Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

This application had previously been presented to Planning Committee on 7th November 2017 with an officer recommendation for approval.  However, Members had expressed concern regarding the design, as it was not considered to relate well to the main house. It had been agreed that consideration of application DC/2017/00651 should be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to allow officers to liaise with the applicant with a view to agreeing a more appropriate design.

Since then, an amended plan had been received which indicated decorative amendments to the proposed annexe, featuring re-constituted stone quoins, lintels and cills, and overhanging eaves and barge boards to match the existing dwelling house. It was again advised by officers to make other design alterations including options to reduce the height of the annexe to single storey and compensate by increasing the floor area, position the annexe further away from the boundary with the neighbours of Hill Barn View (by attaching the annexe to the main dwelling), or explore converting the existing garage to annexe accommodation.  These design suggestions were not agreed and the applicant wanted the Planning Committee to consider the annexe with the same dimensions and profile as presented in the previous Planning Committee meeting.

The application is re-presented to Planning Committee with the same style annexe proposal with alterations to the decorative nature of the building so it is more in keeping with the existing dwelling.

Having considered the report of the application some members expressed concern regarding the orientation of the roof and how the one and a half storey extension relates to the building as a whole. If the roof was turned around by 90 degrees facing the same way as the main roof, first floor accommodation could still be created by building a dormer at the front and rear which would be more aesthetically pleasing.

However, other Members considered that having liaised with the applicant some improvements had been made with regard to the aesthetics of the building and the application complied with planning regulations.

It was noted that the application is an annexe only to the main building and will be secondary accommodation.  The visual impact on the wider area is negligible.

Following the debate, it was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that we be minded to refuse application DC/2017/00651 on the grounds that the proposal detracts from the character and appearance of the parent dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Planning Policy DES1 and that the application be re-presented to Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For refusal                 9

Against refusal         5

Abstentions               1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DC/2017/00651 on the grounds that the proposal detracts from the character and appearance of the parent dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Planning Policy DES1 and that the application be re-presented to Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.