House extensions at 8 Duck Street, Potterne, Devizes

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the rear lean-to and building side, rear and porch extensions with internal alterations.

“REPORT FOR THE EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting 2 nd October 2025 Application Number PL/2025/02951 Type of application Householder planning permission Site Address 8 Duck Street, Potterne, Devizes, SN10 5NB Proposal The demolition of a rear single-storey lean-to and erection of a two-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension and new front porch with internal alterations.”

“PROPOSAL The application seeks consent for the demolition of a rear single-storey lean-to and the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension, single-storey rear extension and new front porch with internal alterations.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The property is an end-terrace cottage in a residential cul-de-sac, within the conservation area and near listed buildings.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The application relates to 8 Duck Street in Potterne, Devizes. It is a two-storey, end-of-terrace cottage situated at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. It makes up one of three terraced cottages which are generally consistent in their architectural style: hip-to-gable style double Roman red tile roofs with brick exterior walling and hip-to-gable style front porches.”

“The site is located within the Potterne Conservation Area and is situated within relatively close proximity to several listed buildings, including 10 Duck Street (List Entry Number: 1258774), Church of St Mary (List Entry Number: 1258968), and Packway House (List Entry Number: 1273284).”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the design subservient and compatible, with no unacceptable heritage, neighbour, tree or highway impacts.

“The Council’s Core Strategy CP 57: Ensuring high quality design requires a high quality of design in all new developments. The policy requires applicants to “demonstrate how the proposal will make a positive contribution to the character of Wiltshire through (amongst other things) responding to the value of the natural and historic environment and being sympathetic to and conserving historic buildings and landscapes.”

“As discussed in the previous section, the proposal is considered to provide a subservient addition in keeping with the street scene, with the side extension having a lower ridge-height and its front elevation being set back from the front elevation of the existing cottage. Concerns have been raised regarding the scale of the additional built form, but the impact of the additional built form are not considered to be harmful.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while the arboricultural officer raised no objection subject to tree protection conditions.

“The proposed development would more than double the size of the existing property and, far from preserving/enhancing the character or appearance of the neighbouring properties or the conservation area as a whole, would constitute an undesirable and totally unharmonious overdevelopment of the property that would be in serious breach of the above provisions. Potterne Parish Council therefore UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSES this Application…”

“There is no Arboricultural objection to this application. Should permission be granted, I would suggest a condition along the lines of the following be used:”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Eight residents objected over the proposal’s scale, character, neighbour impacts, construction, excavation, trees, cables and access.

“Nine objections were received from eight neighbouring residents.”

“The proposal is 2 ½ times the current internal area which would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. • The proposal fails to meet the requirements of Potterne’s neighbourhood plan in terms of scale, style, and materials used. • The scale of works would be stressful for people working from home. • Concerns regarding amenity impacts upon the Old Chapel due to light, views, maintenance of trees, overlooking. • Concerns regarding access to maintain trees.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support, councillors presented residents’ objections, and a councillor spoke for the parish council.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the attic window, the relationship with the neighbouring house, construction controls and the proposal’s limited effect on neighbours.

“Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application with the reasoning behind having an opaque top window questioned as well as whether this could be conditioned. It was clarified that this window would only serve to bring light to the attic, which would not be a functional room and for storage only. It was noted that it could be conditioned for this window to be opaque but not strictly necessary.”

“The Conservation and Planning Officer was then provided an opportunity to respond to points that had been raised by public speakers and the Local Unitary Member. Clarity was provided that the proposals were in architectural keeping with neighbouring properties and that parking regulations would not need to be changed following the proposals as the property would remain to be a two-bed house.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

A motion to accept the officer recommendation was moved and seconded, and the committee resolved to approve the application.

“At the start of the debate a motion to ACCEPT the officer’s recommendation was moved by Cllr Philip Whitehead and seconded by Cllr Laura Mayes.”

“RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the following conditions:”

Minutes