Agenda item

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

Link to relevant background documents

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.