Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/00834/FUL - Wyck Cottage, Wyck Rissington

Proposal

Erection of single-storey rear extension to replace existing and associated works at Wyck Cottage Wyck Rissington Cheltenham Glos GL54 2PN.

 

Case Officer

Mark Fisher

 

Ward Member

Councillor Andrew Maclean

 

Recommendation

Refuse

Minutes:

In introducing the application, the Chair stated that the Committee would be taking the first and second applications as one item. This was because the applications constituted the full planning permission and listed building consent for the same building works.

 

The application was for the planning permission and listed building consent associated with the erection of a single-storey rear extension to replace existing and associated works at Wyck Cottage, Wyck Rissington, GL54 2PN.

 

A representative from the Parish Council, Peter Watson, addressed the Committee. He explained that he was not a Councillor, but represented Wyck Rissington Parish Council as the Chair of its Planning Advisory Group. He said that the extension would be an improvement to the 1990s conservatory in place and would not add substantial mass.

 

The applicant, Andrew Lathe, addressed the Committee. He highlighted the improvement to residential amenity of the property from replacing the existing conservatory.

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean, the ward member, addressed the Committee raising points about the increased energy efficiency of the building.

 

The Case Officer introduced the report.

 

Member Questions

Members asked questions of the officers, which were responded to in the following way:

  • In response to a question over why there was no mention of the removal of the existing wall in the report, the Case Officer explained that the loss of masonry on this elevation was referred to in the report. The Senior Conservation Officer explained that this was an original, but contemporarily altered wall.
  • In response to a question on the design of the application, the Case Officer and the Senior Conservation Officer explained that the design objections were to the flat roof, which was deemed incongruent in design.
  • In providing further details on the design, the Senior Conservation Officer explained that in 2022, the Council had consented to an enlarged extension, and this application was larger than that one. They also explained that the flat-roofed design and scale was modern looking and visually dominant, therefore inappropriate for the listed building. They stated that there were no objections to the materials used.
  • Earlier in the meeting, the Ward Member had stated that the change of materials from a glass conservatory to a wooden structure would improve the energy efficiency of the building. Members discussed this, and the Senior Conservation Officer stated that they believed that changing the materials would achieve energy efficiency, and they would not object to this provided that the extension was of an appropriate size and scale.
  • Expanding on the discussion over energy efficiency, the Case Officer stated that this did not constitute a public benefit in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

Member comments

In discussing the application, Members made the following comments;

  • It was stated that the permission granted in 2022 was an acceptable and viable alternative to this application.
  • The removal of the back wall would cause harm to the listed building.

 

Councillor David Fowles proposed a site visit, which might be beneficial to understanding the application prior to a decision being made. Upon being seconded, this was taken to a vote.

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed refusing both applications, as per the officers’ recommendation. She stated that while the energy efficiency benefits were admirable, the design was not in keeping with the appearance of the listed building. She said that the applicant’s agent should have sought pre-application advice on the matter, referencing the regrettable design of the extension.

 

After discussion, Councillor Judd agreed to add the loss of the historic fabric as a reason for refusal, as this was mentioned in the body of the report but not listed as the reasons for refusal. The proposal, as amended was seconded by Councillor Michael Vann.

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the applications.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages