Agenda item

Extension including raising height of roof

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes

Link to relevant background information

 

To postpone to prepare a video and additional images of the estate and the site

 

An extension including raising the roof height

             Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this was an application for an extension which would entail raising the height of the roof to a property located in the countryside of the Bwlchtocyn area and within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. She added that the site was also situated within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and within a housing estate. The application was being submitted to the Committee at the request of the Local Member.

 

It was explained that from looking at the property from the front, the height of the roof apex would be raised from approx. 5 metres to 6.5 metres, with a pitched roof to also be placed above the existing garage. The rear extension would create a balcony on the first-floor level with decking to remain beneath it on the ground-floor level.

 

The extension was considered acceptable in terms of its design, scale and size and in proportion with the existing property – it would not be an over-development, with sufficient amenity land remaining for the property's use. The officer acknowledged the concerns that had been submitted with regard to raising the roof level and the fact that the other dwellings on the estate were single-storey dwellings. Although it would create a higher property, it was considered that the overall design retained a similar appearance to the existing property, particularly so on the front elevation which faced the estate, and that it did not have an oppressive effect on the rest of the estate.  It was added that the property was located at the furthest end of the estate, where the land was on a lower level, therefore raising the height would not have a harmful impact on the area's visual amenities. The officer also acknowledged concerns that the proposal would create a precedent for similar developments on the remainder of the estate, however, each application would have to be assessed on its own merits, and the fact that this application would receive planning permission would not set a precedent for the rest of the estate. 

 

Reference was made to the observations of the AONB Unit, noting that they had no objection given that the property was a relatively recent single-storey dwelling, and was not in a prominent location from public places. Consequently, it was not considered that the proposed alterations would cause the building to impact on the AONB. Despite its location within the AONB, the property was situated amidst other houses and formed part of the current built form of this part of Bwlchtocyn and, consequently, it would not stand out in the landscape. 

 

As a result it was not considered that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the area or on the AONB, and the proposal's design was considered acceptable. Also, the officers did not consider that there were implications in terms of road safety and the amenities of nearby residents.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent made the following points:-

·         This was not an application to convert a single-storey dwelling into a two-storey dwelling, but an application to raise the roof in order to create dormer rooms.

·         The property stood at the far end of the estate, on the lowest part of the estate in a remote corner – therefore it would not be overbearing

·         The dormer extension would not cause harm to anyone; the property was positioned away from the other properties and would therefore not affect visual amenities or cause any instances of overlooking adjacent properties

·         They accept that a number of property owners on the estate are concerned, but there was no basis to their fears.

·         Number 10 was approximately 1.4 metres higher than number 12 therefore, even with a former extension, number 12 would still be lower than next door.

·         The extension would not set a precedent – every application must be dealt with on its own merits

·         Any disruption during the construction work can be managed through planning conditions

·          There would be no loss of privacy to a nearby dwelling as the proposal, when completed, would retain the appearance of a single-storey dwelling.

·         The AONB Officer had no objection – and had noted that the property was not in a prominent position.

·         There were no planning grounds which would justify refusal of the dormer extension

 

c)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following points:

·         That he was speaking on behalf of 85% of the other owners who lived on the estate who had all registered their objections to the application

·         Lôn Cernyw was a small estate of bungalows that had been sympathetically designed to have similar appearances – the proposed development would be a departure from that concept.

·         The scale and size of the proposed dwelling was a significant over-development which would be intrusive, oppressive, alien and completely at odds with the character of the estate, with numbers 10 and 11 Lôn Cernyw suffering most.

·         The original design had positioned number 12 in such a way as to allow an open aspect in a northerly direction, for the benefit of all the bungalows. The proposed development would disregard this principle in the sense that the new roof line would substantially conceal the existing open aspect and would certainly have a harmful impact on the area's visual amenities.

·         That application was contrary to policies PCYFF 2 and 3 because of the scale and height of the development together with the negative effect it would have on the area's visual amenities.

·         Lôn Cernyw was a delightful development that had been well-designed and built over 40 years ago, and this original aspect should be retained.

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

 

·         the estate was unique and had not changed its character over the years

·         the proposed extension was substantial – when considering the size permitted for an affordable dwelling

·         altering one dwelling would change the appearance and character of the estate

·         Need to keep the estate as it was

 

d)     Proposed and seconded – to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposal is an over-development of the site, together with concern that it might set a precedent for others.

 

An amendment was proposed to defer the decision in order to conduct a site visit or obtain more information about the site through additional video footage and images. This would be advantageous as a means of having an idea of the impact of the proposal on the area

 

In response to the amendment the Senior Solicitor highlighted that the amendment was appropriate but under Covid-19 guidelines, it was not possible to conduct a site visit. He added, in accordance with the protocol, that the first step in assisting the Members to reach a decision would be to provide additional video footage and photographs.

 

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

·           The site was within the AONB

·           Approving the application would risk setting a precedent

·           More information was required about the layout of the estate to seek a better understanding

·           The term 'single-storey' was misleading as the property would have two floors

 

RESOLVED to defer in order to prepare additional videos and images of the estate and the site