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 Dewi Wyn Roberts

 

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.

 

(a)      The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 15 October 2018, in order to undertake a site inspection visit. Some members had visited the site prior to the meeting.

 

It was noted that the applicant's agent had submitted further plans in response to the objectors' concerns regarding the design, overlooking and parking.  

 

It was noted that objections had been received expressing concern about the scale of the extension, however, it was not considered unreasonable in terms of size and scale and was not an over-development of the site as a reasonable amenity area was retained around the house. Given that the design of the existing house was different to 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 landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Although the local member's concern and those of the objectors were acknowledged, it was considered that there were no grounds to refuse the proposal in terms of design and visual amenities.

 

She expanded and stated that objections had been received from two neighbours regarding overlooking, privacy, noise and loss of light. It was not considered that the proposal would significantly make the situation worse, due to the angle of the layout of the property the new front windows would not directly face Cae Du Farm.

 

It was noted that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design, visual and general amenities and transport, and complied with the requirements of relevant policies.

 

(b)     The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the following main points:-

·         He thanked the Committee for visiting the site;

·         There were many holiday homes on the estate with modifications made to houses in order to generate profit at the expense of the Welsh culture and language;

·         Parking concerns on the estate due to the number of visitors to one house;

·         Parties were held on the verandas with food and drink purchased beforehand. This would not benefit the local economy; 

·         There was no reference to privacy in the Joint Local Development Plan. The proposal would impact the privacy of the neighbours.

·         Reference was made to paragraph A29 of Policy PPS7 within the national addendum in terms of the distance between buildings in order to reduce overlooking and enable natural light in the buildings. Under paragraph A30 overlooking meant from a room into a neighbour's garden, namely the nearest 3-4 metres to the house.

·         The design was not in accordance with the requirements.

 

(c)     In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager explained that the proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms and would only change the format and as a result the existing bedroom window would change to be a bathroom window. He noted that the impact of the extension, bearing in mind the current impact on nearby residents, would be minimal. He drew attention to Policy PCYFF2 of the Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP) that addresses amenity issues, and although privacy was not stated, this policy did address the matter.

 

(ch)   It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

 

          During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 

·         Concern regarding over-development and the impact on nearby residents;

·         Concern regarding the impact on housing prices with housing getting out of reach of local people;

·         Appreciation of the site visit. The balcony would not create over-looking on the farmhouse and as the house opposite was lower down in the ground compared to the house in question, there would be no overlooking from the roof;

·         That other houses on the estate had balconies and the house would be more similar in design to the nearby houses following the modifications; 

·         The proposal would not have an impact in terms of light; 

·         The proposal was in accordance with the policies;

·         That there were a high number of holiday homes in the area and there was a danger that a precedent could be created by approving the application with house prices increasing;

·         That there were already parking problems with houses getting bigger and the number of cars in the area were increasing;

·         There was no planning reason to refuse the application;

·         Would a lack of parking spaces and over development be grounds to refuse the application? 

 

(d)     In response to the above observations, the officers noted that:

·         The application before them was for an extension and consideration had been given in terms of the design and impact on neighbours as part of the assessment. The recommendation was to approve as it was a moderate extension on the existing house;

·         It was necessary to be extremely careful, the only grounds to object to the size of the development was the design and the impact on amenities. Although the point regarding raising value was appreciated, it was not a planning matter as the planning system did not control value. The situation would be different if consideration was given to an application relating to an affordable house, but there was no such restriction on this house and therefore it was not appropriate for this to be used as grounds for refusal. There was a risk of costs to the Council if there was an appeal to a refusal on this basis.

·         Refusal on the grounds of a lack of parking spaces would be difficult to support as there was space for three cars and the Transportation Unit had no objection. In terms of refusal on the grounds of over-development, there was not much difference in the house's footprint and therefore it would be difficult to defend refusal on this basis.

 

RESOLVED to approve the application.

 

         Conditions:

1.     Commence within five years.

2.     In accordance with the submitted plans and additional plans

3.     Slates to match

4.    Finish to match