Non
material amendments to approval C19/0982/42/LL to enlarge proposed veranda and
pedestrian access
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth M Jones
Decision:
DECISION
Approve with conditions
Non-material Amendment:
The amendment hereby
permitted shall be carried out in strict conformity with the details shown on
plan 03/DR19, submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 21 June 2021, and
contained in the application form and in any other documents accompanying the
application, notwithstanding any condition(s) to amend that plan included in
this planning decision. Notwithstanding the amendments hereby permitted, the
remainder of the development must be completed in
strict conformity with the details and conditions included in planning
permission number C19/0982/42/LL.
Minutes:
Attention was drawn to the late observations
form.
Non-material
amendments to permission C19/0982/42/LL to retain enlarged veranda
a) The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application
for a non-material amendment to planning permission C19/0982/42/LL to retain
works on extending a veranda on the property. It was
explained that the frame of the veranda had already been built but the
slate roof had not yet been laid. It was added that
the columns extended out 1.6m from the front wall of the property - 50cm
further than the planning permission already granted. The application had been
submitted to seek to retain the changes following initial enforcement action
and at the request of the Local Member.
It was explained that under Section 96
A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, applicants may
submit applications for Non-material Amendments to existing Planning
Permissions since 1 September 2014. Welsh Government had Supplementary Planning
Guidance: Approving Non-material Amendments to an Existing Planning Permission
on what was deemed a non-material development, where
clear assessment tests were listed.
It was not considered that this minor
amendment would be obvious when looking at the site from any public spaces, and
whilst noting the neighbour's comments, it was not considered that the amendment
would lead to any additional harmful impacts on amenity.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following
points:
·
They had moved
to the area about two years ago and had purchased Terfyn
with the intention of renovating the property, which was unfortunately
deteriorating.
·
It was considered that the development in Terfyn
had been in accordance with the style of the property and they had maintained
the façade of the building at substantial additional cost.
·
The root of the
need to adapt the veranda had been a simple error between himself and the
builder, with the builder constructing it slightly too deep compared to the
submitted plans.
·
They had been advised by the planning officer to resubmit
non-material amendments to the original plans made in March 2021.
·
He accepted that objections had been
raised regarding the size of the veranda and also that
it would affect the privacy of nearby properties.
·
As the veranda had only
been partially constructed, it could be accepted that concerns would be
raised as it could appear, in its half-built state, that the veranda roof was
flat, and that it would be possible for someone to walk out onto the veranda
and have substantial views over nearby properties.
·
The finished veranda would have a slate
roof in keeping with the existing roof of the property and it would not be
possible to walk out onto the veranda - therefore, the allegation that the
veranda would have a detrimental impact on privacy was invalid.
·
They had
not undertaken any amendments to the style, size and location or the windows of
the property, therefore, there had been no substantial change to the privacy
element that affected any neighbouring property - this had been reiterated by
the assessment of the planning officer who had considered material planning
considerations under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
·
Planning officers noted that they could
not agree with the claim that the change was an over-development or was
substantially different to that already approved; they did not believe that
extending the depth of the veranda would cause substantial change to the
privacy of neighbours. All relevant elements had been
considered in accordance with Welsh Government planning guidance and no
was the officers' response to the questions considered.
·
Planning
officers did not believe that this minor amendment would be obvious when
looking at the site from any public spaces.
·
Neighbours'
windows already faced the front garden of Terfyn and,
therefore, privacy was already lost.
·
Increasing the depth of the veranda was
unlikely to exacerbate the situation and, as a result, he believed that the
amendment was acceptable.
·
He encouraged the Committee to accept the
recommendations of the planning officers and approve the non-material
amendment.
c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
Local Member made the following points:
·
The house was a
large dwelling on the side of the highway.
·
Extensions had
already been granted for this 'prominent' dwelling - they had been 'generous'
with the applicant
·
The change at
the front of house should have been 'minor' but a veranda had
now been constructed.
·
The amendment was substantial - opened the
door to possibilities in future of overlooking neighbours' properties.
·
Footpath access
to the house had been amended without permission.
·
How many more additions would
be undertaken without permission?
·
Urged the committee to impose clear
conditions that the veranda roof must be a ridged slated roof so that the
middle window would not be converted into a door and
the house converted into holiday accommodation.
·
If these
conditions would not be imposed, he asked the
Committee to refuse the application.
ch) In
response to the observations, the Planning Manager noted that the ridged roof
would be constructed in slates as this had been included in the plans.
d) It was proposed to
refuse the application for the following reasons:
·
The development
was overbearing.
·
Affected the
privacy of nearby neighbours - overlooking
dd) In
response to the proposal, the Head of Legal Services noted that the reasons for
refusal highlighted a misinterpretation of the application in question. Members
were reminded that the application before the
Committee was an application for a non-material amendment and not a planning
application.
e) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application.
f)
During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:
·
The proposal noted a slate roof - needed
to ensure that the applicant adhered to this - a possibility to change but
there was a need to monitor.
·
Confirmed that a veranda was in question
and not a balcony.
ff) In response to an observation about confirming that a
veranda was in question, a reference was made to the plans on page 164 of the agenda.
DECISION
To
approve with conditions
Non-material
Amendment:
The amendment
hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict conformity with the details
shown on plan 03/DR19, submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 21 June
2021, and contained in the application form and in any other documents
accompanying the application, notwithstanding any condition(s) to amend that
plan included in this planning decision. Notwithstanding the amendments hereby
permitted, the remainder of the development must be completed
in strict conformity with the details and conditions included in planning
permission number C19/0982/42/LL.
Supporting documents: