Two storey
dormer extension, dormer window
and balcony to front and single storey
front extension to existing
garage and external alterations to the property
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes
Minutes:
Two-storey dormer
extension, dormer window and balcony to the front and single-storey front
extension to existing garage and external alterations to the property.
Attention was
drawn to the additional observations received.
(a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
to the application and noted that it was an application for the erection of a
two-storey dormer extension to square off the front of the house, to install a
dormer window and balcony to the front along with a single-storey front
extension to the area of the existing connecting garage. It was explained that
the property stood on a slope in a row of residential houses, in the corner of
the fairly modern Cae Du Estate cul
de sac and parallel to the traditional Cae Du
farmhouse.
The property in
question was a dormer bungalow which was of slightly different design to the
remaining dormer houses in the row, which already had front balconies above
integrated garages. It was noted that the proposal would involve filling the
south eastern corner to square off the house with a two-storey gable end dormer
extension, and install a dormer window and balcony to the front. Although
gables were not a common feature in the row in question, there were elements of
glass gables in houses in the cul de sac parallel to
it within the Estate; therefore, it was not an entirely alien feature in the
vicinity. It was noted that the rest of the houses in the row had front
balconies and were a common and very prominent feature in the design of houses
on the estate, therefore, there was no significant concern regarding the
addition.
It was accepted that the
house was visible from a distance due to its elevated position; however,
bearing in mind that the design of the existing house was different from the
rest of the row and the fact that there were views of it in a built-up context
amongst houses of various designs, it was considered that the appearance would
not have a significant impact on the street-scene or on the AONB landscape.
In the context of general and
residential matters, it was highlighted that objections had been received from
neighbours on the grounds of issues such as overlooking, loss of privacy, noise
and loss of light. Due to the angle of the layout of the property, it was
considered that the new front windows would not directly face Cae Du Farm. It was noted that the side windows of the
proposal would be changed from bedroom windows to small bathroom windows;
therefore, in this respect, it was an improvement for objectors on both sides,
to what was experienced at present.
Due to differences in the
level of the land, the property to the front of the application site, namely
the 67 Cae Du bungalow, was on a much lower level and
only the building's roof was visible from the application site; therefore, the
vastness of the front windows or balcony would not compromise their privacy.
Views from the balcony would overlook open gardens and the cul de sac's estate road and over the roof of the house to the front.
Due to the setting of the house to the north of the Cae
Du Farm property, and the sun's path, it was considered that there were no
grounds to the assumption that the extension would overshadow their property
either.
It was considered that the
proposal was acceptable for approval in terms of design, visual and general
amenities and transport, and that it complied with the requirements of relevant
policies.
(b)
Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member,
who objected to the application, noted the following main points:
· Historically,
local people and visitors had lived alongside each other on the estate but the
balance had shifted substantially as a result of market prices. It seemed that
there were many holiday homes on the estate now and that many of them carried
out modifications in order to add value and generate profit.
· Parking concerns
on the estate due to the number of visitors. Policy TRA 2 had to be
considered.
· A number of
visitors in each dwelling throwing parties in the houses and had purchased food
and drink in advance - this did not benefit the local economy.
· Neighbours lost
natural lighting.
· PS19 had not been
fully considered.
· No consideration
had been given to PS1 on the impact on the Welsh language.
· He was already
receiving complaints regarding a lack of recycling on the estate.
(c) It was
proposed and seconded to undertake a site visit.
RESOLVED to arrange a site visit.
Supporting documents: