Agenda item

The report was presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr and Mrs Howard, Applicant – statement read out by Democratic Services

Members indicated some contradictions in the Key Issues section of the report which highlighted issues with neighbours and highway safety, namely that there were no neighbours for over 300 metres and that there was no highway anywhere close to the property. Planning Officers noted that these were set out as key issues typical to householder applications, but that those relating to the principle of the development, the impact upon the appearance, character and heritage significance of the property, and climate change mitigation were of most relevance in this case.

Members also questioned why the extension was necessary as this was not outlined in the report. Planning Officers advised that this had not been set out by the applicant, but was not a requirement for householder development to be supported in principle. Members agreed that the extension resulted in a confused appearance to the building.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason –

The proposed extension, in its design, form and massing would not conserve or enhance the character, appearance, setting or significance of the non-designated heritage asset.  As such the proposal conflicts with Development Plan policies GSP3, DMC3, DMC5 and DMH7.