Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a single storey extension (part existing) to the side and front of dwelling.

The Planning officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He explained the reason for the officer recommendation of refusal, and highlighted the key considerations for the application.

One person spoke in objection to the proposal and some of his comments included:

·      The listed building of Penny Cottage neighbouring the application property, and Church Street were well known in the village. The cottage needed to be protected.

·      The proposed extension was not a significant improvement on the previously refused application, and would change the setting of Penny Cottage.

The agent addressed members and some of her comments included:

·         Feel the report fails to give the benefits of the proposal, and believe there will be public benefits.

·         Several comments by the officer in the report seem to differ from those of the Conservation Officer.

·         The impact on the listed building will be minor, as the proposal would be subservient and have a lower ridge height.

·         There would be little change to the street scene and the view of Penny Cottage would not be eclipsed.

·         Extension will provide a better standard of living in comparison to the existing small and difficult layout.

Ward member, Councillor Derek Yeomans, noted that in the officer report some of the comments made by the Conservation Officer seemed to be contradictory. Referring to the effect of the proposed new extension on views of Penny Cottage, he noted that there was a hedge which disguised the front of Penny Cottage when looking from the street. In his opinion the proposed extension would only hide a corner of the thatch of Penny Cottage, The extension would not go towards the road any further but would go higher and part wrap around the front of the dwelling away from Penny Cottage. He agreed that the top of the proposed extension would be more dominant than the existing single storey extension but it would barely detract from the view of the Penny Cottage. He proposed approval of the application.

During a short discussion mixed opinions were raised including:

·         Porch extension already exists, and proposal is only to go up and a little around.

·         If the extension is built there will be barely any garden.

·         The hedge could be cut down at any time

·         Existing extension doesn’t look brilliant, and if done right the proposal will be acceptable.

·         The wrap around extension will spoil look of existing cottages.

·         Don’t feel the proposal is appropriate and will affect both properties.

At the conclusion of debate, the first proposal to approve the application on the grounds of no adverse impact or harm, contrary to the officer recommendation was put to the vote but was lost. The voting was 4 in favour, 5 against with 1 abstention.

An alternative proposal was then put forward to refuse the application, as per the officer recommendation. On being put to the vote this was carried, 5 in favour, 4 against with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 5 in favour of refusal, 4 against, 1 abstention)