Single-storey front extension at Inkwell Cottage, Galmpton

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing porch and building a single-storey front extension with a flat roof behind a raised parapet.

“Development: READVERTISEMENT (revised plans) Householder application for demolition of existing porch & erection of single storey front extension…”

“As amended the proposal is for the demolition of an existing porch & erection of single storey extension finished in stone and render, with a flat roof behind a raised parapet. The scheme has been amended to address initial concerns and has been subject to re-consultation.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling created from a former school building converted in the 1980s.

“Inkwell Cottage is a 2-storey, mid-terraced dwelling created by the conversion of a former school building in the 1980s.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions covered alterations and conversion to two dwellings, followed by a change of use creating three dwellings.

“46/1518/83/3 Planning permission granted for change of use from 2 dwellings to 3 dwellings…”

“46/0276/78/3 Planning permission granted for alterations and conversion to form 2 dwelling units…”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the amended design sympathetic, parking and access acceptable, and the proposal unlikely to harm the area or neighbouring occupiers.

“Parking – The current parking arrangements at Inkwell Cottage includes parking for two cars with the potential for an additional parking space once the tree stump has been removed in the garden. The area where the proposed extension is located is not where any of the cars are parked at Inkwell Cottage so therefore the proposed extension does not decrease the two car parking spaces the property already has.”

“In conclusion, all material considerations raised through consultations and neighbour representations have been fully assessed. The proposal has been amended where necessary, including revisions to proposed materials and the block plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected over design, boundaries, drainage, parking, access, public views and neighbouring amenity; highways raised no concerns.

“The Parish Council objects to this application. Members noted that many of the issues previously raised remain unresolved, and that the plans submitted are still incomplete. There is still no site plan, no Construction Management Plan, and no workable proposal for surface water drainage. Councillors considered that the proposed extension remains out of keeping with the row of cottages.”

“Concerns were raised regarding access and parking. The application relies on access across the driveway of School Cottage, and the intention to create a third parking space is not shown on the plans. Such a space would significantly reduce the outside amenity area and would place the proposed soakaway beneath parked vehicles. Councillors noted that a soakaway must be at least 5 metres from a building, yet the site appears unable to achieve even 2 metres from the boundary.”

Officer report

Resident objections

Two objections raised concerns about design, balcony use, drainage, parking, construction management, boundary spacing and ownership information.

“Representations: A total of 2 objections have been received raising the following concerns:-”

“- Poor design - Use of flat roof as balcony - Insufficient evidence of soakaway - Parking - Lack of Construction Management Plan - Distance between boundary wall and extension - Wrong ownership Certificate…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker objected to the design and information submitted, the applicants supported the amended proposal, and the ward member asked members to consider policy compliance.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the varied extensions nearby, whether a pitched roof would be more sympathetic, and the applicants’ response to officer advice.

“There were a variety of extensions in this area, and this proposed extension was another variety within this street scene. • Something more sympathetic rather than a flat box extension, if there was a pitched roof would have been more acceptable. • The applicants have taken on board the advice from officer’s and therefore propose to support the recommendation.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members supported conditional approval, delegating approval to the Head of Development Management after consultation with the chair and named members.

“It was then PROPOSED and SECONDED to support the officer’s recommendation.”

“Committee Decision: Delegated approval to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Cllr Pannell (Proposer) and Cllr Hawkins (Seconder) to include a CEMP condition.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

The permission required timely commencement, compliance with approved plans, no use of the flat roof as an amenity area, and a construction management plan.

“Conditions: Time 2. Accord with Plans 3. Flat roof shall not be used for sitting out/amenity purposes…”

Officer report