Application for the erection of a two storey front and rear extension (amended design to that refused under application C19/1135/11/LL)
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin Walker Jones
Link to relevant background documents
Decision:
To delegate powers to the Assistant Head of the Environment
Department to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. Five years.
2. In
accordance with plans.
3. Welsh Water.
4. Slates.
5. Materials.
6. Removal of General Permitted
Development rights for any new windows/dormer windows.
7. The garage/car parking spaces must be available for parking motor vehicles at all times.
Minutes:
The Local Member had called in the application to the
Committee
a)
The Planning
Manager elaborated on the background of the application, explaining that this
was an amended application to the one refused under planning application
C19/1135/11/LL for the creation of an additional bedroom within the roof space
by erecting a dormer window extension. It was proposed to erect an extension
above the existing garage on the front of the property, and a one-storey
extension to the rear of the property. The site was served by a double entrance
off an unclassified nearby county road (Bryn Eithinog) with parking spaces for
at least three vehicles within the front curtilage. It was considered that the
extensions were acceptable in terms of their scale, setting and design and
would not lead to the creation of incompatible structures in this part of the
streetscape. It was reported that there
were various other extensions around the site.
It was considered that the proposal complied with the
requirements of the criteria under Policy PCYFF3 of the LDP. There would be no
additional windows installed in the side of the front extension, and for the
rear extension windows would be installed on the ground floor and two
first-floor windows would be lost. Because of the distances between the
proposed openings and their setting in relation to other residential
properties, it was not considered that there would be any unacceptable
overlooking or loss of privacy to nearby residents.
It was highlighted as part of the application that the only
changes to what had already been approved and which required formal planning
permission was the reduction in height of the rear extension. Consequently, the
proposal involved the creation of a rear extension which was less bulky and
with less height and was therefore an improvement in terms of its visual impact
on the steetscape. Attention was drawn
to the space in the roof which would be suitable for a fifth bedroom. An
officer emphasised that planning permission was not required to convert the
attic into a bedroom.
It was reported that Bangor City Council had expressed
concern that the proposal would have an impact on the safety of the public road
which led to schools in the area and which was popular with walkers. More cars
on / outside the site would place extra pressure on the area's infrastructure.
The Transportion Unit had been consulted as part of the
application. They had noted that the proposal would not have a detrimental
impact on parking standards or public road safety. The current property
conformed to the normal parking requirements for dwellings with four or more
bedrooms by providing two parking spaces and a garage.
Having considered all the relevant planning matters including
local and national planning policies and guidance and the associated planning
history, the application was deemed acceptable based on principle, design,
scale, materials, local building forms, setting, and highway matters and
residential amenities, which meant it therefore complied with the requirements
of relevant local and national policy and guidance.
b)
Taking advantage
of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:-
·
Concern
with the development of an extra bedroom that there would be more cars on the
site
·
The
site had been the subject of a number of applications for a larger house
·
The house
operated as a House in Multiple Occupation and was the subject of an
enforcement investigation.
·
As a
HMO, concerned that 5 double bedrooms would mean that 10 people could reside in
the house with several cars outside
·
This
extension was not for a family home
·
There
were private estate roads around the site, but they were busy in terms of
traffic and pedestrians
·
The
Member requested that the Committee refused the application and conducted a
site visit when convenient
c)
Proposed and
seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation on the
grounds of over-development of the site.
d)
In response to
the Local Member’s observation that the house was operating as a HMO, it was
reported that confirmation had been received that the unit had been granted the
appropriate licence to operate as a HMO in 2011 and that this licence remained
in effect.
The officer added that refusal of the application would
constitute a significant and costly risk, given that similar permissions had
been granted on nearby sites and that this property already had extant
permission which permitted a larger extension than what the current application
was seeking. Should the Committee refuse the application there was a risk that
the Committee could be criticised for acting unreasonably. The members were
asked to consider the evidence before them carefully.
ch) During the
ensuing discussion members made the following observations:
·
Sympathised with the HMO issue
·
Refusal of the application, and the
likelihood that the applicant would win on appeal would give him the right to
build larger extensions and possibly a 6th bedroom
·
This scheme allowed some control of
the size of the site
·
The application was acceptable in the
context of planning policies and regulations
·
Need to ensure that the 5th bedroom
in the attic complied with fire regulations
·
Need to ensure plenty of space for
the recycling bins
·
The hard standing in front of the
house could be extended to create more parking space
·
Suggest imposing a condition stating
that the occupants must park on the site
·
Dwellings nearby had substantial
extensions, therefore it was difficult to refuse
·
The plans were an improvement on the
previous application
·
Suggest that the hedge was removed in
order to improve visibility
·
Houses in multiple occupation had
ruined the character of Bangor and created problems for local people
a) In response to the comments about cutting the hedge, it was
highlighted that it would not be possible to impose a condition specifically for
this application unless it was a request for everyone in the area to cut their
hedges. It was suggested that the officers could kindly ask the applicant to
act on this. In respect of the number of parking spaces, it was noted that
three parking spaces met the requirements of the Highways Department.
b) A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application -
it fell.
dd) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
RESOLVED to delegate powers to the
Assistant Head of the Environment Department to approve the application,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
Five years
2.
In accordance with plans.
3.
Welsh Water.
4.
Slates.
5.
Materials.
6.
Removal
of General Permitted Development rights for any new windows/dormer windows.
7.
The garage/car parking spaces must be available for
parking motor vehicles at all times.
Supporting documents: