Extension
including raising height of roof
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John B Hughes
Decision:
To refuse the application
Reasons:
1.
The
application was considered an overdevelopment of the site
Minutes:
An extension including
raising the roof height
Attention was drawn to the late observations form.
Two short videos were
presented outlining the variation in ground
levels together with the size of the houses and the estate design.
a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the application's background noting that this was
a re-submission of an application following the decision of the Committee on 16
November 2020 to defer in order to prepare a video and
additional photographs of the estate and the site. It was
added that the application was for alterations to the existing house by
raising the height of the roof in order to use the roof-space for rooms and
build an extension to the rear to create a first-floor balcony. Members were reminded that currently the ridge of the house was
approximately 5 metres and the proposed proposal noted a ridge height of 6.5
metres.
It was reported
that the site was within an estate
of houses within the AONB and the Llŷn and Bardsey
Island Landscape of Outstanding
Historic Interest.
It was considered that
the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the area or on the AONB, and
the proposal's design, scale and size were acceptable as there was plenty of
land surrounding the property. It was considered that the proposal was not an
over development and there were no implications in terms of road safety or the
amenities of nearby residents. On the whole, the
design retained the appearance of the house and therefore did not create a
detrimental impact.
b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:
·
That he opposed the
application and represented the estate residents
·
That the size of the
house was sufficient as it was
·
The proposed extension was substantial - when considering the size permitted for an affordable
dwelling
·
It would never be a house
for local people
·
There was a danger
of setting a precedent to others on the estate
and therefore consistency and the original character would be lost.
b) It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
c)
During the ensuing discussion members made the
following observations:
·
Houses were being adapted and would be out of reach of
local people
·
The proposal was an over development
·
It set a dangerous precedent that
would change the character of the site
·
The tendency was to add an extension or upgrade every
house
·
The extension would transform the property from a
bungalow to a house.
·
It should be retained as an estate of bungalows and no
houses should be introduced onto the estate
·
A policy was required to safeguard this - the nature
of housing estates now was to have extensions
·
Neither the Town Council nor the AONB had any
objections
ch) The members voted on the proposal to approve
the application
The proposal fell
The
members voted on the proposal to refuse on the grounds that the proposal was an
over development of the site
RESOLVED:
To refuse the application contrary to the recommendation
Reason: The application was considered to be an over-development of the site
Supporting documents: