Agenda item

Construction of a first floor extension and a new pitched roof to the existing extension (amended 23.2.21)

Dene Croft, The Dene, Allendale NE47 9PX

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

N Turnbull, Democratic Services Officer, read out a statement from the agent on behalf of the applicants Dulcie Revely and Darren Lees, which would be attached to the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

·        Information regarding the proposed use of the extension for homeworking and the query regarding the build date of the extension had been provided to the Planning Officer after the report had been written and agenda papers issued to Councillors.  The applicant had been given the opportunity to withdraw the application from the meeting, in order to enable them to provide amended plans and additional information.  However, this had been declined as they had not wanted to incur further delay whilst the revised plans and information were assessed.  It was for this reason that that the report contained no reference to policy ANDP6.  However, officers considered that the proposal would have been contrary to bullet point 3 of that policy.

·        Clarification was provided regarding Allendale Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy ANDP9 which related to Extensions to Dwellings which stated:

·        ‘Planning permission will be granted for extensions to dwellings in settlements and in the open countryside where these accord with Policy ANDP1 provided that:

·        the overall design, size, appearance, scale, height and mass of the extension remains visually and functionally subservient to the host dwelling;

·        the external facing materials used in the construction of the extension match or complement the materials used in the construction of the host dwelling;

·        no significant and adverse impact arises from the development on the amenity of neighbouring residents;

·        the cumulative effects of such extensions across the surrounding countryside are acceptable; and

·        the effects of any significant increased run-off from rainwater arising on the additional hard surfaced area created by the extension can reasonably be mitigated.’

The aim of the Allendale Neighbourhood Plan was to see overall good design, appearance, size etc., whether it was for homeworking or a bedroom extension, good design was key.  Members were reminded that the property also fell within the AONB.  The application had been assessed against the aforementioned criteria.

·        The applicants had not provided any evidence or made reference to the extension having been built before 1 July 1948, until the written submission.  It had therefore been assumed that the flat roof section had been built more recently.

·        The discrepancy between the figures quoted in the written submission of 23% and the report were believed to be due to the agent assessing floor space, whilst the Local Authority assessed volume.  A reassessment of the proposals, assuming the flat roof extension had been built before 1948, resulted in a calculation of at least a 40% increase in volume.

·        More work might be required to establish on what basis the percentages be calculated.  If part of the building had been extended before 1948, it would need to be disregarded for these calculations and the proposals reassessed.

·        Members were advised not to focus solely on the percentage increase in the size of the property, as they were used for guidance and there was no reference to percentages within policy ANDP9.  The overall design, size, appearance, scale, height and mass of the extension needed to be considered, whether the proposal would cause harm and whether the scale and appearance was functionally subservient to the host dwelling.

·        Some details, such as the materials to be used for the stilts, had not yet been explored.

·        Further clarification and opportunity to review the site plans and proposed elevation was provided.  Comparison was made of the original house and the extension to the left, the date of construction of the flat roof extension was now in question.

·        The Allendale Neighbourhood Plan had been forward thinking with its inclusion of a homeworking policy (ANDP6) and the requirements during the current Covid-19 pandemic.  The application, when submitted, had not suggested that the additional space would be utilised as a homeworking area; it had been described on the proposed floor plan as an additional bedroom.

·        Whilst it was acknowledged that the applicants were working from home and a homeworking policy existed, reference was made to the final bullet point of ANDP6 which stated:

‘Any extension or free standing building shall be designed having regard to policies in this Plan and should not detract from the quality and character of the building to which they are subservient by reason of height, scale, massing, location or the facing materials used in their construction.’

·        Although the Allendale Neighbourhood Plan supported homeworking, this should not be to the detriment of the other factors including the design, scale, massing and the subservient relationship of the extension were all relevant.

·        The starting place for assessing the application was the Allendale Neighbourhood Plan which contained the primary planning policies.  All plan policies should be NPPF compliant, which it was confirmed that the Allendale Neighbourhood Plan was considered to be.  Reference to the NPPF in the reason for refusal related to the design, scale and massing of the proposal.  The proposed design was more modern than the traditional nature of stone built surrounding cottages.  The NPPF encouraged proposals not to have an adverse impact on the area, the host dwelling, the size and massing being subordinate to the original dwelling and reference to visual appearance.

·        The use of stilts were one of the issues of the modern design, however if they were removed and replaced with a two storey extension, there would be highway implications due to the limited space within the site and the gradient of the bank and ability to provide alternative parking.

·        Use of the ground floor space as an enclosed garage would have further implications on massing and increase the volume percentage as an enclosed space.

·        The proposed pitched roof was an improvement in design terms as a replacement for the existing flat roof.  However, the modern single glazing panels in the large corner window did not reflect the character of properties in the area.

·        The application had been correctly assessed as residential, despite the proposed use of the space as an office, provided that it was ancillary to the main dwelling house.  Reference was made to the preamble of policy ANDP6 which stated:

‘Planning permission will be granted for the use of part of a dwelling for office and/or light industrial uses, and for small scale free standing buildings within its curtilage, extensions to the dwelling or conversion of outbuildings for those uses...’

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Cessford.

In answer to a question regarding information omitted from the report, the Solicitor confirmed that Members needed to consider the application as it was before them.  The report had not made reference to homeworking whilst the written submission had.  The applicants had been informed by the Planning Officer that they could withdraw this application and amend it but had chosen not to do so as they had wanted to proceed with the application as it stood.

The Development Service Manager confirmed that the application had been validated on 9 October 2020 and it had been assessed on the description given of a first-floor extension and new pitched roof to the existing extension.  The plans showed it with a bedroom and bathroom in the proposed space.  Until the applicant either withdrew it formally resubmitted new plans and description, it had been dealt with as it stood.

The report had been prepared for the original meeting date of 13 April 2021; unfortunately, this had been postponed due to the death of the Duke of Edinburgh and discussions held during the intervening period.

The Local Area Council had discussed the relevance of the homeworking aspect and the relevant points to be taken into account.  However, it was primarily to be considered as an extension which the plans showed as a bedroom and bathroom.

Councillor Horncastle was dismayed that the additional information had been brought to officers’ attention 5 weeks previously.  He suggested that the application be deferred to determine whether the proposed extension be assessed as a 101% or 43% increase on the original dwelling.

The Chair expressed his concern as issues had been raised which had not been included in his briefing with officers the previous day and could see some merit in the application being deferred.  However, he reminded members that a proposal to refuse the application had been proposed and seconded.

Councillor Hutchinson declined to withdraw his proposal as the applicant’s agent could have withdrawn and submitted a revised application.  Depending on the outcome of the vote, they could appeal or submit revised plans.

Upon being put to the vote, the results were as follows:-

FOR: 5; AGAINST: 1; ABSTENTIONS: 3.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED permission for the reason outlined in the report.