Erection of two storey rear extension to dwelling.
Local Member: Councillor Eirwyn Williams
Minutes:
Erection of two-storey
rear extension to dwelling.
(a)
The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 9
November 2015 in order to undertake a site visit. The members of the Committee had
visited the site prior to the meeting.
It was
noted that the development did not comply with the requirements of policies
B22, B23 or B24 of the GUDP due to its considerable size, bulk, location, form,
scale and design and its unacceptable impact on the personal amenities of
nearby residents due to shadowing and overlooking.
(b) The local
member (a member of this Planning Committee), made the following main points:-
·
That
he was grateful that members of the Committee had visited the site;
·
That
this was an application to extend to enable a local family to continue living
in their home;
·
That
neighbours had not objected to the application;
·
That
the Town Council supported the application;
·
He
asked the committee to approve the application.
A
proposal was made to refuse the application and it was noted that it was
possible to erect an extension to the house in a different form without
affecting the neighbours’ amenities. It was noted further that the applicant and the
Planning Service should discuss alternative acceptable plans should the
application be refused. The proposal was
seconded.
(c) The following
main points were made during the discussion:
·
That
the family’s circumstances had changed and that the extension would meet its
needs;
·
That
the window where overlooking would occur was essential;
·
That
the right to light was not an argument for refusing;
·
No
objection had been received from neighbours and any future prospective buyers
would be aware of the situation;
·
That
the proposed extension was acceptable in terms of its surface area;
·
That
the setting of the house was more set in than the nearby houses;
·
That
there would be no overlooking into 1 Victoria Terrace as the extension would
extend back over the garden;
·
If
the application was refused, there was room to discuss an acceptable form of
extension with the applicant;
·
That
the application should be approved to enable the family to stay in the area to ensure
the continuation of Welsh communities.
(ch) In response to the abovementioned observations,
officers noted:-
·
Consideration
was given to whether or not there would be unacceptable shadowing on nearby
properties when applications were assessed;
·
That
the extension would have a surface area of 84m2;
·
The
new window would look into the rear curtilage of 1 Victoria Terrace which was a
private area;
·
That
future residential amenities had to be considered when applications were
assessed;
·
That
the proposed extension would be almost stuck to the boundary of the property
next door, thus having an unacceptable impact on amenities;
·
That
developments had to respect their boundaries in terms of scale and size;
·
A
willingness to discuss with the applicant in relation to alternative plans to
meet the needs.
(d) In accordance with the Procedure Rules, the following
vote was registered to refuse the
application:
In favour of the proposal to refuse the application, (6) Councillors: Gwen Griffith, Anne T.
Lloyd Jones, June Marshall, Michael Sol Owen, Hefin Williams and John Wyn
Williams.
Against the proposal to refuse the application, (7) Councillors: Endaf Cooke, Simon
Glyn, W. Tudor Owen, John Pughe Roberts, Gruffydd Williams, Owain Williams and
Eurig Wyn.
Abstaining, (0)
(dd) It was proposed
and seconded to approve the application contrary to the officers’
recommendation because there would be no impact on the amenities of nearby
houses, it was not considered that the extension was intrusive or dominating
and that the proposal complied with Policy B22, B23 and B24 of the GUDP.
In
response to a member’s question regarding not considering what would happen in
the future, the Senior Solicitor noted that considering the impact of
developments on the amenities of nearby houses was an element to consider when
assessing an application regardless of whether or not objections had been
received.
(e) In accordance
with the Procedure Rules, the following vote was recorded to approve the application:
In favour of the proposal to approve the application, (7) Councillors: Endaf Cooke, Simon
Glyn, W. Tudor Owen, John Pughe Roberts, Gruffydd Williams, Hefin Williams and
Owain Williams.
Against the proposal to approve the application, (6) Councillors: Gwen Griffith, Anne T.
Lloyd Jones, June Marshall, Michael Sol Owen, John Wyn Williams and Eurig Wyn.
Abstaining, (0)
RESOLVED to approve the application contrary
to the officers’ recommendation.
Conditions:
1.
Time
2.
In
accordance with the plans
3.
Slates
4.
Materials to match
Supporting documents: