Agenda item
Extension at the rear and at the front of the property
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Elin Walker Jones
Minutes:
Extension at the
rear and at the front of the property
Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been
received
(a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that this was an application to extend
the current two-storey house in the rear and in the front. The rear extension would be two-storey and
the front extension would be above the existing garage, with the exterior
elevations of the extensions matching the existing elevations of the two-storey
house.
In terms of the
principle of the development, it was highlighted that
Policy PCYFF2 of the LDP stated that proposals would be refused if the
development would have a substantial impact on the health, safety or amenities
of the occupiers of local property. It was highlighted that Policy PCYFF 3 states that proposals
will be approved, including extensions and changes to existing buildings and
structures, if they comply with a number of criteria, including: that the
proposal adds to or enhances the character or appearance of the site, the
building or the area in terms of setting, appearance, scale and height. It was considered that the proposal to extend
the residential property was acceptable in principle and that the layout, form,
materials, scale and design of the extensions would not create incongruous or
dominating structures in this part of the streetscape.
In the context of
general and residential amenities, it was noted that residential dwellings and
their private gardens were located to the west (31 Bryn Eithinog)
and to the north (26 Lôn y Bryn), adjacent to the
application site. It was reported that an objection
had been received from the occupier of number 31 Bryn Eithinog
on the following grounds:-
·
Loss of light by creating oppressive structures.
·
Loss of privacy and overlooking into property known
as 31 Bryn Eithinog.
·
Creation of additional traffic.
·
Impairing the area's character.
In response to the
objection of loss of privacy and overlooking, it was explained that the
extensions had been designed to avoid any direct overlooking into nearby
property (31 Bryn Eithinog and 26 Lôn
y Bryn in this context), therefore it was considered that the proposal, as
submitted, would not lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to nearby
residents.
In response to the
objection of creating additional traffic, it was explained
that the property was already a four-bedroom house and that there was no
proposal to extend the number of bedrooms within the house. Consequently, the Planning Officers did not
anticipate that there would be an increase in traffic entering and exiting the
site. It was
reiterated that the Transportation Unit did not have concerns regarding
road safety or parking requirements and so the proposal was acceptable based on
the requirements of Policy TRA2 and TRA4 of the LDP.
In response to
the objection of impairing the area's character, it was
reported that the nearby area included a varied collection of different
types of residential dwellings on the grounds of elevations, scale, form and
designs, with a number of them already extended and changed in the past. Having completed the
assessment, it was considered that the
extensions would not create dominating or incongruous structures in this
section of the streetscene.
The Development
Control Officer highlighted that observations had been
submitted during the consultation period that were immaterial to
planning. Some alleged the possibility
that the house would be turned into a house in
multiple occupation (HMO). It was
emphasised that the application had been submitted
based on erecting extensions to a Use Class C3 residential house, rather than
to a Use Class C4 HMO. In response to this concern, the applicant's agent was contacted and written confirmation was received that the
proposal did not relate to changing the use of a house (C3) into a HMO
(C4). It was
reiterated that the house was being let to students and from the
information submitted with the application, there was no evidence submitted
stating that the house was used as a HMO.
Having considered all the relevant
planning matters and observations received, including the correspondence of
objection, it was considered that this application was acceptable on the
grounds of the principle, design, location, setting, use, materials,
residential amenities, visual amenities and that it complied with the
requirements of relevant local and national planning policies and
guidance.
(b)
The
local member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main
points:-
·
Attention
was drawn to the applicant's original application to
build the entire house in the garden of the house.
·
That
the property was a student house - it was not being used at present as a family
home
·
That
more student houses were 'creeping' into this residential area - the houses had
been originally intended for families
·
A
suggestion was made for the Committee to consider the
application in light of the transportation concerns and the overprovision of
student houses.
(c)
It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
(ch) In response to a question
regarding the use of the existing house and the need for a clear definition of
the difference between a student house and a HMO, the Planning Manager
highlighted that the property had been assessed as a
house for the application. It was reiterated that the house's legal use was as a house and
there was no evidence to suggest that it was a HMO. If the applicant wished to change the use of
the house into a HMO, a new planning applicaiton
would have to be submitted, along with an application
for a relevant licence. The Development
Control Officer noted that the agent had confirmed that the house was being used as a house, and not as a HMO. In further response to the concern, the
Senior Planning Manager noted that the allegation regarding the use of the
existing house could be investigated.
The Senior Solicitor
reiterated that refusing the application on the grounds that
it could possibly be a HMO was not acceptable, and he reiterated that
enforcement arrangements existed outside the Planning Committee forum. He noted that the Committee needed to
consider the application as an extension to a house and that the Members should
trust the enforcement process to deal with the HMO matter.
In response to the
transportation concerns, it was highlighted that there
were sufficient parking spaces outside the house, along with a sufficient
curtilage in front of the property for parking purposes.
(d)
During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted by members:
·
that
the effort being made to invest in order to make the house more comfortable
raised doubts that the house was going to be used for business use
·
That
the observations and evidence of neighbours regarding the use of the current
house needed to be considered
·
That
the information was unclear
·
That
the work needed to be in accordance with the plans
RESOLVED to approve the application and propose a
condition to investigate the current use of the house
Conditions
1. Five years.
2. In accordance with the plans.
3. Natural slate.
Supporting documents:
PDF 106 KB