6 Application No. C19/0224/11/LL - 23, Belmont Road, Bangor PDF 102 KB
Retrospective application for the demolition of sub-standard kitchen and conservatory at the rear of the property and construction of a single storey rear extension.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin
Walker Jones
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Retrospective application
for the demolition of substandard kitchen and conservatory at the rear of the
property and construction of a single storey rear extension
(a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the application
had been submitted following action from the Enforcement Unit as a result of a
complaint about the development. It was explained that the application had been
submitted to Committee as the applicant was related to a Local Member.
It was noted that it was
considered that the size and location of the extension were acceptable in
principle. It was reported that the residents of No. 25 had objected to the
application due to concerns in relation to loss of light and overlooking
affecting their property due to the extension's side window.
It was explained that the
concerns about the side window had been discussed with the applicant prior to
the submission of the application, and subsequently. It was noted that although
the applicant had proposed a solution, namely to install opaque glass and a
permanent blind, officials were of the view that it would not be a satisfactory
solution as the perception of overlooking would remain. It was not considered
that it would be appropriate to impose a planning condition to insist that the
window was covered by opaque glass and a blind, as it was unlikely to be
enforceable.
It was reported that the
applicant had been requested on a number of occasions to block the window
permanently, but was unwilling to do this and therefore it would be
inappropriate to impose a condition to this end. It was recommended that the
only way to resolve the situation was to refuse the application due to the detrimental
impact of the window on the privacy of the adjacent house.
(b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main
points:-
·
The
objector did not live in the property and rented out the house;
·
The
extension enabled his mother, who was disabled, to live at home;
·
His
mother had received advice from a builder that there was no need for planning
permission and that the window on the side of the extension was acceptable;
·
His
mother had received a letter from the Enforcement Unit noting that the window
must be removed, and that planning permission was required. His mother was
worried about the situation and that it was affecting her health;
·
The
applicant was willing to install opaque glass and a permanent blind on the
window, and to re-install the original fence;
·
It
was hoped that the matter could be concluded as soon as possible.
(c) The local member (a member
of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:-
·
It
would be a pity to refuse the application because of the applicant's situation;
·
The
officers' concerns were understandable, and it would not be possible for the
adjacent property to construct an extension because of the location of the
window;
· The applicant should be required to ... view the full minutes text for item 6