Two storey dormer
extension, dormer window and balcony to front and single storey front extension
to existing garage and external alterations to the property.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Two-storey dormer extension, dormer window
and balcony to the front and single-storey front extension to existing garage and external
alterations to the property.
(a) The Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that
the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on
15 October 2018, in order to undertake a site inspection visit. Some members
had visited the site prior
to the meeting.
It was noted that the applicant's agent had submitted further plans in response
to the objectors' concerns regarding the design, overlooking and parking.
It was noted that objections had been received expressing concern about the scale of the extension, however, it was not considered unreasonable in terms of size and
scale and was not an over-development of the site as a reasonable amenity area was retained around the house. Given that
the design of the existing house was different to the rest of the row and the fact that
there were views of it in a built-up context amongst houses of various designs, it was considered that the appearance would not have a significant impact on the street-scene
or on the landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Although the local member's concern and those of the objectors were acknowledged, it was considered that there were
no grounds to refuse the proposal in terms of design
and visual amenities.
She expanded
and stated that objections had been received from
two neighbours regarding overlooking, privacy, noise and loss of light.
It was not considered that
the proposal would significantly make the situation worse, due to the angle of the layout of the property the new front windows would not directly face Cae Du Farm.
It was noted that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design,
visual and general amenities and transport, and complied with
the requirements of relevant
policies.
(b)
The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee)
objected to the application
and made the following main points:-
·
He thanked
the Committee for visiting the site;
·
There were
many holiday homes on the estate
with modifications made to houses in order to generate
profit at the expense of the Welsh culture and language;
·
Parking concerns
on the estate due to the number of visitors to one house;
·
Parties were
held on the verandas with food
and drink purchased beforehand. This would not benefit the local economy;
·
There was no
reference to privacy in the Joint Local
Development Plan. The proposal
would impact the privacy of the neighbours.
·
Reference was made
to paragraph A29 of Policy
PPS7 within the national addendum in terms
of the distance between buildings in order
to reduce overlooking and enable natural
light in the buildings. Under paragraph A30 overlooking meant from a room
into a neighbour's garden, namely the nearest 3-4 metres to the house.
·
The design
was not in accordance with the requirements.
(c) In response
to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager explained that the proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms and would only
change the format and as a result the existing bedroom window would change
to be a bathroom window. He
noted that the impact of the extension, bearing in mind
the current impact on nearby residents,
would be minimal. He drew attention to Policy PCYFF2 of the
Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP) that addresses amenity issues, and although
privacy was not stated, this policy did address the matter.
(ch)
It was proposed
and seconded to approve the application.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
Concern regarding
over-development and the impact on nearby
residents;
·
Concern regarding
the impact on housing prices with housing getting
out of reach of local people;
·
Appreciation of the site
visit. The balcony would not create over-looking on the farmhouse and as the house opposite was lower down in the ground compared to the house in question,
there would be no overlooking from the roof;
·
That other
houses on the estate had balconies and the house would
be more similar in design to the nearby houses following the modifications;
·
The proposal
would not have an impact in
terms of light;
·
The proposal
was in accordance with the policies;
·
That there
were a high number of holiday homes in the area
and there was a danger that a precedent
could be created by approving the application with house prices
increasing;
·
That there
were already parking problems with houses getting
bigger and the number of cars in the area were
increasing;
·
There was no
planning reason to refuse the application;
·
Would a lack
of parking spaces and over development
be grounds to refuse the application?
(d)
In response to the above observations, the officers noted that:
·
The application before them was for an
extension and consideration had been given in terms
of the design and impact on neighbours
as part of the assessment.
The recommendation was to approve
as it was a moderate extension
on the existing house;
·
It was necessary to be extremely careful, the only grounds to object to the size of the development was the design and the impact on amenities.
Although the point regarding raising value was appreciated, it was not
a planning matter as the planning system did not control value. The situation would be different if consideration was given to an application
relating to an affordable house, but there was no
such restriction on this house
and therefore it was not appropriate for this to be used as grounds for refusal.
There was a risk of costs to the Council if there was an appeal
to a refusal on this basis.
·
Refusal on the grounds of a lack of parking spaces would be difficult to support as there was
space for three cars and
the Transportation Unit had no
objection. In terms of refusal on the grounds of over-development, there was not much difference in the house's footprint and therefore
it would be difficult to defend refusal on this basis.
RESOLVED to approve
the application.
Conditions:
1. Commence within five years.
2. In accordance with
the submitted plans and additional plans
3. Slates to match
4. Finish to match
Supporting documents: