Agenda item

Extension and alteration to house including raising roof level and installing a rear dormer window (revised plan).

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

Extension and alterations to the house to include raising the roof level and installation of a rear dormer window (amended application).

 

(a)     The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that some Members had visited the site prior to this meeting. 

 

         She referred to the consultations and noted that the Community Council objected due to over-development, the AONB Unit were satisfied with the proposal and no comments/objections were received during the public consultation period. 

 

         It was explained that the main change to the property's front elevation, namely the most prominent elevation, would be an increase of 0.42m to the height of the roof and the introduction of roof-lights to the front roof in order to provide bedrooms in the roof space. She noted that the four bungalows were currently fairly uniform, however, considering the small scale of the increase in height, it was not considered that this would entail a detrimental or significant visual change in this built context and was not bad enough to be refused.

 

         It was noted that there was a hard standing area with space for two cars to park at the bottom of the front garden of the adjacent property and the estate road. She drew attention to the parking spaces that were also along the side of the estate road. The Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, therefore the proposal was considered acceptable in relation to road safety and parking policies.

 

         It was recommended that the proposal was acceptable for approval in terms of design, visual and general amenities, landscape and transport, and that it complied with the requirements of relevant local and national policies in accordance to what was stated in the report.

 

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

·         That the proposal was an over-development of the site and there would be overlooking;

·         Houses in the area were used as holiday homes and caused disruption to other residents; 

·         Approval of the application would set a precedent in terms of raising the height of the roof;

·         Detrimental effect on the estate residents and the local area in terms of parking and litter;

·         That the Community Council objected the proposal;

·         House prices were going beyond the reach of local people.

 

(c)     In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted:

·         That it was difficult to state that the proposal was an over-development of the site considering the extensive garden at the back;

·         The extension would be at a lower level than the house at the back of the site and there would be no unacceptable overlooking;

·         That Policy PCYFF 2 of the JLDP protects amenities, there would be no significant increase in the current impact;

·         Although concerns regarding litter were noted, this was a matter outside the planning system;

·         The parking provision was sufficient;

·         Local concerns were accepted and noted, however, there was no planning justification to refuse the application.

 

(ch)   It was proposed to refuse the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation on the grounds of design. It was noted that a flat roof design would impair the rest of the estate and a slate roof would be more acceptable. The proposal was seconded.

 

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

 

·         Attention should be given to the comments of the Local Member and the Community Council;

·         Concern regarding the impact of raising the roof height;

·         Concern regarding parking provision;

·         No objection had been received to this proposal during the public consultation;

·         That the design was more modern compared to other houses on the estate;

·         There would only be a small increase in the roof height; 

·         The proposal would not be an over development of the site because of the size of the site and it was hidden;

·         The proposal was in keeping with other houses on the estate and the scale of the extension was acceptable;

·         There was use of a flat roof on another nearby house, did not see any grounds to refuse the proposal;

·         The proposal would have a visual impact on the building and a pitched roof would  be more in-keeping with the estate.

 

(d)     In response to the above observations, the Planning Manager noted:

·         That the location of the extension was in a hidden site and would only possibly be visible from the house next door. The hidden site made the proposal more acceptable.

 

(dd)   A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application and it fell.

 

          It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

 

RESOLVED to approve the application.

 

Conditions:

1.     Commence within five years.

2.     In accordance with the plans.

3.     Slates to match

4.     Finish to match

5.     Gable-end windows (north West) to be opaque

         

          Notes:

1.      The roof of the extension will not be permitted to be used as a balcony. 

2.      Welsh Water