Two-home plan in Sidbury not back by town council
PUBLISHED: 16:55 30 September 2017
Proposals for two new Sidbury homes have been slammed by councillors.
Plans to knock down a home in Sidford High Street so it can be replaced with two detached houses will go before East Devon District Council’s planning committee next week.
Sidbury councillors have condemned the proposals which include a detached garage, new driveway and one house with ten dormer windows in its roof.
Ward members have argued it will affect neighbouring residents’ privacy.
But East Devon District Council planning officers have recommended the scheme be approved with conditions.
The applicants, Mr and Mrs Aldam, are seeking permission to knock down a large detached 1930s house and build a replacement home and an additional house in the back garden.
The extra property would use the existing drive and a new driveway would be built for the replacement house.
Planning permission was granted for four detached bungalows on the site in 2012, with similar access proposals.
The planning officer’s report stated the site was in a built-up area and could accommodate two buildings. But both properties would be substantial in size and the upper house in particular would appear somewhat formal and imposing, owing to its Georgian influences.
It added while there was local opposition to the design, its setting was characterised by a variety of largely unremarkable properties and views which were filtered by trees and landscaping.
The report ruled that neither of the proposed houses would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Sidford Councillor Stuart Hughes has labelled the proposed development ‘overbearing’ and said it would affect the privacy of Bramble Close residents. He added this was especially the case with the first house which had ten windows in its roof.
Sidford Councillor Marianne Rixson has also objected to the scheme. She said previous permission was given for four bungalows which would not have had an adverse effect on the area.
She added the original application did not allow any development in the roof space meaning this new proposal ran counter to the previous application.