Reconfiguration and upgrade of existing cottages including erection of single storey and two storey extensions to form 3 larger dwellings.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day and had viewed the site and had assessed the impact of a proposal on the surrounding area.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting and the completed European Protected Species Tests form that formed part of the Committee report. 

Mrs C Halford, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

Councillor Robert Tindall, on behalf of Eardington Parish Council, read out a statement against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Robert Tindall, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  He then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He raised no objections to these three cottages being “done-up” nor to there being some form of extension on the front east elevation.  These cottages had been built in the late 1700s and were therefore pre industrial revolution cottages.  The cottages were not listed but designated as heritage assets.  As such the design of any extension should be done as sympathetically as possible;

·         The use of a more modern design may be complementary on some buildings but the use of materials as used on the properties to the north-east would be far better suited on these cottages;

·         The submitted drawings do not adequately reflect the effect on the neighbouring property (No. 8 Lower Forge Cottage);

·         He disagreed with the comments made by the Case Officer in paragraphs 6.3.5, 6.3.6 and 7.1; and

·         He requested deferral so that the applicant could reconsider and submit a more sympathetic, in-keeping and complementary proposal.

Mrs H Turner, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  She expressed her willingness to go with a more traditional and in-keeping design if required.  However, she commented that the properties did not lend themselves to three dwellings as they stood; it was not possible to extend at the rear so any extension had to be at the front; and any works had to be financially viable.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and considered the submitted plans.  Members raised no issues with regard to the principle of development and refurbishment of the site.  However, Members did express concerns regarding the modern design; materials and the use of aluminium, glazing and timber cladding; and the impact on the neighbouring property (No. 8 Lower Forge Cottage).  Members raised no concerns regarding the two-storey extension to No. 11 and the use of a flat roof to the single storey element.  In acknowledging the applicant’s willingness to reconsider the design, it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to a future meeting to enable the applicant to reconsider the design, materials and impact on the neighbouring property.