First-floor
extension above the existing garage together with a first-floor extension to
create a veranda
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts
Decision:
To refuse
Reasons: Over-development, harmful visual
impact and harmful impact on the privacy of neighbouring houses
Minutes:
First-floor extension above the existing garage together with a first-floor extension to create a veranda
a) The Development Control Officer highlighted that the application was for
an extension and changes to an existing residential property. The changes
would include:
·
First
floor extension above the existing garage - the final extension would be 7.6m high, 0.7m lower than the roof of the house itself. There would
be a slate hip roof with a 'Juliette' balcony on the front of the first floor.
·
Erecting a balcony along the first floor of the existing premises (that would act as a ground floor verandah) - there will be a privacy screen on both ends
of the balcony
·
Erection of a rear one-storey extension with a slate hip-roof
The application was submitted to the committee at the
Local Member’s request.
It
was reported that Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP encourages
the refusal of proposals that will have
a significantly harmful impact on the amenities
of local property occupiers. Concern was expressed by a neighbour that creating a balcony on the front of the property would enable overlooking that would be detrimental
to their privacy and as a result of those observations the plans had been amended to include privacy screen on the sides of the front balcony. Although it was possible to see a little of the neighbours' front gardens from the balcony as re-designed, the front
of the houses on Lôn
Gwydryn were already open to the street and were visible
from public spaces. It was not considered that the balcony would add significantly
to the harm to the privacy
of the property that faced the street.
Having assessed the application against the relevant policy requirements, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms
of visual amenities, the effect on the AONB and general amenities.
b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following points:
·
That the Officer's report, that supported the proposed development,
addressed all the concerns that had been noted in the responses.
·
That pre-planning application discussions had been held with
the planning officers and the observations had been fully incorporated
in the final design.
·
There were some objections from local residents that included matters
that were not based on planning matters and were therefore irrelevant
·
That concerns raised in relation
to noise and possible disruption from the proposed balcony were assumptions
that more people would reside in
the house - this was not correct as the number of rooms would not change. The response to concerns regarding the increase in traffic was the same
·
That the objections to a great extent noted that the development was
oppressive and nearby property would lose privacy
·
Careful consideration
was given to the design of
the additions using the current footprint to improve the premises. Although it was accepted that the proposal gave the impression of a larger size, the extension would be located above the current garage, that was over 5 metres away from
the nearby property.
·
That it was possible to respond to overlooking matters by imposing a condition that additional windows on the back to mitigate concerns - happy to conform to this condition
·
No observations had been received from
the Highways Unit and no concerns had been raised by the AONB unit.
·
The
officers' report confirmed that the scale of the proposal was appropriate for the location and the proposed development would comply with
all the local and national policies and would improve
the character and appearance of the property. The proposal would not in any way
be detrimental - in reality it would improve the streetscape.
c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the
following points:
·
He supported the concerns of the Community Council - the proposal was an
over-development
·
It was not in keeping with the area
·
It would affect the privacy of nearby residents.
·
Every bedroom door opened out
onto the balcony and therefore noise
would derive from its use
·
A
similar application in 2004 had been withdrawn.
·
The
balcony looked over the village hall and down into
the village - it created a dominant feeling
ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following
reasons:
·
The proposal was an
over-development
·
It was a dangerous
precedent
·
The
impact on the amenities of the neighbours
d) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by
members:
·
That there was a need to consider the over looking element
·
There was no view from
the balcony, therefore what would be its use?
In response to an observation regarding over-looking, it was noted that a condition to ensure opaque glass
for windows at the back of the building and there was approximately
22m between the property and the nearest house that was considered a sufficient distance.
RESOLVED
To refuse the application contrary to the recommendation
·
Over-development,
harmful visual impact and harmful impact on the privacy of neighbouring houses
Supporting documents: