Agenda item

First-floor extension above the existing garage together with a first-floor extension to create a veranda

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse

Reasons: Over-development, harmful visual impact and harmful impact on the privacy of neighbouring houses

 

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