Development that would ‘destroy’ a beautiful and iconic Victorian building in Rotherham rejected

An application to build four new apartments in a historic Victorian building in Rotherham has been rejected in a planning board meeting.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

The developer aimed to increase the height of the Phoenix Court on Blyth Road, Maltby, but local councillors slammed the proposal by telling the committee that the construction would “destroy” the building.

Christopher McMahon from Maltby Town Council described the building as “one of our better buildings in Maltby” and they strongly objected to the development.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He said: “We would destroy a beautiful house we think should be protected.”

There are already nine flats in the building - four more could be added if the planning board agrees.There are already nine flats in the building - four more could be added if the planning board agrees.
There are already nine flats in the building - four more could be added if the planning board agrees.

Cllr Jenny Andrews (Hellaby and Maltby) said the building was “beautiful and quite iconic” and agreed with Cllr McMahon and added the development “would destroy” it.

Chris Wilkins, RMBC’s planning officer, said on the previous application, the inspector found that the development would not have a significant impact on neighbours.

The inspector was reportedly satisfied that the proposal would not result in a “substantial increase in the amount of overshadowing” of a neighbouring property.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He added they felt in terms of the design, the appearance and the materials the applicant had done a better job than previously – and it is now acceptable.

Mr Wilkins added one of the reasons the application was objected to by residents was parking. He said the applicant would increase the number of parking spaces from 13 to 15.

He said the impact on neighbours was “ok” and with parking there “was no issue” so the application was recommended for approval.

The applicant, who was not able to attend the meeting, sent a statement and claimed they appointed an architect who was “experienced in heritage and design”.

They also confirmed that “no trees would be felled” during the development.

The application was refused by a four to three majority.

Related topics: