Erection of a two storey front extension and a two storey rear extension to dwelling.  Erection of a detached single garage

Erection of a two storey front extension and a two storey rear extension to dwelling.  Erection of a detached single garage

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, reminded members of the visit to the site the month previously. He said that the application was for front and rear extensions to a traditional forest cottage. A similar scheme had been refused on an earlier application. He informed the committee that the key issue at this meeting was to reach a conclusion on whether the proposed changes were out of scale and character with the existing property.

Public speaking

Speaking as the applicant, the speaker made the following statement: -

We have worked hard and scraped together all of our savings to put a deposit on Myrtle Cottage with the intention of making it our family home. My partner Chris has always lived on Harrow Hill and would like to stay close to his family, who also reside there, to retain the sense of community we already have. We have been warmly welcomed by our neighbours on Eastwood Road and they fully support our plans and proposals for Myrtle Cottage. Chris was a regular visitor to the cottage as a child and has as tong relationship with his family. When the property came up for sale the previous owners wanted us to have it; knowing it would be well looked after and respected even if it meant them selling it a lower value. They didn’t want to sell it to anyone looking for a quick profit, not caring about its history. In this current economic climate its very difficult to get onto the property ladder. We were aware we wouldn’t have much money to spare after buying the house, but we were fully prepared to put in the time and effort required to make this our ideal home and started to put the plans together. Our original planning application in February was refused and then following a meeting in April with the planning officer, changes were made according to his suggestion but after submission, the recommended changes were regarded unsuitable. The planning officer re-proposed an extension to the east side but this was unsuitable and unworkable. The final suggestion from the planning department was to demolish the house and rebuild it. The existing building is sound and we simply just don’t have the funds to take on such a costly rebuilding task. All we would like is a family home to last in an area we want to live in, making the best of the funds we have available.

The Chairman invited non-committee member, Councillor Ian Whitburn, to speak as a local member. Councillor Whitburn said that the young applicant and his partner were just starting out in renovating their first home and wanted to retain this old forest cottage as a family home in a location where the applicant had lived all of his life. Councillor Whitburn said that the property was not a particularly attractive cottage and would benefit from the extensions, which he believed would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Councillor Whitburn said that he hoped the committee would support the application.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Jackie Fraser, said that she agreed with Councillor Whitburn and was not aware of any objections to the application from neighbouring properties. Furthermore, a number of properties in the area had already benefitted from similar extensions to their properties.

Councillor David Thomson questioned the advice that had been given to the applicant from the planning authority. He said that the property did not appear to be worthy of retention in its current condition and that, in his opinion, the proposal constituted sensible use of the building. Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that an array of options had been discussed with the applicant, including the potential to consider different types of extension. Another option had been to consider replacing the existing cottage with a new build property at the site.

Having considered the photographic display of the property, Councillor James Bevan said that there did not appear to be a great deal of merit in retaining the old building. Conscious of the financial restraints affecting the couple, he said that the work involved in a rebuild on this lovely site would not be subject to VAT, whereas works to extend the property would. On this basis, and seconded by Councillor Terry Glastonbury, Councillor Bevan moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application. He also suggested that the applicant seek further advice from officers before considering an alternative proposal.

Supported by several other members at the meeting, Councillor Norman Stephens said that he was firmly opposed to the replacement of this forest cottage with a new build property and that he had been very surprised by this suggestion. Noting the financial limitations of the couple, he said that he was also disappointed by Councillor Bevan’s earlier motion. As a gesture of goodwill, Councillor Stephens requested that the proposer and seconder of the motion, Councillors James Bevan and Terry Glastonbury, withdraw their motion and allow the committee to consider the specific circumstances relating to this application and whether or not planning permission was justified. He said that the extension was not out of scale with other properties in the area, nor would it be visually harmful to the street scene. He believed a new build property would, however, look out of place. After considering Councillor Stephens request, Councillor Bevan and Councillor Glastonbury withdrew their motion.  

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that that the application be approved and Councillor David Thomson seconded the proposal. The reasons suggested for approving the application included; retention of an old forest cottage; that the extensions to the existing property were in scale with the surrounding properties and that there was no visual harm to the street scene or to the open space opposite. Councillor David Thomson encapsulated what he felt the committee was trying to accomplish in granting planning permission and said that he hoped the application would retain everything of value about the property and improve all that was unpleasant. A recorded was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission, subject to appropriate conditions

For (14)

Councillors Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (1)

Councillor James Bevan