Agenda item

Retrospective application for the demolition of sub-standard kitchen and conservatory at the rear of the property and construction of a single storey rear extension.

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elin Walker Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

Retrospective application for the demolition of substandard kitchen and conservatory at the rear of the property and construction of a single storey rear extension

 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the application had been submitted following action from the Enforcement Unit as a result of a complaint about the development. It was explained that the application had been submitted to Committee as the applicant was related to a Local Member.

 

         It was noted that it was considered that the size and location of the extension were acceptable in principle. It was reported that the residents of No. 25 had objected to the application due to concerns in relation to loss of light and overlooking affecting their property due to the extension's side window.

 

         It was explained that the concerns about the side window had been discussed with the applicant prior to the submission of the application, and subsequently. It was noted that although the applicant had proposed a solution, namely to install opaque glass and a permanent blind, officials were of the view that it would not be a satisfactory solution as the perception of overlooking would remain. It was not considered that it would be appropriate to impose a planning condition to insist that the window was covered by opaque glass and a blind, as it was unlikely to be enforceable.

 

         It was reported that the applicant had been requested on a number of occasions to block the window permanently, but was unwilling to do this and therefore it would be inappropriate to impose a condition to this end. It was recommended that the only way to resolve the situation was to refuse the application due to the detrimental impact of the window on the privacy of the adjacent house.          

 

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main points:-

·         The objector did not live in the property and rented out the house;

·         The extension enabled his mother, who was disabled, to live at home;

·         His mother had received advice from a builder that there was no need for planning permission and that the window on the side of the extension was acceptable;

·         His mother had received a letter from the Enforcement Unit noting that the window must be removed, and that planning permission was required. His mother was worried about the situation and that it was affecting her health;

·         The applicant was willing to install opaque glass and a permanent blind on the window, and to re-install the original fence;

·         It was hoped that the matter could be concluded as soon as possible.

 

(c)     The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:-

·         It would be a pity to refuse the application because of the applicant's situation;

·         The officers' concerns were understandable, and it would not be possible for the adjacent property to construct an extension because of the location of the window;

·         The applicant should be required to block the side window to ensure that the extension would not affect the privacy of nearby residents.

 

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

 

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

 

·         The applicant had refused to block the window on a number of occasions;

·         Consideration should be given to asking the applicant to block the window once more before refusing the application;

·         Refusing the application would place pressure on the applicant to block the window;

·         The application should be deferred until the next meeting in order to reach an agreement with the applicant in relation to blocking the window;

·         It should be considered that the applicant was elderly and disabled, and that receiving a letter from the Council in relation to demolishing the extension could be shocking to her;

·         Although not normally supportive of retrospective permissions, it seemed that the applicant had received inaccurate advice from the builder. Requesting the applicant to block the window was a reasonable request;

·         The long-term impact on the adjacent property's amenities should be considered, and that it prevented the adjacent property from constructing an extension. Ensuring that there was opaque glass and a permanent blind on the window would be difficult to enforce. There was a need to be firm and to refuse the application due to the detrimental impact on the residents of the adjacent property in future;

·         The application should be refused, and two months granted to the applicant to block the window.

 

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

·         The applicant had noted an unwillingness to block the window in a number of e-mails in response to advice from officers, and therefore the best way to proceed was to refuse the application;

·         For clarity, the only request made to the applicant was to block the window permanently. Officers had been reasonable and had noted the applicant's situation;

·         There was a need to be firm as the window was totally unacceptable. The applicant's situation was acknowledged, and if the application was refused, the applicant would be requested to block the window within two months, or formal enforcement steps would be undertaken to block the window.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

 

Reason:

 

It is considered that the side window of the extension facing the rear yard/garden of 25 Belmont Road does not demonstrate a high quality of design and creates an intrusive feature that has an unacceptable adverse effect on the residential amenities of that property on grounds of loss of privacy and has the potential to create unacceptable disturbance. The development is therefore contrary to criteria 7 of policy PCYFF 2 and criteria 1 of policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan and relevant guidance contained in the Gwynedd Design Guide and TAN12: Design.