Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of double and single storey rear extension (retrospective) (Re-submission of application 20/00316/FUL).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

34.10        The application was for the erection of double and single storey rear extension (retrospective) (Re-submission of application 20/00316/FUL).

34.11        The Planning Officer stated that Tump Court was a detached traditional timber framed cottage located in Barrow. The cottage was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The site fell within the Green Belt and Landscape Protection Zone. A Member had requested a Committee decision in order to assess the impact on the Green Belt. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the form of the extensions was contemporary in style with the old and new aspects separated by a glazed link. The juxtaposition of the old and new was dramatic, appeared discordant and overwhelmingly unsympathetic to the historic character of the dwelling. It was considered that the extensions were over-dominant and harmful to the character and appearance of the original cottage. The painted white render created a very stark contrast to the host building and the glazed balcony appeared alien to the character of the thatched cottage. In relation to the Green Belt, it was not considered that the extensions had resulted in disproportionate additions. Overall, it was considered that the extension by virtue of its size, bulk, design and materials failed to respect the character, scale and design of the existing cottage which was a non-designated heritage asset and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

34.12        The Chair of Boddington Parish Council was invited to address the Committee. He indicated that it was difficult to know where to start as it was the first time the Parish Council had been in this position, however chronologically seemed the obvious route to follow. Boddington Parish Council had originally been advised that the property owners had been told they did not need planning permission for the proposed development and on that basis they had proceeded. Within the last few months, they had been served with an Enforcement Notice and a retrospective planning application was submitted. As part of that process, the Parish Council was contacted and gave its strong support for the application. For some reason that application had been withdrawn and re-submitted but the Parish Council’s strong support had not been carried forward to the re-submission and it appeared that the Parish Council’s strong support for the initial application had been removed. Nevertheless, Boddington Parish Council wished to make it known that it offered the strongest possible support for approval of this planning application. The Chair of the Parish Council confirmed that no-one in the hamlet of Barrow had expressed any objections to the application. He maintained that the reasons for this unanimity was that Tump Court was the last property at the end of a cul-de-sac and there were only three other properties in Barrow Hill Farm Lane. No-one, including the next-door neighbour, unless he was in his garden, could see the development other than the occasional walker who may get a brief glimpse. The next-door neighbour was fully supportive of the application. The redevelopment had been completed to an extremely high standard and, although it was accepted that it was a contemporary designed extension, it was almost entirely hidden behind the original traditional building which again had been refurbished to an extremely high standard in keeping with its origins. Whilst Boddington Parish Council accepted the points made by the Planning Officer it was felt that note should be taken of the local practical side of things: the property was isolated at the end of a cul-de-sac in a small hamlet; it was derelict and uninhabitable; a young couple saw potential (for what had now become a dream home); bought the property and had made a fantastic job of creating their new home; their age profile had brought new life to the village and they had integrated seamlessly into village life. As far as the extension itself, he urged the Committee to bear in mind that virtually no one could see it and no-one in the hamlet had anything other than praise and support for what had been achieved in transforming an isolated derelict eye-sore into a luxurious comfortable new home. In conclusion he stated that Boddington Parish Council considered what the owners had done to be worthy of great credit and had no hesitation in supporting this application and recommending it for approval in no uncertain terms.

34.13        The Agent for the application then addressed the Committee indicating that the applicants had asked him to speak on their behalf as they had been a little unsure of the technology. He referred to the letter that had been sent to all Members of the Committee with information that it had not really been possible to convey verbally and he hoped this had been useful. He had very little to add to that information other than to summarise some of the pertinent points. He indicated that the dwelling had been in an awful state of repair when the applicant had purchased it. The property had included a large two story rear extension and it was believed that repairing, amending and adding to that was permitted development however it transpired that not quite all the work carried out was covered by permitted development rights and therefore the applicant had been invited to make a planning application, he stressed that there was no Enforcement Notice. The applicant had painstakingly restored the original thatched part of the house and sensitively adapted the original rear addition in a way which did not affect the view of the house from the front. Extensions to either side of the front, along with other additions could have been made without planning consent but the applicant wanted to retain, unaffected, the important frontage view of the property. The extension was well designed and carefully linked to the main part of the house. It did not affect neighbouring amenity and there were no objections but many letters of support. The Parish Council fully supported the development and had taken the uncommon step of speaking to the Committee at today’s meeting to demonstrate that support. In conclusion, the Agent hoped the Committee would agree that the development was completely acceptable to its context and thus not contrary to policy. On this basis he asked the Committee to grant permission for this application.

34.14        From the discussion which ensued it was apparent that Members were minded to permit this application, a Member referred to the fact that the extension could only be seen from the sky and other Members spoke about how the restoration of this property had been sensitively done, that it was not unusual for there to be a distinction between the old and the new to be obvious and preferred in respect of additions to heritage buildings, how well it fitted in with the surrounding area and what an improvement it was on what had been a derelict building in a very bad state of repair. Whilst one Member indicated he was not opposed to permitting this application as it was in the Green Belt, he felt it important to know the relevant policies to support such a decision. The Development Manager indicated that the recommendation for refusal was solely on design grounds; in terms of the Green Belt it was not considered to be inappropriate development as the additions did not comprise a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling taking account of additional buildings which had been part of the original dwelling. It was therefore a judgement to make in terms of whether the design was acceptable. In respect of policies he indicated that HOU8 of the Local Plan and emerging policies RES10 and HER5, the latter dealing with non-listed heritage assets, were relevant. It was proposed and seconded and upon being put to the vote

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED on the grounds that the design was considered to be acceptable, fitting in well with the surrounding area and improving what was a previously derelict building in a very bad state of repair.