Extensions
and alterations
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts
Decision:
To refuse the application
Reasons:
Over-development and detrimental effect on adjacent property.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: