Agenda item

Elm Cottage 28 Hill Street Donisthorpe Swadlincote Derby DE12 7PL

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Mr R Sutherland, applicant, addressed the meeting. He informed Members that the planned extension would transform the property whilst blending in with the surrounding area and would address inadequate insulation in the property. He highlighted to Members that the village had a mix of dwellings with no trend with regards to design, the property was not listed or in a conservation area and that the neighbours were in full support of the proposed development. He stated that the existing house was in a dip below the driveway, and that he intended to use reclaimed bricks and the original roof tiles. He advised Members that the property had been brought as a family home with a large garden for the family to enjoy. As personal  circumstances had changed the family now required more living space to enable care to be given to a family member and for Mr Sutherland’s daily treatment following an injury that he had sustained during active service, but they did not want to lose part of the garden. The proposed extension would give a bedroom and bathroom, which a side extension would not, and would provide work to local businesses. Another home nearby has permission for a similar extension.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor G Jones and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he had been moved by the speaker. Members had noted that, once built, the materials would not match, but the Committee had noted that existing materials did not match, and that was not uncommon in the wider area. He felt that the application was a genuine family need and more consideration should be given to the applicant’s needs. In his opinion the proposal was not an outrageous planning breach. He did not think that the proposed increased height of the property outweighed the freedom and benefit to the family, and that he would vote in favour of granting permitting.

Councillor J Bridges congratulated officers on the report and understood the reason for recommending that the application be refused. He stated that upon listening to the speaker, he felt that, with the right conditions imposed, the property could be sympathetically extended. He stated that the application would benefit the family and on the basis that necessary conditions were imposed he was in favour of the application and, as such,  would be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J Legrys stated that Members were between a rock and a hard place as officers had bent over backwards to help the applicant which was to be commended. His concern was in respect of design and felt that if the applicant and officers were to further discuss the application a solution could be found.

Councillor D Everitt stated that if the proposed extension had been a side extension then it would not have been an issue. However, as the proposed extension was upwards if granted planning permission and built, the property would be higher than other properties in the area. In his opinion he had not heard why the property could not be developed by way of a side extension. He felt that, having been out on the site visit and seen the property, the front door had been blocked up unsympathetically. He felt that the Committee should stick with the officer’s recommendation in the hope that a more suitable proposal could be submitted and considered.

Councillor M B Wyatt felt that it would be wrong to refuse the application as there was a genuine family need and, as such, should be supported.

Councillor R Canny said that she, too, had been moved by the applicant’s comments and stated that she was a long term hater of developing in gardens and was therefore in favour of the proposed development. She stated that the applicant’s personal circumstances had changed hence the application. She would be voting against the recommendation.

Councillor G Jones stated that he endorsed the comments made by Councillors J Legrys and D Everitt. He felt that the extension would detract from the street scene and that a side extension  was better than the proposal to raise the roof height to create a second floor

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the Committee that the design and appearance of the application was of concern to the Council, and that this was one of the reasons why the application had been recommended for refusal.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he had listened carefully and felt that building out and taking away good garden land was a planning matter. He felt that in the location the additional height would not be noticeable. He added that the proposed development may not be the cheapest option, but it was the best option for the family.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and LOST.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor D Harrison that the application be permitted subject to the imposition of conditions relating to materials on the ground that the proposed development did not significantly or detrimentally change the appearance of the property, it ensured the garden area would remain, in an area that was in the heart of the National Forest and would ensure that the property would remain sustainable by securing improved loft insulation.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted, with the imposition of conditions, to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration.