A couple’s bid to build a front porch, which would give them easier access into their home, has been thrown out after planners branded the extension a conservatory.
The application for the add on to the ground floor property in a block of four on Mansfield Place, Newtongrange, was refused planning permission because it was too big to be considered a porch.
Planners said that at 3.1-metre by three-metre extension was “bulky and prominent” and did not meet the standard porch size.
Dismissing the planning application, they said: “The majority of such extensions are front porches, a main purpose of which is to give added protection to the entrance door to the house and usually these do not project more than two metres from the front wall of the original house.
“At 3.1 metres wide by three metres deep, the proposed conservatory would appear as a bulky and prominent addition at the front of the house and would be very prominent in the streetscene, where there are no similar extensions on the front elevations.”
Applicants Mr and Mrs Wells took their case to the council’s local review body this week with agents arguing that the proposed extension would not impact neighbours and would enhance the lives of the property owners.
They said: “The proposed porch is intended to provide the applicant, who are of advancing age, with an easier access to the property which is also closer to the driveway.
“We do not agree with the refusal reason stating the front porch would be over dominant, it’s a front porch and it looks like a porch.”
During the meeting of the local review body head of planning Peter Arnsdorf told members the application related to “an extension, or some people might call it a conservatory”.
Councillor WIllie McEwan told the meeting: “I don’t consider this building to be a conservatory in the true sense of the meaning. A conservatory is a glazed area all the way around and in my opinion this is not a conservatory.”
However Mr Arnsdorf said that regardless of whether it was an extension or conservatory the planning considerations remained the same.
Councillor Dianne Alexander told fellow review body members she felt the extension was too close to the neighbouring house and would cut off their light – a view which fellow body member councillor Kelly Drummond agreed with. The review body dismissed the appeal and upheld the officers decision