Agenda item

Extensions and alterations

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse the application

 

Reasons:

Over-development and detrimental effect on adjacent property.

 

Extensions and adaptations

The application was submitted to the Committee at the Local Member’s request

a)    The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the work included:

·         Erecting a two-storey side extension on the site of an existing single-storey garage - this would extend to the east (side) for the same distance as the existing garage but it would extend 1.4m in front of the existing house and 1.8m to the rear and of the same height as the roof of the existing house. A garage, utility room and bathroom would be located on the ground floor, and a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. There would be new gable ends to the front and rear of the house, and a Juliette balcony on the first floor to the rear.

·         Erection of a two-storey rear extension on the western end of the property, with a garden room on the ground floor and a bedroom on the first floor. The extension would extend 3.7m to the rear and it would create a new rear-facing gable end.

·         The two-storey extensions would have slate pitch roofs and the new pitch roof on the front and rear would be lower than the roof level of the main house.

·         It was also intended to erect a new porch to the front, and a mono-pitch slate roof across the porch with another existing single-storey extension.

 

Attention was drawn to the objections received that suggested that the design was not in keeping with the street and was an over-development that would cast a shadow onto neighbours' premises. Reference was made to Policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP that dealt with the location, design and visual impact and stated that all proposals should exhibit a high-quality design that gave full consideration to the context of the built environment. It was considered that the proposal met with the requirements of policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP and the reasons were listed in the report.

 

In the context of over-looking and shadowing neighbours' premises, the urban nature of the site and the inter-visibility that already existed between the houses and gardens in the locality were considered.  It was not considered that the extensions would lead to added significant harm to neighbours' privacy and there would be no additional significant harm to neighbours' amenities, or those of the area in general, deriving from the development.  It was considered that the proposal was acceptable under policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following points:

·         Sandpiper was built in 1967 as holiday accommodation for his Grandfather.

·         The property was in a dire state - no recent investment 

·         There were two bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom downstairs with a bathroom; the house was heated by storage heaters but without insulation - this was unsuitable for the environment. There was a need to completely upgrade electricity and water systems as they were dangerous and unsuitable

·         It was proposed to extend above the garage and out to the back into the garden - very similar to other extensions in the street.  This would provide four bedrooms upstairs and this was a priority due to the number of children and the Grandmother who stayed there regularly  

·         The precedent for modernisation had extended along the street and even if the application was approved the property would be one of the smallest houses compared to the size of the plot. 

·         It was proposed to use a local builder and tradesman

·         That adapting and modernising the house would ensure that it conformed to the current environmental requirements and met with the current building regulations.  Insulation of the loft, walls, floors and external walls together with the replacement of every window would reduce the carbon footprint. The new central heating system would also meet with the government's new requirements

·         In order to save time, the plans had been discussed with neighbours and they had given their sweeping support. No formal objections had been received and all were in agreement that the main benefit would be to modernise a house that had been neglected over the last few years.

·         Positive observations had been received from the Planning Department (March 2021) stating that there were no objections to the application in terms of planning considerations.

·         The design was not contrary to any planning policies and the area was not considered to be an area of outstanding beauty.

 

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

·         That he was highlighting the concerns of neighbours

·         There was no objection to the extension on the garage but there was disagreement regarding the rear extension

·         The adaptations would be an improvement to the property, however, the extension at the back would have a serious impact on a neighbour's garden.

·         The property was (currently) a holiday home for family use

·         It was suggested that a site visit should be conducted or that a few members of the Committee visited the site 

·         That the proposal was an over-development

 

In response to a comment regarding conducting a site visit, the Assistant Head - Planning and the Environment noted that a site visit was not practical under covid regulations and there was sufficient evidence submitted via photographs and the officer's presentation.

 

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

 

e)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·           There was a need to improve and modernise the house 

·           It was suggested that further discussions should be held with the applicant regarding rear extensions

·           There was a need to consider the concerns of neighbours and the Community Council

·           'No parking' sign in front of the house - a bilingual sign was needed

·           It was necessary to re-establish a site inspection panel - the suggestion of holding a site inspection visit was acceptable - care could be taken and social distancing in accordance with the guidelines

 

f)       In response to a question regarding the applicant's 'need' for a larger house; that the adaptations improved the condition of the house for future letting; why was it necessary to change the character of house? Did a house with occasional use 'need' an extension? The Planning Manager noted that justification of the 'need' for an extension was not a consideration under Policy Cyff 3. It was added that the extension at the back extended 1.8m out into the garden from the existing house and it was likely at the end of the day that there would be a shadowing impact.  

 

g)    The members voted on the proposal to approve the application.

 

The proposal fell

 

h)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse the application

 

Reasons:

Over-development and detrimental effect on adjacent property.