Agenda item

Non material amendments to approval C19/0982/42/LL to enlarge proposed veranda and pedestrian access

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth M Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

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.

 

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.