Issue - meetings

Creation of external rear balcony with associated privacy screening.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Tudor Jones

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

Reason:  Refuse on grounds of overlooking, impact on neighbours – contrary to policy PCYFF 2

a.     The Development Control Officer highlighted that the application in question was to create an exterior rear balcony, above the existing flat roof extension. It was highlighted that the site was located within the development boundary of Morfa Nefyn and within a residential area, and the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member. 

It was reported that most of the flat roof area at the rear of the property comprised an established sedum roof covered by plants, and there was no intention to use all this area as an exterior balcony area. It was added that the existing permanent wall was approximately 1.6m high and extended 1.8m out of the property's main rear wall above the existing flat roof extension, and the proposal would be to create the exterior balcony area behind this wall.  It was noted that it was proposed to provide a permanent opaque glazed screen extending 1.7m beyond the wall to the furthest side of the existing flat roof extension with a clear glazed handrail installed from the edge of the wall and across the roof for approximately 4m long, linking to another 2.9m long opaque glazed handrail which would link back to the rear wall of the building so that it restricted the outdoor area behind the existing wall. 

In the context of visual amenities, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable on the grounds of the design and scale and its location above the existing flat roof at the rear of the property. It was explained that the site was located between other two-storey residential houses with open agricultural fields to the rear.    

In considering the general and residential amenities, it was noted that the location of the proposed development was in the corner of the existing roof, with the permanent existing wall extending partly along the roof.  The proposed balcony area would not extend beyond this wall and the ability to go beyond the top of the wall was restricted due to the installation of a permanent glass handrail across the roof area.  It was added that it was intended to install a glazed opaque screen that would extend out of the existing wall to the end of the existing flat roof, together with the other side of the proposed balcony area, This would mean that any over looking towards the property from either side would be very limited to the furthest areas of the curtilages either side. It was considered that the screens of opaque glass would also protect the main areas of the properties' gardens either side; this was an established and relatively dense residential area where gardens abutted each other and windows overlook and thus the existing disruption was inevitable as a result. It was not believed that the development would affect the amenities of nearby properties to an unacceptable and significant degree. 

Attention was drawn the fact that the proposal for a balcony  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10