Cubbington bungalow owners will have to rebuild new roof which is 12.5cm too high

The owners of a Cubbington bungalow will need to rebuild the roof on a newly-constructed extension after councillors decided it was 125mm too high.

Friday, 10th January 2020, 5:30 am

Planning officers at last night’s meeting of Warwick District Council’s planning committee explained that permission for the semi-detached home in Penns Close had been granted as the plans had been amended to adhere to the council’s Residential Design Guide (RDG).

A report to the meeting explained: “The RDG states that in order to appear as subservient additions, side extensions should not be greater than 2/3rds of the width of the original dwelling house. There should also be a set down of the roof ridge of a minimum of 225mm.

“The side extension as approved is greater than 2/3rds the width of the original dwelling. Therefore the key factor in ensuring a subservient design was the previously approved 225mm set down.”

Cubbington sign. Image courtesy of Google Maps.

Councillors were told that the set down - or difference in roof heights - was just 100mm so the extension failed to meet the guidelines.

There had been five letters of support for the application to alter the conditions and Debbie Jones, speaking on behalf of the applicants Mr and Mrs Hyam, said it was a minor discrepancy and was a technical issue that arose during construction.

But while councillors were sympathetic to the owners, they refused to give any leeway which will mean the roof having to be rebuilt.

Cllr Terry Morris (Con Warwick Saltisford) said: “This is an unfortunate one and I feel for the applicants because someone has got it wrong here.

“The thought of enforcement and having to take the tiles and the roof trusses down and rebuild it is expensive, painful and not nice but you just can’t say that it sits nicely in the streetscene and therefore I will have to agree with officers and propose refusal.”

Cllr Martyn Ashford (Con Warwick Aylesford) added: “The design guide is there for a reason, it should be followed and it hasn’t been followed here so unfortunately they are going to have to look at it again.”

Councillors turned down the application by five votes to four.