A PLAN to build a two storey extension to a home converted from a barn comes before Warrington planners this week – along with objections from 12 neighbours.
Mr Peter Marsh wants to add the side extension to his property at Culcheth Hall Farm Barns – a development of 16 homes converted from former barns.
But the occupants of 12 of the properties have objected – along with Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council.
A similar proposal by Mr Marsh was thrown out last year but officers are recommending the new scheme be approved when it comes before the borough council’s planning committee on Wednesday.
They say the previous application was refused because it failed to harmonise with the adjacent buildings and was not in character with the original barns.
But they say the scheme has now been amended, with a pitched roof instead of a flat roof, new window designs and changed materials.
It will not unduly harm neighbours’ amenity and will respect the character of the existing barns with no significant impact on the openness of the surround Green Belt.
A PLAN to build a two storey extension to a home converted from a barn
comes before Warrington planners this week - along with objections from
12 neighbours.
Neighbours oppose barn plan
11 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
1 Comment
The stock phrase “It will not unduly harm neighbours’ amenity” – has been used several times recently by our far seeing but shortsighted planners to conveniently give their “experienced” seal of approval to schemes which were previously been turned down. What actually amounts to harm is highly subjective and should not be judged solely on the opinions of the ot greater planners, who have been found wanting more times than it is reasonable to expect. The views of those most affected and those of their Parish Council must be be given equal if not greater consideration than those of the planners, who will not have to live with the consequences of any decision based on their interpretations of the words “unduly”, “harm” and “amenity”.