CALLS for planning permission for a house to be turned down because its chimneys were higher than originally agreed have been rejected by East Lothian councillors.

The house, planned for a paddock to the south west of Stamford Hall, Gullane, had initially been given approval on the understanding it would be one-storey.

But the council’s planning committee was told revised plans showed the house was actually one and a half storeys high, after rooms were added into the attic space.

The council’s planning officials had recommended that the committee reject the home, planned by Stephen and Katrina Farrell, saying it would amount to a dominant and intrusive form not in keeping with the pattern and form of the area of Gullane and would detract from the character and appearance of its surroundings.

Mr Farrell and his architect appealed to councillors to vote against the recommendation after producing drawings which showed the only part of the new house which rose higher than the original plans were the chimneys.

Mr Farrell told councillors if they increased the scrutiny of surrounding properties to a 150-metre radius from their proposed home, they would find 40 bigger properties. He said: “The upstairs accommodation sits at roof area position.” Councillors made a site visit to the paddock, on Goose Green Road, where the Farrells want to build their house.

Ward councillor Jim Goodfellow said he found himself disagreeing with the planning officials because the house would be exactly the same size as the original plan, which had been approved in principal.

While Councillor Stuart Currie, leader of the SNP opposition, argued there had always been a mix of properties in Gullane.

Mr Currie said: “There is an eclectic mix of housing in and around Gullane. Ultimately it is difficult to see why we would refuse the applicant; what we are talking about is pretty much what had been approved.” But ward councillor David Berry described Stamford Hall, which sits next to the proposed house, as an “architectural gem”, urging colleagues to be careful about what was allowed to be built around it.

Councillor Norman Hampshire, planning convenor, said that “the difference between what we gave outline planning permission to and this is not significant”.

The committee voted 14 to 1 to approve the plans.