Damhead cottage extension rejected over lack of quality

A bid to build a two-storey extension at the back of a cottage has been rejected after its design was ruled not “bold enough” by planners.

By Marie Sharp, LDR
Wednesday, 19th January 2022, 3:08 pm
Plans for a two-storey extension at this Damhead cottage were rejected.

Owners of the house at Damhead, Lothianburn, had applied for planning permission for a two-storey extension with a balcony at the back of their home. But despite planners acknowledging the neighbouring cottage already had a two-storey extension, they rejected the proposal describing it as “bulky” and insisting it needed to be of higher quality if it was to be given the go ahead.

In the planning officers’ report it was accepted that large extensions may be acceptable if the design did not have a “significant impact” on the character of the original property. In this case planners said it was acknowledged that a two-storey flat roof extension had been built next door to the cottage.

However, they said: “In order to even consider an extension of the form and size proposed it would need to be of a very high quality design finished in high quality materials. In essence the extension constitutes a large two storey flat roof extension totally out of character with the cottage and not of high quality or bold contemporary design sufficient to warrant approval.”

Sign up to our daily newsletter

Among issues raised by planners were concerns the proposed extension would “totally dominate” the rear of the cottage and concern over the use of cement cladding on the sides which they said watered down attempts to make it contemporary.

And they criticised a lack of design features to break up parts of the building which they said made it a “very bulky addition” while describing a supporting pillar on the proposed balcony as “somewhat flimsy”

Four objections had been lodged to the plans, including concerns about its unsympathetic design, overbearing impact and loss of daylight to neighbours.

Refusing planning permission officers said the unsympathetic, bulky design did not “constitute a high quality example of contemporary design”. They added: “As a result of its overall size and design the extension would detract from the appearance of the host building.”

They also ruled the proposed balcony would overlook neighbouring gardens.