Home » News and Forum

News and Forum

You do not need to log in or register if you only want to view a topic in a forum below, but if you register you can receive notifications about your selected forum or topic and, in order to post in a forum, you must be logged in. 

Welcome Guest

Pages: 1
15 Cumin Place 14/00368/FUL
WyvernPostFebruary 22, 2014, 12:34
Administrator
Posts: 69
Registered:
February 26, 2013, 23:52
Normal topic15 Cumin Place 14/00368/FUL

This is an application for a large extension at the rear of the house. Do you think it is too large? Do you think it would it dominate the house? If so a comment should be sent in to Edinburgh Planning by 7th March. The application can be found at https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N0F1U9EW0GY00

WyvernPostApril 2, 2014, 17:51
Administrator
Posts: 69
Registered:
February 26, 2013, 23:52
Normal topic15 Cumin Place 14/00368/FUL

This application has been granted. The planners agreed it was too large but said "The infringement of the Non-Statutory Guideline due to the size of the rear extension does not justify refusal because it does not cause harm to the area. There will be no detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity." We find it very frustrating when the Guidelines are ignored without a good reason being given.

ArbeePostApril 2, 2014, 18:25
Beginner
Posts: 42
Registered:
September 24, 2013, 10:10
Normal topic15 Cumin Place 14/00368/FUL

So let me understand this ... in layman's terms, it breaks the guidelines, but not enough to cause refusal ?

Anyone see a coach and horses coming over the horizon ?

WyvernPostApril 3, 2014, 11:16
Administrator
Posts: 69
Registered:
February 26, 2013, 23:52
Normal topic15 Cumin Place 14/00368/FUL

Yes that seems to be the decision.

The Grange Association's view is as follows:

"We feel this is a bad decision.

"It sets aside the guidance on size of extensions, and just says the scheme will not harm the area: it gives no reasons specific to the application for not applying the guidance.

"The Guidelines set a limit for the size of extensions. We see a fair number of schemes which go up to this 150% limit. If, instead of the numerical limit, we are to have a vague test about harm to the area, then we will see more and bigger schemes put forward.

"When Ian Perry (­Convener of the Planning Committee for the City of Edinburgh Council) spoke to the Grange Association committee, he laid great emphasis on officers applying the guidance.

"We will be writing to him about this decision."

The decision letter can be found at http://gaedin.co.uk/wp/?attachment_id=2212

GuestPostJune 4, 2014, 12:05
Newbie
Posts: 22
Registered:

Normal topic15 Cumin Place 14/00368/FUL

There is now a new application for an extension to this house.

https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N5NUZ2EW09Z00

Again we feel it is inappropriate for this conservation area. The Grange Association Committee has sent in the following comment:

"We wish to object to these proposed extensions for the following reasons.

1. The footprint of the extensions would be greater than 50% of the footprint of the main house. This is contrary to the Council’s Householders’ Guidance which presupposes that extending a house to more than 150% of the original size would cause an unacceptable loss of green space thereby harming the character of a villa area. This non-statutory advice should only be overruled if a clear set of reasons can be given. Green Space is an important characteristic of the Grange Conservation area highlighted in the Grange Conservation Area Character Appraisal. Its loss is not consistent with the CACA (Policy Env 6 (a)).

2. It appears that part of the rear wall of the extension would be existing stonework and the remainder would be finished in render. We consider this mix of finishes would detract from the appearance of the building and be harmful to the character of the area. (Policy Env 6 (c)).

3. Aluminium window frames are not appropriate to the historic environment. (Policy Env 6 (c)).

4. A flat roof is not appropriate to the historic environment. (Policy Env 6 (c)).

We request that planning consent for these extensions is refused."

If you wish to comment to the Council, the reference is 14/01928/FUL and comments have to be received by 13th June.

Pages: 1
Mingle Forum by Cartpauj | Version: 1.1.0beta | Page loaded in: 0.026 seconds.