Agenda item

Two storey extension

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

RESOLVED to refuse the application

Reasons:

·         Substantial extension that changes the form and appearance of the existing house which will have a detrimental impact on its character.

·         Proximity of the proposed extension will have a detrimental/damaging impact on the amenities of the adjacent house (Ceris) by overshadowing the side windows

Two-storey extension

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this was an application for a two-storey extension to an existing dwelling which would extend 3.6m from the existing wall. There would be a single-storey element to the extension, with a mono-pitch roof at the southern end of the structure; the extension would measure 5.5m long with 1.5m of this being one-storey; this would create an additional lounge downstairs and extend the current bedroom and create an additional bathroom on the first floor. It was highlighted that the property was a substantial detached house in a residential area within the development boundary of the Nefyn Local Service Centre. The officer added that the application was submitted to the Committee at the request of the Local Member.

She referred to Policy AT3 which refers to protecting non-designated heritage assets that are of local significance. It was recognised that Garth Hudol had some historical significance due to its literary connection and that it was indeed a distinctive and attractive building that was valuable in terms of its place in the streetscape.  Having said this, the scale of the proposed extension was fairly small compared to the original house, and its design was in keeping and acceptable with the original in respect of features such as the shape and roof height, and size and position of the windows. Consequently, it was considered that the development was sympathetic to its built environment and, via appropriate conditions, the use of suitable materials could be secured to ensure consistency with the original house. The officer added that the building was not listed and neither the building nor its features were statutorily protected.

Given that the extension would be positioned west of the property next door, the officer reported that it was inevitable that there would be some loss of light to the windows of Ceris from the development, especially late in the day. However, it was noted that the side windows of Ceris already looked towards the side elevation of Garth Hudol and essentially the impact of the development would be to bring a 5.5m length of side elevation 3.6m closer, with only 4m of this being two-storey. The officer drew further attention to the fact that Garth Hudol could complete developments under permitted development rights which would enable the owners to erect a 3m high structure directly near the boundary with the neighbours.

It was recognised that there would be some harm to the amenities of Ceris in terms of shadowing and loss of light, but it was not considered that those detrimental impacts in themselves were significant enough compared to the existing situation to justify refusing the application.  In response to concerns regarding the impact on the privacy of Ceris, it was noted that the windows in the extension's northern elevation would look over the neighbours' garden, with the front garden of Ceris already visible from the nearby road. Consequently, it was not considered that the extension would add significantly to overlooking of external areas of the neighbours' property.

Having weighed up the planning application against the requirements of local and national policies as well as the observations and objections received, the officers considered that the proposal was acceptable. 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

·         There was history attached to the building

·         The extension was substantial

·         Concern about the impact on the amenities of the people next door

·         Overdevelopment of the site

·         The extension was the same size as an 'affordable house'

c)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation.

      ch)    During the ensuing discussion, Members made the following observations:

·           The house was a striking building and had historical connections

·           Any addition would impact on neighbours' amenities

·           An extension would change the character and appearance of the house

·           It would affect the light into the house next door - too close to Ceris

·           A substantial extension to an already substantial house

d)    In response to a question regarding the right to refuse a 'more harmful' extension under permitted development rights it was noted that the owners would not require planning permission for an extension up to 3m in height.

RESOLVED: to refuse the application for the following reasons;

·         A substantial extension that changes the form and appearance of the existing house which will have a detrimental impact on its character.

·         The proximity of the proposed extension will have a detrimental/harmful impact on the amenities of the adjacent house (Ceris) by darkening the side windows