Planning applicant for Farnsfield development accused of taking advantage of district council
An application to build a second storey extension on a cottage was unanimously refused by Newark and Sherwood District Council's planning committee.
The development on Brickyard Lane, Farnsfield, was deferred by the district council in June this year for planning officers to negotiate a more appropriate design, after concerns were raised of the loss of light and historic value to the property.
The applicant was said to have taken advantage of the council after they ignored the revised plans for design and, instead, submitted an application that contradicted council recommendations.
The householder application was to erect a second storey extension that provided two bedrooms above the existing ground floor footprint.
The meeting heard there would have been plans for approval if the applicant had chosen a development in-line with the three recommended options discussed with planning officials, after design and amenity concerns were voiced.
One option was to build a traditional cat slide roof that would allow scaling back the depth of the extension; another involved keeping one proposed rear projecting gable but reducing its depth, and introducing a side cat slide roof to make up the other half of the proposed extension; and the third included keeping the two proposed rear gables but scaling back their depth.
Instead of considering these plans, the meeting was told, the applicant further submitted a different design that broke height restrictions imposed by the council.
Bruce Laughton, committee member, said he was pleased with the three original proposals that were given.
"It was a compromise but the applicant has taken advantage of that," said Mr Laughton.
"My parish council objected last month to the development as far as daylight and sunlight are concerned.
"I've spoken to the applicant myself and expressed my view, and I couldn't really see the point in putting in this application in the first place when they have refused to compromise."
Despite the property had already been extended and altered in the past, the council argued it had historic value as it was one of the first buildings along Brickyard Lane in 1888.
The council said consideration should also be given to the property being only just outside the conservation area, and the fact the proposed development would not match surrounding dwellings.
Michael Brown, also a committee member, said the loss of light was mentioned at the last committee meeting and should be upheld.
"Even in reducing the extension, it will still have an impact on the area," he said. "I would like to put in a motion for refusal."
