Agenda item

Proposed extension to front of dwelling

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Tudor Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION to approve the application contrary to the recommendation

 

Conditions:

 

1.    Five years

2.    In accordance with the submitted plans

Extension to the front of the property

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)    The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was an application to erect an extension on the front of the property located within a residential housing estate of similar single-storey dwellings on the outskirts of the village of Morfa Nefyn. It was noted that the existing property was a single-storey semi-detached dwelling with a floor in the roof and a parking space to the front.  It was added that the property was a three-bedroom affordable house with a secured discount of 35% via a 106 agreement.

 

It was explained that the amended plan submitted reduced the size of the extension compared with the original proposal due to the location of a water pipe and the application was submitted to the Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member.

 

It was reported that this property was an affordable house that had already received planning permission under reference C05D/0192/42/LL and the proposal entailed extending the existing lounge.  It was highlighted that usually extensions to affordable housing entailed adding a bedroom, however, this was not true of this proposal.   Consequently, it was considered that there was no justification for the need for additional living space bearing in mind the need to maintain the unit as an affordable house.   The total floor area, following extension, would be approximately 122m² and according to appendix 5, paragraph 3.4.10 SPG Affordable Housing, this would take the size beyond the maximum floor area for a four-bedroom affordable house. As a result, it was considered that the proposal, due to its size, would be contrary to the requirements of criterion 3(vii) of Policy TAI 15 which notes "Extensions and adaptations to affordable housing will be permitted provided that the alterations or adaptations allow the house to remain as an affordable dwelling"

 

In the context of the extension's design, it was considered that the size and location of the extension, together with the roof pitch and its finish would be unsuitable and did not exhibit a high-quality design and was not in-keeping with the existing property. Although it was possible to impose a condition to agree on materials, it was not considered that this would be sufficient to meet with the requirements of policy PCYFF 3.  

 

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

·         The Community Council were in favour of the application

·         No neighbour or local person had objected

·         He supported the application

·         It was a fair application for a reasonably sized extension - it did not appear intrusive or out of character

·         The design was a matter of opinion

·         At the applicant's request, the architect had chosen a simple design - a simple extension to keep costs low

·         There was not enough garden at the back to extend 

·         It would not affect neighbours' privacy - other extensions had been approved

·         The family were local, Welsh speakers, and wanted to stay locally without a hope of buying a house locally due to the prices on the open market - the only answer was to construct a small extension to have space for the family to grow.

·         The small extension would be an investment for the family

·         The Well-being Act encouraged people to stay in the local community 

·         The meaning and regulations of affordable housing would change in the LDP

·         Gwynedd Council's vision placed the people of Gwynedd at the centre of everything we do and ensured access to a home and the right to live at home

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

Reasons: That the size was suitable: the houses on the estate were of different designs and therefore this extension would not affect the estate's appearance

 

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

·         That the size was acceptable

·         Policies were sending local people out of their communities

 

d)    In response to a question regarding changing what was meant by an affordable house in the LDP in the near future, the Assistant Head of Planning and Environment Department noted that there were no amendments to the regulations in terms of size and form, but the policy was likely to be assessed when the plan would be reviewed. 

 

RESOLVED to approve the application contrary to the recommendation

 

Conditions:

 

1.   Five years

2.   In accordance with the submitted plans;