Plans for a flat roof dormer extension at a 19th century house in Keswick, have again been opposed by town councillors, who called it a “monstrosity”.
Mr and Mrs Whitby, represented by Graham K. Norman, of Penrith, have re-submitted an application for 16 Ratcliffe Place, which was withdrawn in March.
They want permission from the national park authority to create a dormer extension to the rear of their mid-terrace three-bedroom house.
The previous proposal had been to build the dormer on the front. At a meeting of Keswick Town Council, member Chris Houghton said: “They now want to hide this monstrosity at the rear.”
The view of the council’s planning sub-committee was that “it represented the worst form of dormer extension,” said Mr Houghton.
Councillor Tim Parsons disagreed and said the dormer was potentially improving what could be a local house.
“I think if it was going on the front, I might agree but looking at where it is up to George Street and the other buildings, I don’t think the visual impact would outweigh the benefits,” said Mr Parsons.
Mayor Steve Harwood, a retired architect, questioned whether it would improve the Conservation Area and said he did not like to see “big block extensions” built on to traditional, two-storey pitched roof houses.
“The trouble is, if you let one do it, everybody starts doing it and you end up with a complete mess,” said the mayor. “It’s a Conservation Area. What’s the point of having one if you’re going to let anything go there?” he asked.
But Mr Parsons said he did not think the Conservation Area would be harmed by the extension. He said the council was effectively saying people could not extend their properties to make them a reasonable size. “Yes, but you seem to be saying anything is okay if someone needs a third bedroom,” said Mr Harwood.
Mr Parsons said he was not saying that but he was making the point that visual impact did not cause harm.
“From my point of view it’s an awful design,” said Mr Harwood. Agents representing the applicants have said the proposed extension would have a “minimal effect” with the plans redrawn following advice from national park planning officers. The council voted nine in favour of opposing the application with Mr Parsons voting against. The LDNPA will make a decision at a later date.
