First Floor extension including raising of roof level, creation of balcony and changes to fenestration (re-submission following the refusal of planning permission C14/1152/35/LL
Local Member: Councillor Eirwyn Williams
Minutes:
A full application for a first floor
extension including raising the roof level, creating a balcony and changes to
fenestration (re-submission following the refusal of planning permission
C14/1152/35/LL).
(a)
The Planning Control Officer elaborated on the
background to the application and stated that it was a re-submission of a
previous application which had been refused in January of this year on the
ground of delegated rights. The proposal involved extending an existing dormer
bungalow to create a substantial two-storey dwelling in its place. The roof level of the main house would be
raised from 6m to 8m whilst the roof level of the existing single-storey
extension would be raised from 4.2m to 6.7m.
The building would have slate pitched roofs and painted rendered walls.
Whilst there was no objection to the
standard of the design or the materials, it was important to consider the
location of the proposal as it was located in a housing estate with consistent
designs, namely, either single-storey or one and a
half-storey dormer bungalows. The building after extending it would be a
substantial building which would be completely different to surrounding
properties and it would be considered an incompatible feature in the townscape
and in this part of Cricieth. The policies of the
Development Plan noted that new developments had to respect their site and
locality in terms of scale, size and form of the development and in this case,
it was not considered that the proposal complied with this.
The house was located in a
substantial curtilage and it was agreed that it would be completely possible to
construct an extension to the house within the curtilage without substantial
harm to the character and visual amenities of the area. However, it was not
agreed that the design proposed was appropriate for the site. Therefore, it was
considered that the design was completely unsuitable for this site and contrary
to relevant planning policies. Approving this proposal could mean setting a
precedent which could change the character of the estate completely. Having
considered all the considerations, it was recommended that the Committee refuse
the application for the reasons listed in the planning officers’ report.
It was noted further that a late
application had been submitted by the applicant to show pictures of sections of
the estate but it was noted that what had been submitted in the form of slides
by the Planning Department clearly reflected the context of the site to the
Committee.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points:
·
He was unhappy that he had not been allowed to
submit pictures to the Committee as the pictures of the Planning Department did
not show that there were two houses already on the estate
·
Two houses on the estate had been built in the
50s and they were two-storeys with four bedrooms
·
The extension meant raising the level by only 2m
·
No objections had been received from neighbours
·
In terms of consistency, there were all types of
different houses on the estate and nothing out of the ordinary was requested
·
Many houses had been constructed in Cricieth recently which were far worse than what was sought
here and in the applicant’s opinion it was not an over-development.
(c)
The Local Member (who was a member of this
Planning Committee), stated that he was unhappy that it had not been possible
to submit the applicant’s photographs and that he was supportive of the
application before the Committee. He noted further that there had been no
objections from the following consultees:
·
Cricieth Town Council
·
Residents of Cricieth
·
Neighbours
·
The Council’s Transportation Unit
Reference was made to policy B22 which noted that the
site was located in a prominent location on a junction between two public
roads. It was felt that this was
misleading as the road was unclassified and without a pavement and it was an
internal road used by residents of the estate only.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded that the Planning Committee should
visit the site.
Resolved:
to ask the Planning Committee to visit the site.
Supporting documents: