Neighbours oppose extension to outbuilding in green belt

Environment groups, the local parish council and almost 30 neighbours have all objected to plans from Alan Waistnidge to extend an outbuilding adjacent to his semi-detached house in Bland Lane, near Loxley.

Already, works have been carried out on the outbuilding without planning permission – including increasing the height of walls that run next to a public footpath and adding a pitched roof to the property.

Now, however, Mr Waistnidge has applied to Sheffield Council not for retrospective planning permission for the building work that has already taken place, but for a “significantly modified” pitched roof on the building.

The development has proved hugely unpopular with Bradfield Parish Council, the Loxley Valley Protection Society and neighbours, who say the scheme is “out of keeping with the natural surroundings” and “inappropriate in the green belt”.

One of the 28 objectors who has written to Sheffield Council opposing the plans said: “Very few cities can boast to have beautiful, unspoilt woodland and common on their doorstep.

“It is everybody’s responsibility to ensure that nothing will spoil, degrade or destroy such natural beauty.

“I feel that such a huge development right next to a public footpath is not in keeping with the general surroundings.

“I am simply amazed that an application such as this one could be considered on green belt land in a conservation area.”

Another objector said: “The rear wall of the extension abuts onto a well-used public footpath running through the woods between Loxley and Wadsley Common.

“This same wall appears to have been incorporated in the new extension, insofar as the new addition has been added onto the top of the existing dry stone wall, with no new footings visible from the footpath.

“As this wall forms the boundary to the property and the public footpath, a threat to public safety exists if the dry stone wall part collapses under the new additional weight.

“The property lies in both green belt and conservation areas, but with the height of the pitched roof, the existing building appears to be dwarfed by the new building works.”

Other opponents say enforcement action should be taken to remove the extensions that were built without planning permission.

However, planning officials at Sheffield City Council have advised members of the authority’s planning board to approve the application when it is considered at a meeting next Tuesday.

They say that planning consent should be approved for the new roof but add that the unauthorised roof extension should be removed.

In a report set to go before that meeting, the planning officers say that the proposed, replacement pitched roof “would not appear out of scale and character when viewed in conjunction with the associated building.”

Recommending that planning permission should be approved, the officials add: “Whilst the roof structure is relatively large, the scale is acceptable due to the design, which minimises the visual impact.

“The presence of the adjacent trees, the land form and presence of the existing house mean that the addition would not be highly visible or have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the green belt.”

If the unauthorised roof is not removed within three months, the planners say that Sheffield Council should be “authorised to take any appropriate action including, if necessary, enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings, to secure removal of the unauthorised roof extension.”

Mr Waistnidge was not available for comment yesterday.