Agenda item

Erection of first floor extension, alterations to existing house, new rear terrace & external car port/ battery store.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and highlighted the key considerations to the Committee which included:

·       The site was adjacent to a public footpath and visible from the road.

·       The property was highlighted for its character in the Owlpen and Uley Design Statement.

·       The site was classed as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) due to its attractive qualities.

·       Extant planning permission was granted in 2022 for a first-floor extension above the garage, a new terrace to the rear and a battery store building. The design of which had been negotiated to provide separation from the main dwelling.

·       The proposal sought to be of passivhaus design standards.

The Principal Planning Officer also highlighted that the main refusal reasons were due to the size, scale and location of the first-floor extension and the additional car port. The materials proposed were considered out of keeping with the local area.

Mr Jones, the applicant, asked the Committee to approve the application for the following reasons.

·       The proposed dwelling would be of passivhaus standards and therefore would reduce the carbon footprint of the dwelling.

·       The proposal allows spaces for an office and a more open plan living area.

·       All contractors for the works would be employed locally including the architect who had drawn the plans.

·       They had no prior knowledge that the building had any form of listed position until the 31May. It was not in any previous report and there was no consultation held.

·       The car port would not be visible from the road and would allow the installation of electric vehicle charging.

·       The proposal was smaller in both volume and height to the original proposal.

·       The application and materials used were sympathetic to the adjacent buildings and surrounding area.

·       Full written support had been given from the immediate neighbours and others including the Parish Council.

In response to Councillor Ryder, the Development Team Manager defined a NDHA to be a building of quality that makes a valuable contribution to their environment due to their age, heritage, character and appearance. Although the building did not meet the statutory criteria to be listed, it was still required to be protected under the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 203. He also confirmed that some authorities choose to maintain a local list of NDHA however, this was not a requirement. Stroud District Council chose not to maintain a local list. 

Councillor Pearcy questioned how the applicant would know whether their property was an NDHA. The Officers confirmed that properties were assessed for their heritage during the application process therefore a property could not be identified until a planning application came in that would affect it.

The Principal Planning Officer gave the following answers in response to questions from Councillors.

·       The proposal was approximately 0.2m lower in height than the extant permission.

·       The size of the plot could accommodate the proposed development without leading to a cramped or overdeveloped look.

·       The extant permission utilised more traditional materials such as stone, slate, and tiles.

·       The proposed wooden cladding would be left unpainted and untreated.

Councillor John Jones proposed to refuse the application and Councillor Fenton seconded.

Councillors debated the proposal and considered the protection of the heritage of the building, the design and character in relation to its surroundings and the use of materials.

Councillor Pearcy commented that he was fully supportive of the passivhaus design due to the difficulty older properties had with energy consumption. However, he was still weighing up whether the extension was subservient to the existing dwelling.

Councillor Brown suggested that, in comparison to the extant permission, the proposal had more dominance and less character and in his view was leaning more towards being the dominant structure.

Councillor Schoemaker expressed his support for the passivhaus design and stated that as with solar farms they needed to balance the aesthetic value with screening.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried with 7 votes for and 3 votes against.

RESOLVED To refuse permission.