Alterations and extension to existing dwelling.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He drew Members attention to a letter in the update sheet submitted by Mrs Jones, one of the neighbouring residents who had objected to the application, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rumsey, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ingleton, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PM Morgan, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application was finely balanced.

·         The proposed extension would make an extremely small cottage suitable for a family home.

·         The existing cottage was too small at present and needed to be extended.

·         Once extended the dwelling would only have three bedrooms.

·         Members attended a site inspection and were therefore able to judge the impact on the neighbouring residents.

·         There were conflicting views from the Council’s Conservation and Landscape Officers.

·         A pitched roof would result in a much larger footprint.

Members noted the quality of the workmanship that had been undertaken in restoring the existing cottage, they also noted that at present it was not fit for a family home and was in need of an extension. It was appreciated that the extension was contemporary with some members of the opinion that the cottage would benefit from an extension which was more in keeping with the original cottage.

The Committee commented on the proposed plans and noted that from the front of the dwelling the extension would not be seen, this therefore satisfied them that the original cottage would remain the dominant feature.

The issue of overlooking was discussed with Members of the opinion that any overlooking would be minimal. The Principal Planning Officer also advised that there were only ground floor windows facing the neighbours dwelling therefore reducing any issues of overlooking further.

Members continued to discuss the application, some were of the opinion that the proposed development was an ideal blend of contemporary and traditional design whilst others felt that the proposal was out of keeping with a traditional country village and would be more appropriate in an urban setting.

The issue of the scale of the extension was discussed at length. Members noted that the proposed extension would result in a 131% increase with some of the opinion that this was unacceptable. However other Members noted the scale of the existing dwelling and appreciated that a larger extension would be required to result in a home fit for a family to live in.

The Principal Planning Officer addressed a number of issues which had been raised by the Committee during the debate. He advised that the agreed floor plans meant that the extension could not be used as a separate dwelling; that an extension with a pitched roof would have to have a considerably larger footprint than that proposed; and that that the extension was designed so as to not impact on the structure of the original timber frame cottage

Councillor Morgan was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and requested that the application be approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in full accordance with the external materials specified upon the Planning Application Form received 16th April 2012, the Design & Access Statement received on 16th April 2012 and the approved plans referred to in condition 3 below and shall thereafter be maintained with those materials.

Reason:- To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with policies DR1, H18, LA2 and HBA8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007;

3.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

4.         The two car parking spaces shown upon drawing number Drg No. 1411-Bloc2 (Scale 1:500) received 16th April 2012 shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and thereafter be retained and maintained for the parking of two motor vehicles, free of obstruction;

Reason:- To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision to prevent parking on the public highway, in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007;

5.         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town And Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, including the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Order (no.2) (England) Order (2008) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development normally permitted by Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 and Classes A and C of Part 2 of schedule 2 of Article 3 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 shall be carried out without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority;

Reason:- To prevent an overdevelopment of the site, to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with policies DR1, H18, LA2 and HBA8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007;

Reason for Approval

1.         The Local Planning Authority resolved to grant full conditional planning permission in this case despite the floor space increase of the extension being significant compared to the original cottage for the following reasons:-

a)         The extension would not adversely affect the principal / front elevation of the original cottage;

b)         The extension would visually appear as distinct / separate to the original cottage and its overall height would be some 42cm lower than the ridge height of the original cottage

c)         The contemporary design of the proposed extension is considered to represent an innovative quality approach;

d)         The extension would not be readily visible or visually harmful to the landscape when viewed from public vantage points;

e)         The extension would not result in any undue loss of daylight and / or sunlight to habitable rooms of neighbouring houses; and

f)          The extension would not result any undue loss of privacy to occupiers of neighbouring houses;

As such, the extension was not considered to conflict with the purpose / objectives of policies S2, DR1, H18, S7, LA2, HBA8 and T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.