Application to retain work to extend a dwelling without compliance with approval No. C13/944/22/LL dated 07/01/2014
Local Member: Councillor Craig ab Iago
Minutes:
A full application to retain work to
extend a dwelling without compliance with permission No. C13/0944/22/LL.
(a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on
the background to the application and noted that the current application showed
an extension of a similar design to the plan approved in 2014, and the external
design reflected the position of the door and window openings similar to the
previous permission but the extension was higher by approximately 1.0m and the
length of the extension (including the lean-to extension), was approximately 2m
longer than the extension approved previously. It was noted that the proposed
external walls of the extension were covered with substantial field stones and
that this added to the finished size of the extension. This application, as
with the previous approval, included demolishing the two-storey section of the
existing cottage and building a single-storey extension in the southern corner
of the cottage.
Reference was made to the relevant policies
together with public consultations.
It was emphasised that the principle of
constructing an extension to the cottage had been established because the
planning application approved in 2014 was extant until 2019. Although the size
of the extension which was the subject of the current application was larger
than the originally approved extension, it was not considered that the
difference was sufficient to justify refusing the application.
Attention was given to additional observations
received and it was noted that a building had been constructed on the land but
following a discussion with the owner it was understood that it was only
temporary to facilitate work on the house.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
objector noted the following main points:
·
As the owner of a property adjacent to the
development, he was concerned about the height of the proposed building because
it was much higher than what was seen in the surrounding area.
·
It contradicted the
Council’s Design Guidelines in terms of the section on extending and
adaptations which stated that an extension should not exceed the original
building. In general,
it was better that they were of a smaller size with lower ridge lines and that
any type of extension was complementary to the original building and similarly
equal to the pitch and height of the roof.
·
A section of the
development field had been included in the register of fields with landscapes
of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales.
·
The development
which had not been approved was basically different to the plan approved and
therefore there was doubt whether the unauthorised development had been the
subject of a full planning application under Section 17 of the Town and Country
Planning Act
·
The building had
already established a precedent by virtue of the extension and the lack of
compliance with building and design documents noted by the Council and any
further deviation from the planning permission was inappropriate
·
We live in an area
of outstanding beauty and we are guardians of the land and it was understood
that buildings had to be constructed for the benefit of the community. However, in
this case it was not for the benefit of the community and the implications
would extend to other applications for buildings in areas of natural beauty.
(c)
Taking advantage of the opportunity to speak,
the applicant’s representative noted:
·
The plans were submitted urgently for
consideration for permission and the builder drew attention to the need for the
cavity wall to measure 100mm with 300mm stones and this was the reason for the
increase in the length of the extension.
· The
increase in height was as a consequence of the steel work and the size of the
beams as a result of the design
·
In terms of impact,
it was felt that the proposed building would not have any impact on nearby
properties considering that the extension had been approved and the only issue
under consideration was the additional 2m in length and 1m in height.
·
It could not be reduced in height and at the
same time it complied with planning policies and it was not felt that it would
have any impact on neighbours as it was 170 metres away from any property.
(ch) The officers’ recommendation was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
(d)
The following observations were made:
·
Care had to be taken that approving the
application would not create a precedent to approve other developments that did
not comply with approved plans and it was noted that it was important for the
Enforcement Officer of the Planning Unit to ensure that the proposed extension
complied with the permission in terms of length and height.
·
A Member sympathised with the objector and found
it difficult to understand how the agent/applicant could be unaware of the
planning regulations/policies and consequently she would be abstaining from
voting on the proposal to approve the application as she was of the opinion
that it was unfair
·
If this had been a new application and included
the current measurements would the planning officers approve it?
(dd) In response to
the above, the Development Control Manager explained that what was before the
committee was an assessment of the additional size and it was not materially
different from the previous permission and, therefore, it was the officers’
recommendation to support the application.
The
vote on the proposal to approve was carried and two members abstained from
voting.
Resolved:
To approve in accordance with the following conditions:
1. Construct the extension in accordance with
the approved plans.
2. Install slates on the roof.
3. Cover the building’s external walls with
field stones.
4. Landscaping plan.
5. The adjacent public footpath must be kept clear of any obstacles during the construction period and subsequently.
Supporting documents: