Agenda item

The Elms, 11 Kings Street, Scalford – Construction of a 2 story extension

The Planning Development Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. It was mentioned that revised plans which reduced the overall height of the extension had been received but these were not significant enough to change the recommendation.

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

·         Zoe Sibree, Applicant

In response to a Member question, the applicant responded that the brick barn would eventually be converted into a TV room.

The Planning Development Manager explained that the offer to reduce the height of the extension was not relevant to the reasons for refusal as this alone did not reduce the size of the extension which had the effect of making  the host house subservient to the extension. It was noted that the existing building should remain the prominent feature on the site and the materials proposed were sympathetic and in-keeping with the host property.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         There was a view that did not agree with the recommendation and felt that the applicant should be encouraged to refurbish the farmstead as there were not many left with surrounding land. It was felt to be a well known property and its renovation and investment should be supported as to not do so could put the property into a state of disrepair;

·         The Solicitor advised that the reasons given for the recommendation for refusal in the report in terms of adverse impact were subjective, however  robust planning reasons would be required in order to overturn the officer’s recommendation;

·         There was clarification that it was felt the harm and scale of the extension was not detrimental to the site as indicated in the officer’s report;

·         There was concern at supporting permission as the Conservation Officer had objected to the proposal and it was against local plan policies;

·         There was a suggestion for deferral which could offer an opportunity for further discussions with officers to come to a compromise within the agreed policies;

·         It was felt that consistency to make decisions in line with policies was important but further dialogue could bring a compromise proposal;

·         Some Members felt that as the extension could not be seen from the village or neighbouring roads and therefore could not be considered harmful as overbearing then the proposal was acceptable;

·         It was mentioned that the applicant did not intend to build on the large green area to front of the site and the renovation would be an asset to the village;

·         The Solicitor pointed out that the green space referred to was not part of the application and was therefore not relevant to the proposal;

·         It was advised that conditions could be imposed should the application be approved.

Councillor Chandler proposed to permit the application as it was considered that the harm and scale of the extension was not detrimental to the site as indicated in the officer’s report. Councillor Bindloss seconded.

RESOLVED that contrary to the officer’s recommendation,

Application 19/01386/FULHH be APPROVED subject to standard conditions imposing the statutory time limit and specification of plans, and that the use of materials as included in the submitted plans.

(6 in favour, 5 against)