Issue - meetings

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/03398/HOUSE in respect of a two storey and single storey extension at Winterley House, Kintbury.

2.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and consequently officers recommended the Committee to refuse planning permission.  Derek Carnegie further added that a decision was currently awaited from the Planning Inspector on the earlier planning application and this was due very shortly.

3.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr M McNally and Mr Ian Lasseter, applicant/agent, and Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.         Mr McNally and Mr Lasseter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                They bought the house in 2008 because they had fallen in love with it, along with its setting and wanted to make it their family home for a long time.

·                At the time their three boys had been young children but they were now teenagers and consequently they needed more space, which was the reason for submitting the planning application.

·                The house was very pretty and dated back to the 1780s.  It was an l-shape when they bought it and they had since squared it off with a new façade made of high quality materials, which gave the impression that this extension was part of the original house.

·                Therefore they wanted to retain the high quality build by using old bricks and they were also intending to replace the modern garage.

·                The house was extended twice during the Victorian era, delisted in the 1980s and squared off in 2010.  Therefore it was not a symmetrical Georgian house and consequently a balanced judgement was required with regard to the harm this application would cause.

·                They considered that the extension was subservient to the existing dwelling.

·                There was no heritage imperative for the dwelling to be symmetrical.

·                The decision on the previous application was at appeal as stated by Derek Carnegie, but the decision was not expected for another three months, as they had only just received an acknowledgement from the Planning Inspector.

5.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked why they had submitted this planning application when the earlier one was still awaiting the appeal decision. Mr Lasseter advised that as they had made some changes to the earlier application, they had hoped it would be acceptable to the Committee.

6.         Councillor Anthony Pick enquired what evidence they possessed that showed the dwelling dated back to the 1780s.  Mr McNally explained that they had been told this by the previous owners and it was also referenced in various documents, as well as on the heritage gateway site.

7.         Councillor Pick further enquired whether a Heritage Impact Assessment had been undertaken and he was assured by Mr McNally that it had.  Mr McNally added that the dwelling had originally been a small farmhouse, which had been extended in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43