Extension to existing garage (amendment to plan refused under planning application No. C15/0012/41/LL).
Local Member: Councillor Aled Ll. Evans
Minutes:
Extension to
existing garage (amendment to plan that was refused under application number
C15/0012/41/LL).
Members of the
Committee had visited the site before the meeting.
(a)
The Senior
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application,
noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on
7 September, 2015 in order to undertake a site visit.
It was noted that
it was considered that a further extension to the garage would create a
building of a scale and design that would be alien to the location in respect
of such an ancillary building and it would be an incompatible overdevelopment
of the site.
Attention was
drawn to the fact that the application was located within the Llangybi Area of Conservation and it was not considered
that the scale, size or form of the extension would be in keeping with
buildings or pattern of the conservation area.
It was noted
that the proposal was contrary to policies B4, B22 and B24 of the GUDP.
(b) The local member (not a member
of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:-
·
That he
appreciated having a site visit;
·
That
describing the development as an 'alien’ ‘over-development’ was rather going
overboard;
·
The area
of the house was sufficient to accommodate the size of the garage extension;
·
That no
objection had been received from neighbours;
·
The
curtilage had already been extended;
·
The
purpose of the building was to provide more room for the applicant to store
equipment and old machines;
·
That the
development would not affect the area of conservation;
·
He hoped
that the application would be approved.
It was proposed and seconded to refuse
the application.
(c) During the discussion, the
following observations were made:
·
No
objections had been received to the proposal and that its size was a matter of
opinion;
·
There were
no signs to denote the path that ran past the site as a public footpath, and
should it be approved, there was a need to ensure that such a sign was erected
there;
·
Currently,
the public footpath was not accessible to disabled people and the proposed extension
would be nearer to the path;
·
The
applicant needed a building of this size to restore old furniture, which was
crucial to secure the continuation and to safeguard tradition;
·
Concern in
terms of the size of the building after completing the proposed extension;
·
That a
large extension had already been approved and the proposed extension would be
an overdevelopment.
(ch) In
response to these observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that:-
·
Previous
planning applications had been supported and this was seen as a fragmented
attempt to create an extension of increasing size;
·
That the
extension approved under application C13/0162/41/LL meant that the total floor
area of the garage would be 62m2 and it was assumed that it would be sufficient
for use that was ancillary to the use of the property;
·
The
proposed extension would not be in keeping with the conservation area as it
would be very visible;
·
There was
a need for extensions to be commensurate with the original building and they
needed to respect the location;
·
That signs
denoting the public footpath had been present in the past and discussions were
being held with the Rights of Way Unit in terms of whether or not the
development would affect the path.
(d) A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse
the application and it fell.
Proposed and seconded to approve the
application contrary to the officers’ recommendation as the visual impact was
acceptable.
RESOLVED to approve the application.
Conditions:
1.
Five years
2.
In
accordance with the plans
3.
Slate
4.
Materials
to be in-keeping
5.
No
business use of the building as a whole
6.
Keep the public footpath clear
Supporting documents: