6 Application No C20/0607/42/DT - Garth Hudol Rhodfa'r Môr, Nefyn, Pwllheli PDF 228 KB
Two storey extension
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED to refuse the application
Reasons:
·
Substantial extension that changes the form and
appearance of the existing house which will have a detrimental impact on its
character.
·
Proximity of the proposed extension will have a
detrimental/damaging impact on the amenities of the adjacent house (Ceris) by
overshadowing the side windows
Minutes:
Two-storey
extension
a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
this was an application for a two-storey extension to an existing dwelling which would extend 3.6m from the existing wall.
There would be a single-storey element to the extension, with a mono-pitch roof
at the southern end of the structure; the extension would measure 5.5m long
with 1.5m of this being one-storey; this would create an additional lounge
downstairs and extend the current bedroom and create an additional bathroom on
the first floor. It was highlighted that the property
was a substantial detached house in a residential area within the development
boundary of the Nefyn Local Service Centre. The
officer added that the application was submitted to
the Committee at the request of the Local Member.
She
referred to Policy AT3 which refers to protecting
non-designated heritage assets that are of local significance. It was recognised that Garth Hudol
had some historical significance due to its literary connection and that it was
indeed a distinctive and attractive building that was valuable in terms of its
place in the streetscape. Having said
this, the scale of the proposed extension was fairly small
compared to the original house, and its design was in keeping and acceptable
with the original in respect of features such as the shape and roof height, and
size and position of the windows. Consequently, it was considered that the
development was sympathetic to its built environment and, via appropriate conditions, the use of suitable materials could be secured
to ensure consistency with the original house. The officer added that the building
was not listed and neither the building nor its
features were statutorily protected.
Given
that the extension would be positioned west of the property next
door, the officer reported that it was inevitable that there would be
some loss of light to the windows of Ceris from the
development, especially late in the day. However, it was noted that the side
windows of Ceris already looked towards the side
elevation of Garth Hudol and essentially the impact
of the development would be to bring a 5.5m length of side elevation 3.6m
closer, with only 4m of this being two-storey. The officer drew further
attention to the fact that Garth Hudol could complete
developments under permitted development rights which
would enable the owners to erect a 3m high structure directly near the boundary
with the neighbours.
It was recognised that there would be some harm to the amenities of Ceris in terms of shadowing and loss of light, but it was not considered that those detrimental impacts in themselves were significant enough compared to the existing situation to justify refusing the application. In response to concerns regarding the impact on the privacy of Ceris, it was noted that the windows in the extension's northern elevation would look over the neighbours' garden, with the front garden of Ceris already visible from the nearby road. Consequently, it was not considered that the extension ... view the full minutes text for item 6