Application for the demolition of existing garage and erection of ancillary annexe.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths
Minutes:
(a) The
Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on
11 January, 2016, in order to undertake a site inspection visit and to confirm
the number of bedrooms in the existing property. Committee
Members had visited the site prior to the meeting and confirmation was received
from the applicant that there were three bedrooms on the first floor and one
bedroom in the attic.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the applicant did not have to have planning
permission to convert the garage into an
additional room. It was noted that it
was recommended, if the application was to be approved, that it was proposed
to impose a condition that the use of the annex would only
be ancillary to the house.
The development complied with
the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report.
(a)
The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) made the following main points:-
·
He was grateful
to members for visiting the site;
·
It was noted that there was a strong objection to
the proposal from the residents of Borth y Gest as
well as the Town Council;
·
Concern regarding parking, bearing in mind that
parking problems already existed in the village;
·
The owner ran a business from the property;
·
That the annex
was not attached and his concern that it
would be a separate property.
·
That he
did not object to one extra room, however,
the proposed annex was more
like a studio flat;
·
This would create a precedent for the rest of the
terrace;
·
He asked the Committee to refuse the application, however, if it was approved that a condition be
imposed that only ancillary use would be made of the annex.
(c) In
response to the observations
of the local member, the
Senior Planning Service Manager
noted:
·
That he understood the concerns, however, an application
could not be determined on the grounds of what may occur
in the future;
·
That the proposed annex was acceptable in terms of
size, setting and the relationship with the property;
·
It was recommended to impose a condition that only
ancillary/supplementary use would be made of the annex.
The Senior Transport Development Control Officer
noted that the terraced house was fortunate to have a parking space and there
was a parking area in the village as well as parking on the street, although he
recognised that there was competition for parking spaces. He confirmed that there was no need for
additional or specific parking for the annex.
In response to an enquiry from a member, the Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that in the case of this application, it would
not be appropriate to impose a 106 Agreement to tie the use of the annex to the
house as there was no concern regarding its size and it was within the
development boundary. He stressed that it was
recommended to impose a condition that only ancillary/supplementary use would
be made of the annex.
(ch)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse
the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation as it would be an
over-development of the site.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted:-
·
That the Town Council, the Local Member and nearby
residents objected to the application;
·
That the annex would not be in keeping with the
local area;
·
There were parking problems already in the village;
·
That there was over-development in the area;
·
That the annex was not attached to the house;
·
It was not possible to presume what may occur in
the future;
·
Whilst there was sympathy with the objectors, that
a similar building existed already at the location of the proposed annex,
therefore it would be difficult to defend a refusal in an appeal.
(d) In
response to the above observations, the officers noted:-
·
That the annex
would be similar in type to the adjacent buildings;
·
That it
was the physical relationship
of the annex to the house that was being considered and therefore the annex did not have to be attached to the house.
In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote to refuse the application was recorded:
In favour of the proposal
to refuse the application,
(9) Councillors: Elwyn Edwards, Simon Glyn, Eric M. Jones, Siôn Wyn Jones, W. Tudor Owen,
John Pughe Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, Gruffydd Williams and
Eurig Wyn.
Against the proposal to refuse
the application (5) Councillors: Anne T. Lloyd Jones, June
Marshall, Michael Sol Owen, Hefin Williams and Owain
Williams.
Abstaining, (0)
RESOLVED
to refuse the application contrary to the officers’
recommendation.
Reason: Overdevelopment of the site.
Supporting documents: