Couple rejected planning for second time

A couple have been refused permission to extend their property – despite making significant concessions. Mr and Mrs P Wilson’s planning appeal was heard on Tuesday by Dumfries and Galloway Council’s local review body, but was rejected by councillors. The applicants, who live in the village of Parton, were hoping to transform a domestic outbuilding into a one-bedroom annexe property for friends and relatives to use, along with occasional holiday lets. They offered to reduce the size of a decking area and provide a new timber fence for screening to appease neighbours. At Tuesday’s local review body meeting, a statement from the couple’s planning agent explained that further changes were being offered. He wrote “In light of the apparent concern raised by neighbours, my clients no longer have plans to holiday let the property. “And since the proposed use would be solely for visiting family/friends – i.e. incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and ancillary to the existing dwelling – we would suggest a more accurate description for the application that reflects the intended use for the proposal would be ‘alteration and extension of domestic outbuilding to form annex accommodation’.” Neighbours had lodged an objection with Dumfries and Galloway Council, arguing that the development would “obliterate the character of the original building and result in a self-contained dwelling”. They also complained that the development would be “disproportionate in size to the established built environment”. Council planning case officer Iona Brooke initially refused the planning application on the grounds that it would result in “an overly dominant and visually intrusive form of development”, and argued that it would “adversely affect the neighbouring property and the use of their private garden area.” At Tuesday’s meeting, council planning officer Robert Duncan insisted that reasons for refusal stood, despite changes to the plans. Mid and Upper Nithsdale Councillor Jim Dempster, chair of the meeting, proposed that the local review body should uphold the original decision. This was unanimously backed by other councillors.