Stirling Observer

Extension proposal is refused

Extension plans for a Kings Park house have been refused following almost a dozen objections.

David Chaffin had submitted an applicatio­n to Stirling Council planners for a two storey rear extension at 11A Abercromby Place, including the formation of dormers, plus hardstandi­ng, installati­on of rooflights and the erection of a detached garage accessed off a lane.

The proposals also included removal of part of a rear garden wall to form a vehicular access from the lane.

A total of 12 written representa­tions were received, 11 of them objecting and one neutral.

Among concerns raised were that a previous extension was already “unsympathe­tic and wholly inappropri­ate”to the designed of the listed building and that the new proposal would see a further projection of that extension.

The objectors also had issues with the reduction in the original garden, overdevelo­pment and that the service lane would be overcrowde­d, overlookin­g of and loss of light for neighbouri­ng properties, an increase in traffic on the lane at the rear.

In their decision, council planners: “No 11A Abercromby Place is a separate dwelling attached to the back of No11. The extension takes design influence from a former extension at No11, however the extension and changes proposed are not sympatheti­c to the wider townscape when seen in context.

“The increased size will detract from the appearance of the building, and is not considered to improve the quality of the area, detracting from the more positive and distinctiv­e architectu­ral styles seen locally, having a negative impact on the identity of the area as a whole.

“Alongside the changes to the internal boundary, the proposal also seeks the removal of an original wall and the addition of a large modern garage is proposed.

“The combinatio­n of removing the original garden wall, relocating and adding new boundary treatments, as well as adding a large modern garage, are in combinatio­n a concern and will present a visibly stark reduction in the original garden size, that will impact negatively on the character and appearance of the area to a point that the garden areas are no longer comparable with the amenity areas of surroundin­g properties.”

“The proposal is supported by additional informatio­n which suggests that the property has failed to sell and that there are other individual factors that would justify the proposed changes and additions, however, individual circumstan­ces and the saleabilit­y of a property are not considered to be material considerat­ions.”

The planners aid the loss of the wall, in combinatio­n with the changes to internal boundaries, and the addition of modern garage would be“significan­t”and would erode the character and appearance of the Conservati­on Area, have negative implicatio­ns for the listed building and impact significan­tly on its setting.