Agenda item

Extension and alterations to the front of the property, plus the conversion of the roof space to a bedroom & bathroom and a two-bedroom annex to the rear of the dwelling to provide additional accommodation. 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin Walker Jones

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reasons:

 

1.    That the proposal is contrary to policy PCYFF 3 as it is an over-development of the site

2.    It would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

 

 

 

 

Extension and alterations to the front of the property, as well as converting the attic space into a bedroom and a bathroom and a two bedroom annexe at the back of the dwelling to provide additional accommodation.

 

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application to undertake alterations to the existing two-storey house and these would include: 

·         erecting a first-floor 2.3m extension in the front on top of the existing single-storey garage at the front of the dwelling.

·         converting the roof space into additional living space

·         erecting a two-storey rear extension as an annexe to the main house. 

As a result of the alterations, the property would increase from a four bedroom house, to a house with an annexe with a total of six bedrooms.

 

The site stands within the curtilage of "33 Bryn Eithinog" house, which is a detached dwelling in a residential area within the development boundary of the Bangor sub-regional centre, as defined by the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, in a housing estate served by unclassified roads leading from Belmont Road near Ysgol Tryfan. 

 

The application had been submitted to the Committee at the Local Member’s request.

 

It was noted that the term "annexe" has a specific meaning in the planning context and in considering the "annexe" proposal it was essential for the building to be subservient to the main house and not used as a separate dwelling. In this case, in light of the location of the building connected to the main house in a location where there was no independent access to the street, it was considered, although the plans indicated that the annexe would include a bathroom and a separate kitchen, that it was reasonable to consider the new structure as a subservient annexe to the main dwelling. It was added that the applicant has confirmed that his intention was to use the house as a family house and not as a HMO and as the application was for an annexe, by imposing an appropriately worded planning condition, the use of the building could be managed appropriately.

 

Reference was made to neighbours' concerns due to the possibility of overlooking of their property from the new extensions, however, it was noted that only one new first-floor window would be in the northern elevation of the property and would serve a new bathroom in the original house.  As this window would be in the side elevation of the house, in accordance with the General Permitted Development Order, it would be a requirement for the window in question to remain permanently opaque.

 

In addition, concerns were highlighted that new extensions would cause unacceptable harm in respect of casting a shadow over neighbouring properties and that it would dominate their property. In considering the scale of the site, the distance between the neighbouring houses and the fairly short height of the extensions, it was not believed that there would be any significant harm to the amenities of neighbours stemming from these matters.

 

Having assessed the application against the relevant policy requirements, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in relation to visual amenities, private amenities and general amenities.

           

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

·         That she was speaking on behalf of the residents of Bryn Eithinog who objected the application due to concerns relating to overlooking, loss of privacy and light.

·         No other house on the street had an extension of this type or size

·         The site was located on a street corner - children and pedestrians used the street to go to the nearby schools. The location was busy and dangerous

·         It was intended to park two cars in the curtilage - there was no space for this without significant changes to the garden 

·         Obvious concerns by Welsh Water who required access to a sewer

·         Why submit an application? An application had been approved in July 2020 for an extension and had not been implemented.

·         The original application was for a house in the garden - this is what an annexe is. Concern regarding the creeping effect and HMO use 

·         The applicant did not live in the dwelling

·         Suggested refusal on the grounds of over development together with an excess of residents and vehicles using the area.

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         that it was an over-development

·         the County did not have sufficient resources to monitor use.

 

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

·         The design was unsuitable - crossing drains Should the drains be damaged this would cause inconvenience to local people

·         An over-development - would create a significant impact on neighbours' amenities

 

 

RESOLVED: To refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reasons:

 

1.         That the proposal is contrary to policy PCYFF 3 as it is an over-development of the site

2.         It would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents.