Erection of a side extension.
Local Member: Councillor Sion Wyn Jones
Minutes:
Erection of side
extension.
(a)
The
Development Control Manager expanded on the background of the application
noting that the proposal had been amended since its original submission by
removing windows from the extension's rear gable-end and including Velux
windows within the new roof, the internal layout of the extension's first floor
had also been changed by removing one bedroom, however, the surface area of the
proposed extension remained the same.
It was noted that
reference had been made to concerns about the scale and volume of the proposed
extension, compared with the existing property in the Service's formal response
to a pre-application enquiry and there was a need to reduce the size of the proposed
extension in order to satisfy the requirements of relevant policies. However; it was added that the proposal had
been submitted in the same form as the pre-application enquiry (without any
change) and it is considered that the proposal appears to be an incompatible
feature with the existing property.
It was
acknowledged that there were relatively similar developments within the local
area; however, it was not believed that the situation was the same, namely the nature
and form of the existing property and its relationship with the parallel
property. It was noted that the proposal was unacceptable
in terms of Policy B23 of the GUDP as it would cause significant damage to the
amenities of the local neighbourhood by overdeveloping the site.
Attention was
drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s partner noted the following
main points:-
·
That she
and her children lived in a rented house and they wished to live with her
partner and his children in the house in question;
·
That the
house in Bethel did not meet their needs, therefore, extending the house was
their only option;
·
That her
family were part of the community and she wanted this to continue;
·
That a
letter of support had been received by their neighbours;
·
That Llanddeiniolen Community Council supported the application.
(c) The local member (not a member
of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:-
·
That the
house was not in a sensitive location and that applications for houses had been
approved in the past in open countryside;
·
Neighbours,
Llanddeiniolen Community Council and the community
supported the proposal;
·
Four
bedroom houses in Bethel would cost approximately £230,000 and therefore having
an extension was the only option;
·
There was
a need to support young people to enable them to remain in their communities;
·
The
original plan had been amended by moving the location of the window on the rear
of the proposed extension due to concerns of overlooking;
·
The maintenance
of the Welsh language could be secured in the village by approving the
application;
·
That he
understood the officers’ opinion, however there was a need to be flexible to
local needs.
Proposed and
seconded to approve the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation.
(ch) During the
discussion, the following main observations were made:
·
That the
proposal was not an over-development;
·
That the
design was acceptable and the extension would be in keeping;
·
An
opportunity to support the Local Member and local young people by approving the
application;
·
It was
acknowledged that the extension was large when compared with the original
house, however a smaller extension would not meet the needs of the family;
·
There was
already a high density of houses in the area and the extension would not have
an impact;
·
Special
circumstances to approve the application as the area would lose a family should
the application be refused;
·
That
policies worked against local people;
·
Personal
matters should not be a consideration and approving the extension would mean
that the value of the property would be beyond the reach of individuals in
future.
(d) In response to these observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that:-
·
There was
no justification to approving the application in terms of who lived at the
property;
·
That the
matters in question were purely related to design;
·
That the
policies supported developments that reached the required criteria and there
was a need for the extension to respect the size and scale of the existing
property.
RESOLVED to approve the application.
Conditions:
1.
Five years
2.
In
accordance with the plans
3. Removal of PD rights – windows
4.
Slate
5.
Materials
to be agreed
Supporting documents: