Extensions
and alterations
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts
Additional documents:
Decision:
To refuse the application
Reasons:
Over-development and detrimental effect on adjacent property.
Minutes:
Extensions and
adaptations
The application was submitted to the Committee
at the Local Member’s request
a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that the work included:
·
Erecting a two-storey
side extension on the site of an existing single-storey garage - this would
extend to the east (side) for the same distance as the existing garage but it
would extend 1.4m in front of the existing house and 1.8m to the rear and of
the same height as the roof of the existing house. A garage, utility room and
bathroom would be located on the ground floor, and a bedroom and bathroom on
the first floor. There would be new gable ends to the front and rear of the
house, and a Juliette balcony on the first floor to the rear.
·
Erection of a
two-storey rear extension on the western end of the property, with a garden
room on the ground floor and a bedroom on the first floor. The extension would
extend 3.7m to the rear and it would create a new rear-facing gable end.
·
The two-storey
extensions would have slate pitch roofs and the new pitch roof on the front and
rear would be lower than the roof level of the main house.
·
It was also intended to
erect a new porch to the front, and a mono-pitch slate roof across the porch
with another existing single-storey extension.
Attention was drawn to the objections received that suggested that the
design was not in keeping with the street and was an over-development that
would cast a shadow onto neighbours' premises. Reference was made to Policy
PCYFF 3 of the LDP that dealt with the location, design and visual impact and
stated that all proposals should exhibit a high-quality design that gave full consideration to the context of the built
environment. It was considered that the proposal met with the requirements of
policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP and the reasons were listed in the report.
In the context of over-looking and shadowing neighbours' premises, the
urban nature of the site and the inter-visibility that already existed between
the houses and gardens in the locality were considered. It was not considered that the extensions
would lead to added significant harm to neighbours' privacy and there would be
no additional significant harm to neighbours' amenities, or those of the area
in general, deriving from the development.
It was considered that the proposal was acceptable under policy PCYFF 2
of the LDP.
b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the
following points:
·
Sandpiper was built in
1967 as holiday accommodation for his Grandfather.
·
The property was in a
dire state - no recent investment
·
There were two bedrooms
upstairs and one bedroom downstairs with a bathroom;
the house was heated by storage heaters but without insulation - this was
unsuitable for the environment. There was a need to completely upgrade
electricity and water systems as they were dangerous and unsuitable
· It was ... view the full minutes text for item 7