Agenda item

The DMTL-DW introduced the report and affirmed officer’s recommendation for refusal. Primary considerations related to the effect the proposed extension would have on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and also on the conservation area. Officers considered the proposal to be harmful due to its size, appearance and proposed materials which would not be subservient to the existing dwelling, and be an in conflict to it. It was noted that there were no public benefits or material considerations which would outweigh this harm, as required by paragraph 202 of the NPPF.

Public Speakers

Pennie Alford - Councillor, Binham PC

Gary Pearce (Supporting)

      i.        Cllr R Kershaw - Local Member supplied photographic evidence of other properties located on Warren Road which had large extensions. He added that the application would enable a third generation farming family to live and work in the area, and better enable them to run the local tea room, adding to the local community and economy. Cllr R Kershaw proposed that members defer the application, to enable Officers and the applicant to discuss and seek a mutually agreeable decision.

     ii.        Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal and acknowledged whilst the property was situated within the conservation area and would be subject to additional criteria, there was scope for further discussion.

    iii.        Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted the images supplied by the local Member were instances where the extension was more sympathetic with the existing character and appearance of the area, including use of brick and flint materials. She added that the proposed application did not adopt such traditional materials. Cllr N Pearce echoed concerns regarding the materials used for the proposed extension would consist largely of glazing and timber construction. The setting of the building within the Binham Conservation Area was a principle consideration.

   iv.        The DMTL-DW noted the prior application which had an initial similar design, required amendment in order that it be agreed. Should the applicant desire to submit a new application, this would be considered within the pre-application service.

     v.        The ADP referred to the previously approved design, which the committee had been informed did not meet the personal circumstances of the applicant, but noted that personal circumstances carry limited, if any, material weight because conditions could not be made on the basis that the building may not remain in the ownership of the  family in perpetuity. The ADP acknowledged comments made by the DMTL-DW, which respectfully indicated that this process was felt to have been exhausted.

   vi.        Cllr A Brown asked the DMTL-DW whether the use of timber cladding would be permitted as an acceptable material within a conservation area. The DMTL-DW advised that extensions carried out within permitted development stipulated that materials must match the existing dwelling, though this was not applicable for this application, as it was not permitted development. Cllr R Kershaw affirmed timber cladding had been used in the previously approved design.

  vii.        Cllr V Holiday surmised from discussion that it seemed Members were in favour of a redesign rather than deferral, and questioned if deferral would be appropriate.

 viii.        Cllr R Kershaw commented that he believed with some small amendments the proposal would be acceptable, and that the plug in issue was one of the major problems established within the report. He added that the use of timber had been permitted in the previous application, and should not be considered an issue. If the extension could be set back, it would address concerns contained within the officer’s report.

   ix.        Cllr J Toye appreciated the work of officers, but felt that a solution could be reached which would be agreeable with the Conservation Officer and the applicant.

RESOLVED by 10 vote for, 1 against.

To defer the Item to enable further discussion between officers and the applicant relating to the materials and positioning of the extension in relation to the existing building.

     x.        Cllr J Toye asked for a timeline to ensure that discussions occurred in a timely manner. The ADP suggested a formal request for an extension of time for no more than three months, and that this be returned to the Committee with any requirements for determination within that three month period. If beyond the three months, further discretion would need to be sought. He affirmed, the aim is for a light touch change to the scheme only.