Application for the alteration of the roof at the front of the building in order to facilitate on extension to the existing property.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eric Merfyn Jones
Application to alter the roof at the front of the building in order to facilitate an extension to the existing property.
(a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this was an application to extend the current two-storey house at the rear and to the front. The extension would include making internal alterations including moving an existing bedroom to the new extension space and creating a bathroom in place of the former bedroom, as well as increasing the size of an existing bedroom on the first floor and extending the existing hallway on the ground floor.
It was explained that the application had been resubmitted as a previous application for the same proposal had been refused, and that it was a Local Member who was submitting the application to the Committee as he was of the opinion that a further assessment of the plans was required. It was highlighted that the applicant had refused to compromise and that the planning officers, although of the opinion that the proposal was acceptable, suggested that the design could be improved as the scale of the plan in question was unsuitable. It was considered that the extension created a dominant, top-heavy and alien feature which would neither improve its character nor respect its site context within the estate. It was reiterated that this would be contrary to Policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan
It was explained that the property stood in one of the farthest plots from the estate entrance. Despite this, its setting was visible from the entrance. Although the officers were of the opinion that the extension would be unacceptable from a visual aspect, it was not believed that it would have a detrimental effect on the neighbours' amenities or that it would cause them an unacceptable disturbance. Therefore, with regard to this aspect, it was not believed that it would be contrary to the relevant requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.
(b) Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member read a letter on behalf of the applicant, who was unable to attend:
It was noted,
· that the roof's height needed to be raised in order to overcome a lack of height in the bathroom.
· that a number of the houses in the estate had been modified by the original developer, or had been modified after changing hands.
· that this application was for raising the roof level, and there was no application to extend
· the change would barely be noticeable.
· although the officers refused the application, it was highlighted that there was no public objection to the proposal.
The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:
· That a number of the houses in the estate had been adapted and, although the applicant had planned adaptations to houses numbers 11 and 12, he regretted that he had not adapted his house sooner.
· That letters of support of the application had been received
· That the estate was tidy
· That the proposal was not contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 of the Local Development Plan
(c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation, because it was considered that the design was acceptable.
(ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
· That a few houses in the estate had already been adapted
· That the design was an improvement to a plain house
· That no local objections had been received
RESOLVED to approve the application as the design is acceptable
1. Five years
2. In accordance with plans
3. Materials to be in-keeping with the existing materials