Agenda item
Two storey rear extension and side conservatory
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor R Glyn Daniels
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: