Front extension, create first floor balcony, alterations to roof and extend outbuilding to create annexe
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Gareth T Morris Jones
Minutes:
Front extension,
create a first floor balcony, alterations to the roof and extend an outbuilding
to create an annexe
It was highlighted
that the application was submitted to the Committee at the request of the Local
Member and two other members.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, and noted that this was an application to erect
a porch on the front of the house; install a first floor balcony along the
front of the house above existing flat roof sections; to undertake alterations
to the roof by installing a slate roof and a small dormer door to the front;
front decking; and extend the existing outbuilding within the property's
curtilage to create an annexe at Bwthyn Bridyn, Lôn Bridyn, Morfa Nefyn. It was noted that the property was adjacent
to the access to Morfa Nefyn beach, but at a slightly higher level than the
beach, with a high boundary wall surrounding the front and sides.
It was reported
that the application comprised two elements, namely the extension and the
alterations to the house and the extension to the outbuilding to create an
annexe. It was reported that the house
currently had an asbestos sheeting roof and it was proposed to re-roof with
slate, which was an improvement, together with a small dormer door that would
not cause substantial harm to the appearance and character of the front.
Several objections
had been received to the proposal expressing concern about introducing modern
features to the property as the existing fishermen's cottages were
unspoiled. Bearing in mind that only a
light glazed screen would be in the front of the balcony and that the
building's shape would not significantly change, it was considered that the
changes would not significantly harm the appearance of the property to justify
refusing the alterations. Since the alterations
to the house were relatively minor, it was considered that they were acceptable
additions in terms of appearance, scale and the treatment of elevations and
complied with the requirements of policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan.
It was noted that
the second element involved erecting an extension on the existing outbuilding
that formed part of the ownership of the property. As the curtilage was enclosed by a high
boundary wall, only a small section of the wall and the roof would be visible
from the access road to the beach. It
was highlighted that the objections had expressed concern about changing the
appearance of a historic building, however, the alterations were not considered
to be significantly intrusive and were not unacceptable in terms of scale,
height and mass on this site that was enclosed by a high wall. It was considered that the annexe was in
compliance with the requirements of PCYFF3.
Reference was made
to flooding issues that had been included in the report together with a comment
that the plans had changed significantly since the Maritime and Country Parks
Officer had submitted his objections.
Having weighed up
the application and the amended plans against the requirements of the relevant
policies, as well as considering all the observations and the objections
received during the consultation period, it was considered that the proposal
was acceptable for approval with relevant conditions.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to
speak, the applicant noted the following main points:-
·
That his family respected the village
·
That adaptations to the plans had been agreed
·
That using slates on the roof was in keeping with
nearby housing
·
The property had been in the family's ownership since
1957 and the family's wish was to safeguard it for the future
·
That it was not proposed to use the house for any
commercial enterprise - it was proposed
to be for family use only
·
That the building had been contaminated by asbestos
and if work was not undertaken to save it then the house would become a ruin.
·
Asbestos removal was essential and therefore it was
an opportunity to update and modernise the house
·
It was necessary to ensure that the house was
habitable and suitable for future generations
(c) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:-
·
He considered the adaptations to be substantial
·
The Community Council and the local residents were
concerned about changing the area's appearance and look
·
That parts of the application were acceptable -
accept that the house needed some 'care'
·
Installing slates in the roof was desirable and
would enhance the building's external appearance
·
The extension to the outbuilding to create an
annexe was also acceptable as this would again enhance the area's appearance
·
He was not in favour of creating the front
extension and a balcony - he objected on the grounds of an over development
within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), lands of interest and a
sensitive area
·
He noted that the modern design would not be in
keeping with the cluster of adjacent housing
·
Although the curtilage was enclosed by a high wall,
and there was a suggestion that it was not possible to see this from the beach,
he doubted the suggestion and noted that it would be visible from the beach.
·
The balcony would be visible and would change the
appearance of the historic building
·
The building was included on postcards that promote
the area - need to keep the view as it is.
·
That all the cottages were decent without a balcony
·
That the plan was incongruous and he therefore
encouraged the Committee to refuse
ch) A proposal to undertake a site visit was
made and seconded.
a)
During the ensuing discussion,
the following main observations were noted by members:
·
The changes to the roof were to be welcomed as well as
improving the outbuilding
·
Installing a balcony would be detrimental to the
tranquillity of the beach and would be incompatible with the cluster of
housing
·
The buildings were historic with special merits
·
Need to protect the property from
over-development
·
The building required care or otherwise it
would fall down
·
The balcony was a step too far, however,
sections of the application were to be applauded
(d) In
response to the comments, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that he
accepted there was support for specific sections of the application and it may
be possible for the officers to hold discussions with the applicant regarding
the balcony.
RESOLVED
·
To undertake a
site inspection visit.
·
To hold further discussions with
the agent / applicant regarding the first floor balcony.
Supporting documents: