Agenda item

Single storey extension

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve subject to conditions:

 

1.         Commence within five years.

2.         In accordance with the plans.

3.         Slate roof.

4.         Materials to be in-keeping.

5.         Welsh Water Condition

Single-storey extension

 

The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee in July in order to undertake a site visit.

 

Some of the Members had visited the site on 02/09/22 in order to familiarise themselves with the layout and context of the proposal within the local environment. 

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form. 

 

a)   The Development Manager highlighted that this was an application to erect a single-storey in front of a single-storey house. It was reported that the development would include extending an existing garage, which forms an integrated part of the house, 1.5m in front of it. This new element would have a pitched roof measuring 3.8m high (1.2m lower than the ridge of the roof itself), with a garage door in front.

 

It was noted that the property was one property in a row of detached houses nearby the B4413 class 2 road in a residential area within the boundary of the Coastal - Rural Village of Aberdaron as defined by the Gwynedd and Anglesey Local Development Plan; The property was also within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest.

 

The application was submitted before the Committee at the request of the former local member, Councillor W. Gareth Roberts, who objected on the grounds of the visual impact of the development on the streetscape and due to concerns regarding the amenity impact on neighbours.

 

Reference was made to Policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP that states that it was expected for every proposal to show a high-quality design, which gave full consideration to the context of the surrounding built environment. In this case, when considering the scale, design and materials of the extension, it was considered that the change to the appearance of the site would be very small compared with the existing house, and that no harm to the built quality of the property would derive from the development. It was noted that conditions could be imposed, to ensure that the materials used are in keeping with the rest of the house.

 

In addition, it was reported, despite the considerable increase in the bulk of the building, as well as an extension to the "building line" slightly to the front, there is no definitive building pattern to developments in the area, and because the change is small, the proposal would respect the built context of the site and be in-keeping with the surrounding area. As a result, it was considered that the plan submitted, due to its scale, materials and design, is appropriately in-keeping with the existing property and therefore complies with the needs of policy PCYFF 3.

 

Although the site lies within the AONB, and considering its urban location, the proposal in question would not affect the character of the AONB's landscape.  Similarly, it was not considered that harm would be caused to the Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest - the proposal was acceptable under the requirements of Policies AMG 1 and AT 1 of the LDP and therefore there would be no impact on neighbours or the streetscape.

 

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

·         That he fully agreed with the comments of the former Councillor.

·         This was not a 'need' to extend, but rather an owner choosing to extend in order to store a boat and tractor in a second home. The alteration was 'desirable' for 'recreational purposes' - there was no 'need' here

·         The alteration would be an eye-sore - would stand out and the height of the roof would have an impact on the amenities of neighbours, and would impair natural light

·         Plenty of agricultural sheds available locally which offered storage for a tractor and / or boat.

·         The proposal reflected an 'industrial' plot, creating an 'industrial unit' for the applicant's purposes, with no regard for others - a garage was located on the site already.

·         That there was a storage extension on the site - without planning permission.

·         Approving would set a dangerous precedent and the character of the houses in Aberdaron would be lost forever.

·         This was not a dispute between neighbours, instead they were the concerns of a former Councillor and Community Council.

·         Since the last meeting, and the article in the Daily Post, he had received unfair allegations.

·         This was a second home - it was empty for most of the year and there was no 'need' for an extension - it would have an impact on the amenities of people who lived permanently in the area. It would be unfair to approve.

 

In response, the Planning Manager confirmed that Policy CYFF 2 did not ask for justification for an extension but asked for a quality design. Although it may be desirable for the owner, the impact on neighbours had to be considered also. It was reiterated that the application had been submitted as a home use and not as a business use, therefore suggesting 'what could be got' was irrelevant here. In response to a comment about another extension on the site, it was confirmed that a further application had been submitted, but this would be considered separately to this application.

 

b)         It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application due to its impact on the AONB, as it was visually prominent and an overdevelopment.

 

ch)     In response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Planning and Environment Department noted that this was a 'very small' extension to a bungalow and that it would not affect the AONB, the neighbours or the streetscape. He reiterated, should the application be refused, that it would be likely to go to appeal.

 

d)        During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·         A small extension

·         A similar application had been won on appeal

 

dd)       A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse

 

e)         The proposal fell.

 

a)              It was proposed to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

    RESOLVED: To approve subject to conditions:

 

1.         Commence within five years.

2.         In accordance with the plans

3.         Slate roof

4.         Materials to be in-keeping

5.         Welsh Water Condition