Agenda item

Extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth T Jones

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

To postpone

 

• further information needed on the impact of the balcony
• discuss with the applicant if the balcony can be removed from the plans

 

Extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling.

 

a)   The Development Control Team Leader elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that there were several elements to the application for extensions and adaptations to the existing two-storey house  

·         Erection of a first-floor extension to the front of the dwelling

·         Changing the ground floor extension at the front / side of the property to have a hip roof rather than a gable roof

·         Demolishing the chimney

·         Erection of a first-floor extension at the rear of the property

·         Replacing two existing pitched roof single-storey extensions at the rear with a flat roof extension - the new extension would extend 1.2m further to the rear than the existing extension

·         Creating a balcony on top of the flat roof extension with surrounding glazed balustrade and a screen measuring 1.8m in height 

 

It was explained that the property was a detached house in a residential area within the development boundary of Morfa Nefyn, backing onto open rural green fields with the back of the houses to be seen from the main road between Morfa Nefyn and Edern.

The proposed adaptations were discussed by referring to the plans that compared the existing aspects with the desired. It was explained that the plans detailed the comparisons as the agent was trying to respond to the comments received from the Town Council and from the public consultation that the development was an over development of the site. It was highlighted that the size of the proposal did not significantly increase the site.

 

Attention was drawn to the general and residential amenities noting that there was a recommendation to impose a condition to ensure a screen to prevent visibility from the balcony.  It was reported that there was a mix of housing and designs in the residential area and reference was made to policy PCYFF3 that assesses design, materials and visual impact of any development and policy PCYFF2 that assesses the significant detrimental impact on the health, safety or amenities of local property occupiers.

 

It was considered that the planning application met with the requirements of local and national planning policy.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following background information and the justification for the design.

·         It was an application to; 1. Regenerate and create a permanent home in accordance with the ‘lifetime home standards’. 2.Thermal improvements and repair of water leak problems, 3. Maximising natural light  4. Reshaping the plain façade without any character and offer a high quality surface that reflects local characteristics.

·         Present a better combination of materials rather than an unimaginative finish as it was currently.

·         A full analysis had been undertaken to establish what characteristics offered a positive contribution to the identity of the village as well as to the area’s native character. This information had been used to form the proposals in question.

·         Although the property could be clearly seen from Lôn Las, it was not considered that the proposals contributed to a negative impact - to the contrary the design would offer a significant improvement.

·         The most notable change would be on the rear elevation namely a flat roof and a balcony with a sedum grass cover and an increased glazed area - including a similar surface to what had been approved nearby.

·         The proposal was for permission to increase the floor area by 14%, which was substantially lower than similar projects granted recently.

·         The design had been developed sympathetically re-using sections of the property already developed rather than using more of the curtilage.

·         In response to concerns regarding ‘overdevelopment’, it was considered that the increase of 14% was not tantamount to an overdevelopment.  It was noted that the proposals were significantly lower than the average increase granted in the area over the last few months.

·         Bearing in mind that the proposals used previously developed land, the gross curtilage area would only be reduced by 35 square metres (a reduction of less than 1%) - this was further evidence that the proposal was not an overdevelopment of the property.

 

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

 

·      That the house was two-storey with 4 bedrooms, of a substantial size - modern and sufficient

·      The front of the house was in keeping with nearby houses, however, the back was very different to every other house on Lôn Las - none of the others had a balcony

·      The balcony and a great deal of the back extension was glazed, stood out and could be clearly seen - an eyesore

·      Accepting that other houses had a balcony, however, these were less obvious and unobtrusive

·      There was concern about the impact of the change on the amenities of nearby residents - a high and ugly screen would be required to ensure privacy.

·      It would not be 'some overlooking' as stated in the report but 'substantial overlooking over neighbours' property - screen or otherwise

·      A screen would be unlikely to withstand strong winds

·      The development would be an overdevelopment and would cause substantial significant harm

·      He requested for it to be refused due to the obtrusive elements.

 

ch) Proposed and seconded - to refuse the application on the grounds of its impact on the amenities of nearby residents and the proposal was an over-development of the site.

 

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

·      That the proposal was an over-development of the site.

·      It would have an impact on visual amenities

·      Notice had to be taken of local concerns. 

·      That erecting a screen was inappropriate

·      The adaptations would tidy up the existing building although the design was not appropriate 

·      There was no problem with the extensions, but the balcony would have an impact on neighbours

 

dd)  In response to a question about holding further discussions with the applicant to discuss the features of the balcony, the Planning Manager noted that the balcony was part of the plan before them and although it was possible to hold further discussions regarding the balcony this would not solve the other objections / comments that had come to hand. 

 

d)    An amendment to the proposal was proposed and seconded to defer the decision in order to get a better understanding of the impact of the balcony and to hold further discussions with the applicant regarding the balcony.

 

RESOLVED: To defer

 

·      more information is required about the impact of the balcony

·      discuss with the applicant to see if it is possible to take the balcony out of the plans