Agenda item

Extension including raising height of roof

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John B Hughes

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse the application

Reasons:

1.    The application was considered an overdevelopment of the site

An extension including raising the roof height

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

Two short videos were presented outlining the variation in ground levels together with the size of the houses and the estate design. 

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the application's background noting that this was a re-submission of an application following the decision of the Committee on 16 November 2020 to defer in order to prepare a video and additional photographs of the estate and the site. It was added that the application was for alterations to the existing house by raising the height of the roof in order to use the roof-space for rooms and build an extension to the rear to create a first-floor balcony. Members were reminded that currently the ridge of the house was approximately 5 metres and the proposed proposal noted a ridge height of 6.5 metres.

It was reported that the site was within an estate of houses within the AONB and the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.  

It was considered that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the area or on the AONB, and the proposal's design, scale and size were acceptable as there was plenty of land surrounding the property. It was considered that the proposal was not an over development and there were no implications in terms of road safety or the amenities of nearby residents. On the whole, the design retained the appearance of the house and therefore did not create a detrimental impact. 

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

·         That he opposed the application and represented the estate residents

·         That the size of the house was sufficient as it was

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

·         It would never be a house for local people

·         There was a danger of setting a precedent to others on the estate and therefore consistency and the original character would be lost.

b)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

c)    During the ensuing discussion members made the following observations:

·           Houses were being adapted and would be out of reach of local people

·           The proposal was an over development

·           It set a dangerous precedent  that  would change the character of the site

·           The tendency was to add an extension or upgrade every house

·           The extension would transform the property from a bungalow to a house.

·           It should be retained as an estate of bungalows and no houses should be introduced onto the estate

·           A policy was required to safeguard this - the nature of housing estates now was to have extensions 

·           Neither the Town Council nor the AONB had any objections

       ch)   The members voted on the proposal to approve the application

                 The proposal fell

The members voted on the proposal to refuse on the grounds that the proposal was an over development of the site

RESOLVED: To refuse the application contrary to the recommendation

Reason:   The application was considered to be an over-development of the site