House extension at The Cottage Easter Breich Farm, West Calder

“It is proposed to erect an extension to the west elevation, which is the front, principal elevation. This proposed extension would replace the existing porch, which was consented in 2000. The proposed extension has a footprint measuring approximately 6m x 8.12m, with a pitched roof measuring approximately 4.5m to the ridge and 2.4m to the eaves. The proposed extension will contain a hallway, sitting room and combined kitchen dining room.”

“The proposed materials are to match the existing house, with roughcast render to the external walls, brown coloured timber framed windows. The roof will be covered in terracotta coloured concrete tiles and feature bell cast profiled eaves to match the existing house. Windows are proposed to be positioned on the north, west and south elevations of the extension, as well as glazed double doors to the south.”

“Easter Breich Farm is a farmstead which has been converted to a small number of residential units. The cottage is under the same ownership as Easter Breich farmhouse to the northeast. The cottage has been in residential use since approximately 2000 when permission was granted for conversion from a storage shed. None of the buildings at Easter Breich are listed, and the site is not in a conservation area.”

“The cottage is a single storey house. The site is in a rural location and is positioned adjacent to the main vehicle entrance to the small group of traditional buildings.”

“History 4.9 LIVE/0912/FUL/99 – Conversion of former store room/ tool shed into a house – granted 03/02/2000. LIVE/0450/FUL/99 – Part change of use of store room/ tool shed into office – granted 17/08/1999.”

“The scale and massing of the originally submitted proposals were considered to be overly large and dominant with respect to the traditional plan form and massing of the cottage. The proposals were revised to reduce the width of the proposed extension from 7.53m to 6m, to ensure that the extension appears subsidiary in relation to the existing house, and the original plan form remains legible.”

“The scale, massing and materials of the development are visually acceptable and minimal in relation to the main dwelling house. There are no implications in terms of access to light, overshadowing, physical impact or privacy stemming from the development. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area, nor the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.”

“Extensions to the front of a house are generally considered to be unacceptable due to the impact on the existing house and streetscene. In this case, the position of the house within the plot severely limits the potential for a rear or side extension to the north accommodating a similar volume of internal space. A side extension to the south would present a similar level of sensitivity due to the prominence of this elevation when viewed from the access road.”

“0273/H/26 Councillor Willie Boyle did not take part in the consideration of this item of business. The committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Head of Planning, Economic Development and Regeneration concerning an application as follows: Application No.”