Agenda item

LW informed Members that this proposal is for an alternative kitchen extension, adding 2m in length plus a further 1.5m x 5.5m to the side, from the back of the extension towards the house.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Blanchfield, applicant, in support

Thanked Members for listening to her earlier comments, and said she was grateful that her previous application had been permitted.

Member debate:

RG:  is the refusal reason based on the previous application or is additional weight given to this application because extends into the garden and is wider than the previous application.  Do officers consider greater harm is done by this application?

PT:  is confused.  Asked for confirmation - this application extends into the garden like the previous one, but has an additional area to the side and roof extensions?

LW, in response:

-          confirmed that this application is the same depth as the previous application – 2 metres – but this one is wider;  officers consider it does more harm to the listed building, being 7m wide.

KS, in response:

-          the extension was originally negotiated to sit within the width of the existing house’s projecting section.  Officers consider that this proposal to extend that width will be harmful as it will obscure the parent building and have a visual impact on it.

MS:  disagrees.  Having been on planning view, considers the extension to be subservient to the building, not trying to link on but providing a modern extension to a beautifully preserved building.  Officers say it will damage the view of the house, but who will see it?  To be pedantic, future residents could remove it should they wish.  It would be churlish to demand that, but the family should get the application that they need.  Moved to permit – let the family have the building to invest their money in.

GB:  to be consistent, agrees with officers, seeing this as an incremental encroachment on the back of the house.  Imagines a future application may be made to link the wings with a massive conservatory.  Realises he is in a minority, but in view of the previous permission not being adhered to, asks for proper enforcement to make sure that any further permissions are built to plan.

BF:  in view of the background of these applications, hopes this will be built to the drawings and that Building Control will ensure that it is what it is.

RG:  to confirm:  is the extension to be all glass on three sides?  Going back to KS’s point regarding the width of the building, can live with it being glass on all three sides, but not quite so sure if the ends are enclosed, like the villas at the University.

LW, in response:

-          the extension is glass all round.

AC:  should have declared an interest, as he owns a regency building himself and knows the issues involved here.  Accepts that the extension is huge, but doesn’t consider this a reason to turn it down.  The house has been restored at great expense to make a liveable space for the family.

PJ:  as a builder, can’t condone the extension not being built to plan, but cannot see this additional extension will have any great impact and will therefore be consistent and vote for MS’s move to permit.

Vote on MS’s move to permit, with conditions to be agreed with CC and PH

7 in support

7 in objection

1 abstention

CC as chairman used his casting vote (in objection)

REFUSE