skip to main content

Agenda item

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: