Two storey extension
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams
Decision:
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
Minutes:
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
Supporting documents: