Demolition of existing rear extension together with the erection of a part two storey and part single storey extension to the rear of the property, together with the provision of French doors and erect a new 1.8m fence by the right of way.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Lesley Day
Minutes:
Demolition of an
existing rear extension and the erection of a part two-storey and part
single-storey extension to the rear of the property, along with the provision
of French doors and erection of new 1.8m fence near the right of way
(a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that the property was a three storey, end house in a row
of seven listed dwellings (Grade II). It
was noted that the proposal was to demolish part of the existing two-storey
rear section and re-build new sections and demolish the one storey building and
re-erect a one storey extension in its place.
The Planning Committee visited the site in June. It was noted that no internal adaptations
formed part of the application and reference was made to the full details
within the report before Committee.
Reference was made to late information received from the agent
submitting a report by a structural engineer in order to justify the demolition
work.
It was noted that
the site was located within the development boundaries of the City of Bangor
with an unclassified road running nearby and an access road to the back with a
public right of way leading along the front of the terrace and along the side
of the site.
Based on the
information in paragraphs 5.3 - 5.7, it was not considered that the extension
was excessive in terms of size, or that it dominated any nearby property. It was not considered that the new windows to
the first floor of the extension would cause any overlooking of other
properties and the slate roofs and materials to the external walls were
acceptable.
Following a period
of public consultation, several objections were received and a response was
given to these within the report in paragraphs 5.12 - 5.14.
It was considered that the principle of
demolishing on the scale shown as part of the application
and then extend/re-build the rear extension was acceptable from the perspective
of local and national policies
despite the disagreement in views from the statutory consultees and officers and it was considered that it
would be beneficial to receive justification
for the work and confirmation and clear reasons for demolishing sections of the
building.
Attention was
drawn to the fact that the agent had submitted a report from a structural
engineer to justify the demolition work but it was not considered that the
evidence gave sufficient explanation regarding the structural condition of the
walls and why it was not possible to maintain them as they were. Therefore, two sets of different types of
information had been received from the agent - first dealing with
sustainability and energy matters and the second in the form of a structural
engineer's report, however, it was not clear from the report received if the
walls were dangerous or merely not good enough to support the proposed
extensions. Therefore, the planning
officers had not been totally convinced that the submitted information gave
sufficient justification for demolition.
Should the
above-mentioned justification for the demolition work be acceptable, it was
considered that the size, design and materials of the new extension including
the fence would also be acceptable and in accordance with the relevant
policies. However, the proposal was not considered acceptable in its current
form as no robust information had been submitted to justify the demolition work
and why the existing listed building could not be adapted as it was.
Consequently, the planning officers’ recommendation was to refuse the
application.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the objector noted that he
welcomed the Planning Department's recommendation to refuse the application and
the following main points were noted:
·
That Glandwr Terrace had been recognised as having
national importance by being designated as a Grade II listed building and
listing did not mean a grand property but humble buildings such as Glandwr
Terrace to ensure a correct representation of national history.
·
Glandwr Terrace was a good example and represented a time
or period when there was increasing wealth linked to maritime trading and the
slate industry.
·
That the terrace
made a significant contribution to the character of the Garth area and the Pier
setting.
·
There was no need or any reason to demolish a section of
number 7 as the structure had been large enough for generations.
·
That it was important to retain the front of the building
as all of Number 7 had been listed not just the front.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted
the following main points:
·
The proposed
development would assist to create an appropriate home for the current and
future needs of the owners.
·
That the condition
of the existing external building was serious and was bulging
·
There were no
appropriate foundations and the walls were unsafe
·
The extension was
not fit for purpose without significant expenditure that could not be
justified
·
The proposal did
not entail substantial demolition work, approximately 20% and this would not
impact on the character of the property
·
That the proposal
offered a suitable solution and it was a good design that was in keeping with a
listed building and the wider context
·
There were no firm
reasons to refuse the application and a plea was made to the Committee to show
their support for the proposal to the Planning Inspector.
(ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected
to the application and
he supported its refusal for the following reasons:
·
That families had maintained their homes
carefully and they were in keeping with
traditional design
·
The main features of the
terrace had remained whole
·
Since submitting the original planning
application CADW had acknowledged that Glandwr Terrace was of national
importance
·
CADW had also
recommended in strong terms that sections of Garth ward should be earmarked,
including Glandwr Terrace, for conservation area status
·
The proposals comprised significant alterations to the
back of the property including the demolition of a substantial section of the
property to be replaced with a larger structure with a larger footprint that
would extend beyond the current line of the terrace gable-end
·
There were a
proposals to change the roof line
·
There was no robust justification regarding
the alterations and reference was made to the specific policies of Gwynedd
Council and national policies to this end
·
The proposal would have a
detrimental impact on the existing uniformity of the rear of each of the seven
properties in the terrace
·
The proposed extension did not
offer an acceptable reduction and it was not in keeping with the garden design
and the Member was of the view that it would create a detrimental impact to the
listed building
·
The fence would be an eyesore and prevent
views and access to the beach steps located at the gable-end of the
property.
·
A plea was made for the
Committee to approve the refusal of the application
(d) In response to the observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that the application dated back to 2013 and at
the time the building had not been listed.
Observations had been received from statutory bodies to the listed
application and therefore these were vitally important in the context of the
application. He was of the view that
20% of demolition work on a listed building was considered substantial and
although a late report had been received from a structural engineer the
planning officers, following further assessment, continued to be of the opinion
that the information did not justify the need for demolition work on a listed
building.
(dd) It was proposed and seconded to
refuse the application.
(e) The following points were noted in favour of the refusal:
·
that Glandwr Terrace was an important part of Bangor's
history and certainly for a worldwide site designation regarding the slate
industry
·
that all the terrace was listed and their backs were just
as important as the front of the buildings
·
the importance of
retaining the structure of the buildings as they were
·
that attention had
to be given to the observations received from statutory bodies who specialise
in the field
(f) A member noted
that he did not support the refusal of the application due to the risk that the
building was unsafe and should be demolished and re-built and therefore it was
difficult to refuse as it was not contrary to policy.
(ff) In response
to a query regarding deferral of the application to receive more information,
the Senior Manager Planning Service explained that the contents of the
engineering report did not justify demolition and therefore there was no reason
to defer the application again.
Resolved: To refuse as no robust information was
submitted to justify the demolition work and why the existing listed building
could not be adapted in its existing form in accordance with the advice given
in Welsh Office Circular 61/96 Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas and
Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales.
Supporting documents: