Extension and alteration to house including raising roof level and installing a rear dormer window (revised plan).
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi
Wyn Roberts
Minutes:
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
Supporting documents: