Agenda item
Application for the alteration of the roof at the front of
the building in order to facilitate on extension to the existing property.
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Eric Merfyn Jones
Minutes:
Application to alter the
roof at the front of the building in order to facilitate an extension to the
existing property.
(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 at the rear and to the
front. The extension would include
making internal alterations including moving an existing bedroom to the new extension
space and creating a bathroom in place of the former bedroom, as well as
increasing the size of an existing bedroom on the first floor and extending the
existing hallway on the ground floor.
It was explained that the
application had been resubmitted as a previous application for the same
proposal had been refused, and that it was a Local Member who was submitting
the application to the Committee as he was of the opinion that a further
assessment of the plans was required. It was highlighted that the applicant had
refused to compromise and that the planning officers, although of the opinion
that the proposal was acceptable, suggested that the design could be improved
as the scale of the plan in question was unsuitable. It was considered that the
extension created a dominant, top-heavy and alien feature which would neither
improve its character nor respect its site context within the estate. It was
reiterated that this would be contrary to Policy PCYFF 3 of the Local
Development Plan
It was explained that the
property stood in one of the farthest plots from the estate entrance. Despite
this, its setting was visible from the entrance. Although the officers were of
the opinion that the extension would be unacceptable from a visual aspect, it
was not believed that it would have a detrimental effect on the neighbours'
amenities or that it would cause them an unacceptable disturbance. Therefore,
with regard to this aspect, it was not believed that it would be contrary to
the relevant requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.
(b)
Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member read a letter on behalf
of the applicant, who was unable to attend:
It was noted,
·
that the roof's height needed to be raised in order to overcome a lack
of height in the bathroom.
·
that a number of the houses in the estate had been modified by the
original developer, or had been modified after changing hands.
·
that this application was for raising the roof level, and there was no
application to extend
·
the change would barely be noticeable.
·
although the officers refused the application, it was highlighted that
there was no public objection to the proposal.
The local member (a member
of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:
·
That a number of the houses in the estate had been adapted and, although
the applicant had planned adaptations to houses numbers 11 and 12, he regretted
that he had not adapted his house sooner.
·
That letters of support of the application had been received
·
That the estate was tidy
·
That the proposal was not contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 of the Local
Development Plan
(c)
It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the
recommendation, because it was considered that the design was acceptable.
(ch) During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That
a few houses in the estate had already been adapted
·
That
the design was an improvement to a plain house
·
That
no local objections had been received
RESOLVED to approve the application as the
design is acceptable
Conditions:
1. Five years
2. In accordance with plans
3. Materials to be in-keeping
with the existing materials
Supporting documents:
PDF 95 KB