Extensions
and alterations to the existing dwelling
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Gareth T Jones
Link
to relevant background documents
Decision:
To postpone
Minutes:
Extensions and
alterations to the existing dwelling.
a) The Development Control Team Leader elaborated on
the background of the application, and noted that there were several elements
to the application for extensions and adaptations to the existing two-storey
house
·
Erection of
a first-floor extension to
the front of the dwelling
·
Changing
the ground floor extension at the front / side of the property to have a hip
roof rather than a gable roof
·
Demolishing
the chimney
·
Erection
of a first-floor extension at the rear of the property
·
Replacing
two existing pitched roof single-storey extensions at the rear with a flat roof
extension - the new extension would extend 1.2m further to the rear than the
existing extension
·
Creating
a balcony on top of the flat roof extension with surrounding glazed balustrade
and a screen measuring 1.8m in height
It was explained that the property was a
detached house in a residential area within the development boundary of Morfa Nefyn, backing onto open
rural green fields with the back of the houses to be seen from the main road
between Morfa Nefyn and Edern.
The proposed
adaptations were discussed by referring to the plans
that compared the existing aspects with the desired. It was explained that the
plans detailed the comparisons as the agent was trying to respond to the
comments received from the Town Council and from the public consultation that
the development was an over development of the site. It was
highlighted that the size of the proposal did not significantly increase
the site.
Attention was drawn to the general and residential amenities noting
that there was a recommendation to impose a condition to ensure a screen to
prevent visibility from the balcony. It was reported that there was a mix of housing and designs in
the residential area and reference was made to policy PCYFF3 that assesses
design, materials and visual impact of any development and policy PCYFF2 that
assesses the significant detrimental impact on the health, safety or amenities
of local property occupiers.
It was considered that the planning application met with the
requirements of local and national planning policy.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s agent noted the following background information and the
justification for the design.
·
It was an application to; 1. Regenerate
and create a permanent home in accordance with the ‘lifetime home standards’. 2.Thermal improvements and repair of water leak problems, 3.
Maximising natural light
4. Reshaping the plain façade without any character and offer a
high quality surface that reflects local characteristics.
·
Present a better combination of materials rather than
an unimaginative finish as it was currently.
·
A full analysis had been undertaken
to establish what characteristics offered a positive contribution to the identity
of the village as well as to the area’s native character. This information had been used to form the proposals in question.
·
Although the property could be clearly seen from Lôn Las, it was not considered that the proposals
contributed to a negative impact - to the contrary the
design would offer a significant improvement.
·
The most notable change would be on the rear elevation
namely a flat roof and a balcony with a sedum grass cover and an increased
glazed area - including a similar surface to what had been
approved nearby.
·
The proposal was for permission to increase the floor
area by 14%, which was substantially lower than similar projects granted
recently.
·
The design had been developed
sympathetically re-using sections of the property already developed rather than
using more of the curtilage.
·
In response to concerns regarding ‘overdevelopment’,
it was considered that the increase of 14% was not
tantamount to an overdevelopment. It was noted that the proposals were significantly lower than
the average increase granted in the area over the last few months.
·
Bearing in mind that the proposals used previously
developed land, the gross curtilage area would only be
reduced by 35 square metres (a reduction of less than 1%) - this was
further evidence that the proposal was not an overdevelopment of the property.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member made the following points:
·
That the house was two-storey with 4 bedrooms, of a
substantial size - modern and sufficient
·
The front of the house was in keeping with nearby
houses, however, the back was very different to every other house on Lôn Las - none of the others had a balcony
·
The balcony and a great deal of the back extension was
glazed, stood out and could be clearly seen - an eyesore
·
Accepting that other houses had a balcony, however,
these were less obvious and unobtrusive
·
There was concern about the impact of the change on
the amenities of nearby residents - a high and ugly screen would be required to
ensure privacy.
·
It would not be 'some overlooking' as stated in the
report but 'substantial overlooking over neighbours' property - screen or
otherwise
·
A screen would be unlikely to withstand strong winds
·
The development would be an overdevelopment and would
cause substantial significant harm
·
He requested for it to be
refused due to the obtrusive elements.
ch) Proposed and
seconded - to refuse the application on the grounds of its impact on the
amenities of nearby residents and the proposal was an over-development of the
site.
c) During
the ensuing discussion members made the following observations:
·
That the proposal was an over-development of the site.
·
It would have an impact on visual amenities
·
Notice had to be taken of
local concerns.
·
That erecting a screen was inappropriate
·
The adaptations would tidy up the existing building
although the design was not appropriate
·
There was no problem with the extensions, but the
balcony would have an impact on neighbours
dd) In response to a question about holding further
discussions with the applicant to discuss the features of the balcony, the
Planning Manager noted that the balcony was part of the plan before them and
although it was possible to hold further discussions regarding the balcony this
would not solve the other objections / comments that had come to hand.
d)
An amendment to the proposal was proposed and seconded
to defer the decision in order to get a better understanding of the impact of
the balcony and to hold further discussions with the applicant regarding the
balcony.
RESOLVED:
To defer
· more information is required about the impact of the balcony
· discuss with the applicant to see if it is possible to take the balcony out of the plans
Supporting documents: