Extension
including raising height of roof
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes
Link
to relevant background information
Decision:
To postpone to prepare a video and additional images of the
estate and the site
Minutes:
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
Supporting documents: