Described on the planning application form as a ‘2 storey rear glass & timber contemporary style extension with gallery mezzanine area (Conservation Area)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 May 2026 by A Hartley, LLB (Hons), Solicitor, MBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007038 35 Southgate, Eckington, Derbyshire S21 4FS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Shayne and Katie Hodkin against the decision of North East Derbyshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01040/FLH. • The development is described on the planning application form as a ‘2 storey rear glass & timber contemporary style extension with gallery mezzanine area (Conservation Area).’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Eckington and Renishaw Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 3. The appeal site is within the CA. I am therefore mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) that requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area. 4. The special significance of the CA lies, at least partially, in the traditional design of historic buildings and its high townscape quality including consistent use of stone in buildings, walls and gate piers. The appeal property at number 35 Southgate (No 35) is a C18th two storey dwelling within the Southgate area of the CA. Although not listed, it is identified as an important building within the Eckington and Renishaw Conservation Area Character Statement (2003). The traditional shape, design and materials, including glazing bar sash windows, panelled doors and coursed coal measures sandstone of this attractive building make a positive contribution to the CA. 5. No 35 is sited perpendicular to the highway. The appeal proposal would introduce a two-storey side extension of contemporary design with glass and timber to the gable end that faces away from the highway. Even at a distance from the highway, the appeal proposal would still be visible from public vantage points along the highway. Appeal Decision 6007038 2 6. It is acknowledged that in some instances the use of modern design and contrasting materials to extend buildings can enhance and improve them to assist in securing their future. There is also a mix of styles and ages of buildings within the surrounding area. However, in the context of No 35 within the CA, the proposed contemporary development would erode the special significance that lies, in part, in the consistent use of stone and traditional materials to preserve or enhance the high townscape quality within Southgate. Furthermore, due to its flat-roofed, box- like design and large scale, the proposed extension would not respect the traditional character of the host property. As such, it would appear incongruous when viewed in the context of the existing building and within the street scene, notwithstanding a degree of screening provided by mature landscaping. 7. My attention has been drawn to an extension at number 43 Southgate. The materials and design are significantly different to that proposed and I have therefore attached very limited weight to the example in my deliberations in this appeal. It does not therefore change my conclusions. 8. Consequently, I find that harm would be caused to the significance of the CA. In accordance with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to this harm. 9. In the language of the Framework, the harm caused would be less than substantial. Framework paragraph 215 requires that where such a level of harm to the heritage asset is identified, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, no public benefits have been cited. As such, the test of Framework paragraph 215 is not met. 10. For these reasons, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the CA. It would thus conflict with Policies LC5, SDC5 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire District Council Local Plan (adopted November 2021), which seek high design standards that carefully respect the character of the CA and are appropriate to the context. Conclusion 11. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. A Hartley INSPECTOR