Chairman’s vote settles controversy

Have your say

AN extension is to be rendered in a bid to get a house extension to blend in with the adjacent properties.

But the move split members of High Peak’s Development Control Committee – with the application determined by the chairman’s casting vote.

Planning officer Sue Ashworth had explained that the single storey extension at the rear of 115 and 117 Green Lane in Buxton would not have needed planning permission if the materials used had matched the existing Victorian terraced cottages.

The render, she said, was seen as a compromise to as the development had been built in reconstituted stone.

The application had attracted six letters of objection. A Mr Howe told the meeting that the extension was visually obtrusive given its shape and design: “Rendering is a shabby solution and will not blend in.”

Councillor Graham Oakley said: “I understand the objections. It looks visually wrong in the settings. It’s a great pity the applicant didn’t build it out of limestone rubble in the first place.

“We need to make sure they get the rendering to a really high standard otherwise we are left with something of a carbuncle.

Councillor Emily Thrane said: “The materials can be made acceptable by appropriate render. The dimensions and size of the extension are all within the permitted development rights.”

She said the colour of the render would need to be approved by officers: “We need to make it clear to the applicant and objectors that render and its colour will be attached to this building as long as the building is there.”

Trevor Gilman, instructed to act as agent after a previous similar application was refused, said his clients had decided to remove two brick outbuildings and replace them with an extension.

They had been told the materials used in constructing the cottages would not be obtainable so had opted for the same materials used to build porches at the front.

The render would fit in with the remaining outhouses and the boundary walls which were all rendered.