Issue - meetings

First-floor extension above the existing garage together with a first-floor extension to create a veranda

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse

Reasons: Over-development, harmful visual impact and harmful impact on the privacy of neighbouring houses

First-floor extension above the existing garage together with a first-floor extension to create a veranda

a)      The Development Control Officer highlighted that the application was for an extension and changes to an existing residential property. The changes would include:

·         First floor extension above the existing garage - the final extension would be 7.6m high, 0.7m lower than the roof of the house itself. There would be a slate hip roof with a 'Juliette' balcony on the front of the first floor.  

·         Erecting a balcony along the first floor of the existing premises (that would act as a ground floor verandah) - there will be a privacy screen on both ends of the balcony

·         Erection of a rear one-storey extension with a slate hip-roof

The application was submitted to the committee at the Local Member’s request.

It was reported that Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP encourages the refusal of proposals that will have a significantly harmful impact on the amenities of local property occupiers. Concern was expressed by a neighbour that creating a balcony on the front of the property would enable overlooking that would be detrimental to their privacy and as a result of those observations the plans had been amended to include privacy screen on the sides of the front balcony. Although it was possible to see a little of the neighbours' front gardens from the balcony as re-designed, the front of the houses on Lôn Gwydryn were already open to the street and were visible from public spaces. It was not considered that the balcony would add significantly to the harm to the privacy of the property that faced the street.

Having assessed the application against the relevant policy requirements, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of visual amenities, the effect on the AONB and general amenities.

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following points:

·         That the Officer's report, that supported the proposed development, addressed all the concerns that had been noted in the responses. 

·         That pre-planning application discussions had been held with the planning officers and the observations had been fully incorporated in the final design.

·         There were some objections from local residents that included matters that were not based on planning matters and were therefore irrelevant 

·         That concerns raised in relation to noise and possible disruption from the proposed balcony were assumptions that more people would reside in the house - this was not correct as the number of rooms would not change.  The response to concerns regarding the increase in traffic was the same

·         That the objections to a great extent noted that the development was oppressive and nearby property would lose privacy

·         Careful consideration was given to the design of the additions using the current footprint to improve the premises. Although it was accepted that the proposal gave the impression  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14