Single and two-storey extensions.

Single and two-storey extensions.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

One further letter of objection had been received from Mary Pytel, Pytel Sculpture, Hartleton, Bromsash, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 7SB.  The content was summarised as follows:

·         The proposal amounts to a doubling in size of the former lodge building, which has already been extended;

·         The existing extension is already out of character as it is finished in render, not local stone, which is the predominant material in the locality;

·         The property is in an elevated position, so an additional extension would be a ‘disaster.’

He also reported the comments of Linton Parish Council who stated:

Taking into account submissions made to the Parish Council yesterday (13.10.08) we ask you to note a local residents concerns that windows on the extension would invade her privacy and be to the detriment of the amenities she now enjoys. Other local residents were concerned at the size of the extension and the prominence of its position, also trees and shrubs had been removed from the garden to accommodate the extension making it even more visible.

Councillors were surprised to note that the Planning Officer confirmed that there was no record of previous extensions to the house.  Parishioners recall an extension being built onto a small stone cottage in the early to mid l990s; we suggest that a site visit should have confirmed this as the extension is clearly visible. UDP Policy H18 – 1. requires the original building to be the dominant feature. We suggest that this extension does not meet that requirement.

If the Planning Committee decide to grant permission for this development great care should be taken that the detailed design and materials are in keeping with the neighbouring buildings i.e. local stone.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that there was some conjecture as to the date of the previous extension to the property.  A further planning history search had revealed that permission was granted on 23 September 1968 (Code no. 26246) for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling.  The additions approved under this permission refered to the rendered section of the existing dwelling.  It would appear, therefore, that the most recent extension to the property dated from the late 1960s and not the early to mid 1990s.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Dr Bartensham, representing the local residents, spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor H Bramer, the local ward member, noted that the previously approved extension to the original stone building was large in scale. He felt that approving the application would be contrary to Policy H18 of the Unitary Development Plan as the original dwelling would not remain the dominant feature.

RESOLVED

That:   (i)    The Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

A) contrary to Policy H18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(ii)   If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:   Following the vote on this application, the Head of Planning Services advised that he would not refer the decision to the Planning Committee.]