Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Part single and part two storey rear extension.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02500/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Part single and part two storey rear extension.

Councillor John Bishop advised that he had supported the request of the Parish Council that this application be called in as he felt there was enough merit to require examination by the Committee. He had not however yet formed an opinion regarding this application.

The Area Planning Officer advised that amended plans had been submitted to show a refuse bin storage area and arrangement for surface water drainage.

These details covered two areas of concern raised by Kimpton Parish Council in their formal comments.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

Mrs Sally Clark thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02500/1HH.

Mrs Clark informed Members that she was speaking on behalf of the Kimpton residents, who strongly objected to the plans.

The Heritage Statement and application stated that the 19th Century buildings were being removed, yet omitted to state that a large proportion of the 17^th Century pitched roof would be removed to accommodate the 2 storey extension.

This rear roof was typical of a cottage of this era and provided a historic and picturesque view from the church, the road and the neighbouring gardens. To change this so dramatically would ruin the character of the row of cottages and lose a piece of history for ever.

The proposed extension would be built along the length of, and directly on top of the shared drainage that runs along the rear of all 3 cottages. There was no plan to re-route drainage piped and this was unacceptable.

The design was aimed at a family with potentially 3 or 4 cars. There was no room in Church Lane for more cars and parking for residents was already a problem. More cars would probably prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the top of the road. Cars were already parking on the grass in the churchyard.

The application stated that the plans did not include storage areas for waste and recyclables, this would need addressing to prevent bins being left on the road.

The sole purpose of this development was to increase the value of the property for the owner, who did not live in it, or even live in the village, to the detriment of losing a little piece of local history for ever and that is apart from the parking problems.

Mrs Clark advised that, from her point of view, daylight into her kitchen would be reduced, her view would change from looking at trees and the churchyard to looking at a brick wall a few yards from her window, her garden would also suffer from reduced daylight.

This development would reduce light into Church Lane and block views from the church to the green opposite.

The bulk of the extension was totally out of place and inappropriate for such an historic, picturesque row of listed cottages and was for no reason other to increase its value.

Mrs Clark concluded by stating that surely a listed building was listed to retain its history and character for future generations and should not be allowed to be changed so dramatically.

On behalf of the Kimpton residents, she urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Clark for her presentation.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the matter of drainage was covered by building regulations. He acknowledged that there was a parking problem in the area, however as this application did not increase the number of bedrooms, an additional parking space would not be required. The bin storage area had been addressed and was proposed to be behind a retaining wall on the property.

Members asked for clarification regarding the proposed footprint of the development in relation to the footprint of the existing buildings and asked for further clarification regarding loss of light to the neighbouring property.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the footprint of the proposed development was approximately the same size of that of the existing buildings, however the new extension would be less imposing on the view from the road.

In respect of any loss of light for the neighbouring property, the proposed extension was in two parts with the walls of the first floor being no nearer to the neighbouring property. It should also be noted that the house was set back from the adjoining property and therefore the proposed 3.3 metre extension would not be so severe.

Members acknowledged the neighbours concern, but noted that bricks from the existing building would be reused and that clay tiles would be used for the roof.

RESOLVED: That application 17/02500/1HH be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.