Extensions and detached garage at Croft Lodge Croft Road, Hartley Wintney, Hook

What was proposed

The application proposed extensions to both sides and the rear of the house, an open porch, partial demolition and a detached garage.

“Planning permission is sought for the part demolition of the existing side extension and erection of a single storey rear extension, two storey side extension to the West and a first floor extension to the East, plus an open front porch and a detached garage.”

“Single storey rear extension – the larger section would be designed with a flat roof with a large lantern over, it would have a height of 3.1m a width of 9.4m and depth of 4.3m; the smaller section would have a height of 2.7m a width of 3.4m and depth of 1.7m with a roof lantern over. On the east flank elevation there would be two sets of double light windows, on the west elevation there would be a double light window.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The property is a large detached house in landscaped grounds within a semi-rural conservation area, with earlier pre-application advice on similar works.

“Description of the site The application property is a large detached two storey dwelling set within generous landscaped grounds and is located on the north side of Croft Road which is a private road in Hartney Wintney, accessed off the A30. The site is within a semi-rural location where properties are of individual design and set within ample verdant plots.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the enlarged building would harm the conservation area and listed building setting, with no public benefits outweighing that harm.

“Croft Lodge would become the dominant building along this part of Croft Lane, compromising the historic spatial and visual context of the adjacent Grade II listed building, Rosemary and detracting from its significance. The intrusion into its setting would harm the street scene in this sensitive rural location within the Conservation Area.”

“- Planning Balance In general, the design of the extensions is acceptable, and there would be no adverse impacts to neighbouring residential occupiers. No harms have been identified in terms of protected species, trees, flooding or highways, subject to suitable conditions.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council had no objection, the Conservation Officer objected, and the Ecology Officer supported the proposal subject to licensed bat mitigation.

“Hart’s Conservation Officer: – Objection. Phoenix Green Character Area is defined by discreet, spacious, low- density development with large plots and significant visual gaps between buildings. Rosemary (Grade II Listed Building) is a notable Arts and Crafts style cottage (1908) by Robert Weir Schultz, with significance derived from its architectural detailing and rural setting.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant addressed the Committee and answered questions about design changes and heritage advice during the pre-application process.

What members debated

Members considered the heritage harm, the pre-application process, the dwelling’s history, neighbour separation, and whether the design fitted the conservation area.

“the level of harm mentioned in the report to the significance of designated heritage assets • whether the Conservation Officer had visited the site • the pre-application process and whether this automatically included heritage advice…”

“referred to the fact that the dwelling on site had originally been built for the servants of Sutton Place • referred to the fact that the applicants had made some changes to the application in order to address the issues that had been raised in the pre-application process • stated that the proposed building would be more than 30 metres away from the nearest neighbour • were of the opinion that design quality and heritage harm was subjective in nature and that the…”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted unanimously against the motion to refuse planning permission.

“Cllr Wildsmith left the meeting at 20:51.”

“The recommendation to refuse planning permission was moved by the Chair (Cllr Oliver) and seconded by Cllr Makepeace-Browne. In a show of hands, the Committee voted unanimously against refusal.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was to be granted under delegated authority, with the Ward Member and another councillor consulted on conditions covering materials, landscaping and construction management.

“It was then moved by Cllr Southern and seconded by the Chair (Cllr Oliver) that, under delegated authority, the application be granted by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Ward Member (Cllr Southern) and Cllr Cockarill (in the absence of the Chair) in respect of planning conditions ensuring oversight of materials, landscaping and construction management, including access.”

Minutes