an existing modern school building and there would be no significant adverse impact on its appearance.
  As the panels were to be located on a flat roof any ‘glint’ would be reflected upwards. It was not considered this would have any significant impact on any surrounding amenity.
  Planning officers recommended that prior approval was not required and this was confirmed.
  Town councillors in South Cheshire backed a new roof for a garage provided neighbours did not object. The householder application was lodged by David Scargill at 33 Marriott Road, Sandbach.
  Mr Scargill told planning officers at Cheshire East Council he was proposing putting a pitched roof on top of the existing attached garage at the dwellinghouse. The property was located in a residential area within the Sandbach boundary according to a report.
  The garage, to house a private motor car, had approval in May, 1978. Sandbach Town Council supported the application as long as there was no objection from neighbours.
  Four nearby occupiers were notified and there were no representations. Within the Sandbach boundary alterations to dwellinghouses were appropriate in principle subject to aspects including design and residential amenity, a report explained.
  Proposals should make a positive contribution to the character and identity of an area. In consideration of the existing attached garage this would appear to be of an appropriate extent, character and appearance.
  The proposed garage roof would be visible from the public street but would be sited upon an existing attached garage and within the building line of the property. It would not have an adverse effect on the streetscene.
  Proposed materials to be used in the construction of the new garage roof would be sympathetic to the character and design of the dwellinghouse and neighbouring properties. Development proposals should not cause significant injury to the amenities of nearby residential and neighbouring properties through loss of privacy, loss of light or other aspects and no concerns were raised in respect of residential amenity.
  The proposal would not have any adverse effect on adjacent properties and would not compromise light in the adjacent gardens. No alterations were proposed to the access or existing parking.
  The application for planning permission was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and Cheshire East Council agreed Mr Scargill could have approval.
  Outline plans were submitted for a detached dwelling in South Cheshire's countryside. Applicants Mr and Mrs G Lewis sought approval on land opposite 215 Colleys Lane, Willaston near Nantwich.
  Cheshire East Council said the site was largely in the designated Open Countryside and in the Green Gap intended to protect Crewe and Nantwich. There were no comments from Willaston Parish Council but neighbours who were notified put in three letters.
  These referred, amongst other aspects, to the location being within the Green Gap and outside the Willaston boundary. The effect on wildlife, flooding issues, access and loss of trees were among other issues raised.
  It was not considered the proposal complied with the exception relating to limited infilling in villages, according to a report. The site was not located within a village but sought to extend ‘a very small’ cluster of properties further into the open countryside.
  It was not considered to be infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage. The proposal did not have any exceptional design and had not been put forward to serve any affordable housing.
  It would also erode part of the gap which existed between Willaston, Wistaston, Nantwich and Crewe.
  Located ‘some way’ from services within Willaston and Nantwich the nearest service appeared to be a supermarket 1,000m away with a bus stop located within 250m. However there was no footpath leading to the stop and lighting was limited.
  Based on the illustrative plans provided it appeared that a dwelling could be provided on the site without causing significant harm to the living conditions of existing or future occupiers. An access had been shown off Colleys Lane and it appeared a sufficient level of visibility was achievable .
  The locality had two bungalows and a two storey property and as such it was considered a dwelling could be accommodated without causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.
  Benefits of the new build would be the provision of open market housing and the limited economic benefits during construction. However the benefit of open market housing was more limited given the open countryside location.
  Refusal was recommended as the proposed development was within the Open Countryside and the Green Gap and did not meet any of the exceptions. It would also cause harm to the open countryside and the local landscape.
  Cheshire East Council agreed Mr and Mrs Lewis could not have approval.
  Unduly large alterations arose at a bungalow in South Cheshire. The householder application was made by Mr and Mrs Nevitt at Oakfields Bungalow, Newcastle Road, Weston near Crewe.
  Planning officers at Cheshire East Council were told by Mr and Mrs Nevitt they were intending a first floor extension. The single storey detached dwelling was situated on Newcastle Road within the open countryside, according to a report. A pair of semi-detached dwellings were adjacent.
  Approval was being sought for a first floor and two storey rear extension, the report explained. Main issues were described as including amenity, design, Green Belt and the Open Countryside.
  Weston and Basford Parish Council raised no objection but requested a neighbour should be consulted particularly in relation to any potential overlooking and amenity issues. An additional storey to the existing dwelling and a two storey rear extension within the Green Belt were acceptable in principle providing the design was appropriate and the development did not give rise to any detrimental impact on the amenities of adjacent properties or the surrounding area the report added.
  The bungalow was in a relatively isolated position within the Green Belt with a pair of semi detached dwellings and a commercial garage nearby. The proposed design would see an existing modest single storey dwelling become a substantial two storey home.
  In terms of floor space this would increase by approximately 45% which was in excess of the 30% guideline. The proposed development would see a first floor extension taking the dwelling up to two storeys, as well as a two storey rear extension.
  This would significantly change the appearance of the original dwelling and would be considered to be unduly large additions. There would be a harmful impact on the openness of the surrounding Green Belt.
  Overall it was not considered the proposed development would lead to any significant impact on neighbouring residential amenity. No change would be made to parking arrangements.
  Planning officers believed the proposed development would represent disproportionate additions to a property within the Green Belt and would increase its size significantly beyond 30%. This would lead to a harmful impact on the openness of the surrounding Green Belt .
  Refusal was recommended and Cheshire East Council agreed Mr and Mrs Nevitt could not have permission.