Council planners say no to house

Plans to knock down a Cowie farmhouse and build a new house have been refused.

Lloyd Hutchison submitted an application to Stirling Council planners to demolish the building at Sink Farm and replace it with a new home and garage.

However, the planners said it had not been shown that the existing house was beyond repair.

In their decision, they said: “The new dwelling would be sited on an area of higher ground to the east of the existing dwelling and the garage located on an area of ground currently used as the front lawn.

“The replacement dwelling would be 1.5 storey with a pitched roof reaching a height of 8m to the ridge and contain a total of 13 rooflights; the overall footprint of the dwelling would be approximately 270m2.

“The principal elevation (south) would have double front gables with a triple frame glass entrance in between.

“The ground floor is predominantly glazed with windows and sliding doors. The side elevations contain a mix of square and vertical windows.

“Located on the on the slope of a small hillside, the site is primarily pasture and open fields where the applicants have equestrian facilities.

“A report undertaken on behalf of the applicant...finds that the buildings are habitable but sub-standard and‘require significant repair and upgrading’. Permission was recently granted for the property to be extended but has not yet been implemented. It is therefore considered that the building is of a design that is readily improvable and is not beyond repair to the extent it should be demolished in its entirety.

“The ratio of glazing to walls is disproportionate.

“While it is accepted that the proposals may indeed result in a more energy efficient building, no details of this have been provided. Moreover, no consideration has been given on the impact of demolishing a building that is clearly capable of repair.

“On balance, it is considered the proposals are not supportable. In the first instance, the proposal has not sufficiently demonstrated that the existing dwelling is beyond reasonable repair to warrant its demolition and replacement. Secondly, the proposal is not of an acceptable design and layout that complements and is reflective of the character of its countryside setting.”