skip to main content

Agenda item

Two storey rear extension and side conservatory

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor R Glyn Daniels

 

Link to relevant background documents

Minutes:

Two-storey rear extension and side conservatory

 

It was highlighted that the application had been submitted to the Committee at the wish of the Local Member. 

 

a)            The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that this was a full application to erect a two-storey flat roof extension with a single-storey conservatory to the gable-end of the house.   It was highlighted that the rear extension would measure 7.8 metres in length and 4.8 metres in width, and would extend from the rear wall of the house to the rear boundary wall, where there was currently a single-storey storeroom. Although the proposal was unlikely to constitute a prominent feature in the wider landscape, concern was highlighted regarding the scale and design/form of the rear extension in relation to the character of the existing house.  It was noted that Policy PCYFF3 supports proposals that contribute to and enhance the character and appearance of the site, building or area, and that respect the context of the site and its place in the local landscape.  It was added that the property was located outside the development boundary and within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

 

Although there was no objection to extending the house, it was considered that the design and scale of the proposed rear extension, that would extend 15 metres to the rear compared with the side of the existing house, which measured 7.2 metres, would be incongruous to the appearance and character of the property and would not conform with good design principles.  As a result, it did not meet the objectives of policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan or the requirements of the Design Guidance.  It was also reported that the application did not respond to the requirements of PCYFF 2 of the Local Development Plan, although the size of the curtilage allowed the siting of a two-storey extension, the Planning Unit had suggested to the applicant that a more acceptable site was available. 

 

b)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member, who objected to the application, noted the following main points:-

 

·         That the extension was detrimental to the area's characteristics

·         It did not suit the site

·         An application for an extension on the same site had been refused in September 2018

·         There was concern locally that the extension would be used as a holiday unit in the future.

 

c)            It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

ch)       During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

 

·         That an application had been refused in 2018

·         The extension is too large

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

 

1.    The two-storey rear extension, due to its length and scale, would create an oppressive and dominant feature that would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of residents of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 of the Local Development Plan.

 

2.    The proposal involves constructing a two-storey extension of a scale and design that is not in keeping with the character of the property, and therefore does not add to, or enhance the appearance of the site.  The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan.

 

Supporting documents: