CHIEF executive of West Somerset District Council, Tim Howes, has won his appeal for planning permission to extend his family home in Wootton Courtenay.

Mr Howes was given permission to extend his house in Little Close into a five-bedroom home in May 2001 but in March this year he applied for a larger extension to include a study.

This was turned down by Exmoor National Park Authority on the grounds that an increase in floor space of 56 per cent was too great.

Mr Howes, married with four children, argued that the extra space was needed to accommodate an elderly relative.

He also needed the study to enable him to work from home and he told park planners that his family's presence in the village meant there was good support for local services such as the school.

Planning committee members held a site inspection and took the advice of officers before turning down the application.

They had received seven letters from residents in support of the proposal and three against. Those in favour said the Howes were the right kind of people to attract to the area while those against feared the area would be turned into a "millionaire's shanty town."

In reaching his decision, planning inspector Mr C J Ball said the main issue was the impact of two-storey and single-storey extensions on the character and appearance of the house and its surroundings.

He said the house was well below road level on a hillside under a hedgebank and, although noticeable from the entrance to the property, the two-storey extension would neither restrict views of the countryside nor impinge upon neighbours' amenities.

"Nearby properties are diverse in age and character and are at sufficient distances for there to be no real impact on them. The extension would be largely screened from the road by a substantial hedge and trees.

"I consider that there would be no unacceptable effect on the street scene and that the extension would have no real impact on the natural beauty of the national park," said Mr Ball.

He said that the T-shaped house, built in the 1940s, was fairly typical of its period. However, it was not of any particular architectural interest nor did it reflect traditional local design and construction methods: "It was built at a time when such considerations were given little importance."

Mr Ball said the house was "neither traditional nor affordable" and therefore the proposal to extend it did not conflict with national park policy designed to protect small traditional cottages and affordable homes.

He said the size of the extension was irrelevant; what was important was the character of the extension and whether it was appropriate. In this regard, he found that the proposal "would generally meet" the objectives of national park policies.

Mr Ball said the park authority could not impose a condition to replace PVC windows with timber ones, but he did add a condition that all new windows must be timber framed, and a condition concerning the type of materials used in building the extension.