Retrospective application for the demolition of sub-standard kitchen and conservatory at the rear of the property and construction of a single storey rear extension.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin
Walker Jones
Minutes:
Retrospective application
for the demolition of substandard kitchen and conservatory at the rear of the
property and construction of a single storey rear extension
(a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the application
had been submitted following action from the Enforcement Unit as a result of a
complaint about the development. It was explained that the application had been
submitted to Committee as the applicant was related to a Local Member.
It was noted that it was
considered that the size and location of the extension were acceptable in
principle. It was reported that the residents of No. 25 had objected to the
application due to concerns in relation to loss of light and overlooking
affecting their property due to the extension's side window.
It was explained that the
concerns about the side window had been discussed with the applicant prior to
the submission of the application, and subsequently. It was noted that although
the applicant had proposed a solution, namely to install opaque glass and a
permanent blind, officials were of the view that it would not be a satisfactory
solution as the perception of overlooking would remain. It was not considered
that it would be appropriate to impose a planning condition to insist that the
window was covered by opaque glass and a blind, as it was unlikely to be
enforceable.
It was reported that the
applicant had been requested on a number of occasions to block the window
permanently, but was unwilling to do this and therefore it would be
inappropriate to impose a condition to this end. It was recommended that the
only way to resolve the situation was to refuse the application due to the detrimental
impact of the window on the privacy of the adjacent house.
(b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main
points:-
·
The
objector did not live in the property and rented out the house;
·
The
extension enabled his mother, who was disabled, to live at home;
·
His
mother had received advice from a builder that there was no need for planning
permission and that the window on the side of the extension was acceptable;
·
His
mother had received a letter from the Enforcement Unit noting that the window
must be removed, and that planning permission was required. His mother was
worried about the situation and that it was affecting her health;
·
The
applicant was willing to install opaque glass and a permanent blind on the
window, and to re-install the original fence;
·
It
was hoped that the matter could be concluded as soon as possible.
(c) The local member (a member
of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:-
·
It
would be a pity to refuse the application because of the applicant's situation;
·
The
officers' concerns were understandable, and it would not be possible for the
adjacent property to construct an extension because of the location of the
window;
·
The
applicant should be required to block the side window to ensure that the
extension would not affect the privacy of nearby residents.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application.
During the ensuing discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
The
applicant had refused to block the window on a number of occasions;
·
Consideration
should be given to asking the applicant to block the window once more before
refusing the application;
·
Refusing
the application would place pressure on the applicant to block the window;
·
The
application should be deferred until the next meeting in order to reach an
agreement with the applicant in relation to blocking the window;
·
It
should be considered that the applicant was elderly and disabled, and that
receiving a letter from the Council in relation to demolishing the extension
could be shocking to her;
·
Although
not normally supportive of retrospective permissions, it seemed that the
applicant had received inaccurate advice from the builder. Requesting the
applicant to block the window was a reasonable request;
·
The
long-term impact on the adjacent property's amenities should be considered, and
that it prevented the adjacent property from constructing an extension.
Ensuring that there was opaque glass and a permanent blind on the window would
be difficult to enforce. There was a need to be firm and to refuse the
application due to the detrimental impact on the residents of the adjacent
property in future;
·
The
application should be refused, and two months granted to the applicant to block
the window.
(d) In response to the above
observations, the officers noted:
·
The applicant had noted an unwillingness to block the window in a number
of e-mails in response to advice from officers, and therefore the best way to
proceed was to refuse the application;
·
For clarity, the only request made to the applicant was to block the
window permanently. Officers had been reasonable and had noted the applicant's
situation;
·
There was a need to be firm as the window was totally unacceptable. The
applicant's situation was acknowledged, and if the application was refused, the
applicant would be requested to block the window within two months, or formal
enforcement steps would be undertaken to block the window.
RESOLVED to refuse
the application.
Reason:
It is considered that the
side window of the extension facing the rear yard/garden of 25 Belmont Road
does not demonstrate a high quality of design and creates an intrusive feature
that has an unacceptable adverse effect on the residential amenities of that
property on grounds of loss of privacy and has the potential to create
unacceptable disturbance. The development is therefore contrary to criteria 7
of policy PCYFF 2 and criteria 1 of policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd
Joint Local Development Plan and relevant guidance contained in the Gwynedd
Design Guide and TAN12: Design.
Supporting documents: