Agenda item

Creation of external rear balcony with associated privacy screening.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Tudor Jones

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

Reason:  Refuse on grounds of overlooking, impact on neighbours – contrary to policy PCYFF 2

a.     The Development Control Officer highlighted that the application in question was to create an exterior rear balcony, above the existing flat roof extension. It was highlighted that the site was located within the development boundary of Morfa Nefyn and within a residential area, and the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member. 

It was reported that most of the flat roof area at the rear of the property comprised an established sedum roof covered by plants, and there was no intention to use all this area as an exterior balcony area. It was added that the existing permanent wall was approximately 1.6m high and extended 1.8m out of the property's main rear wall above the existing flat roof extension, and the proposal would be to create the exterior balcony area behind this wall.  It was noted that it was proposed to provide a permanent opaque glazed screen extending 1.7m beyond the wall to the furthest side of the existing flat roof extension with a clear glazed handrail installed from the edge of the wall and across the roof for approximately 4m long, linking to another 2.9m long opaque glazed handrail which would link back to the rear wall of the building so that it restricted the outdoor area behind the existing wall. 

In the context of visual amenities, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable on the grounds of the design and scale and its location above the existing flat roof at the rear of the property. It was explained that the site was located between other two-storey residential houses with open agricultural fields to the rear.    

In considering the general and residential amenities, it was noted that the location of the proposed development was in the corner of the existing roof, with the permanent existing wall extending partly along the roof.  The proposed balcony area would not extend beyond this wall and the ability to go beyond the top of the wall was restricted due to the installation of a permanent glass handrail across the roof area.  It was added that it was intended to install a glazed opaque screen that would extend out of the existing wall to the end of the existing flat roof, together with the other side of the proposed balcony area, This would mean that any over looking towards the property from either side would be very limited to the furthest areas of the curtilages either side. It was considered that the screens of opaque glass would also protect the main areas of the properties' gardens either side; this was an established and relatively dense residential area where gardens abutted each other and windows overlook and thus the existing disruption was inevitable as a result. It was not believed that the development would affect the amenities of nearby properties to an unacceptable and significant degree. 

Attention was drawn the fact that the proposal for a balcony had not been refused on this property and it was explained that the applicant had voluntarily removed the balcony element from the previous application.  

It was considered that the proposal was acceptable, and it was recommended to approve the application subject to conditions. 

b.       Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations 

·           Although the name of the house was 'Tŷ Pen' this was not the last property in the row.  

·           ⁠He objected on the grounds of overlooking and over development (ref:  LDP PCYFF 2 p.7). ⁠ 

·           Installing a privacy screen would be tokenism. ⁠⁠ 

·           The balcony would significantly affect the privacy and enjoyment of nearby dwellings.  

·           This was a holiday home and the former house had been demolished.  

·           The extension to this property was recently approved with a clear condition that a balcony would not be approved. 

·           Although it was noted that the applicant had voluntarily removed the balcony element from a previous application, it appeared that he continued to be discontent and needed a balcony.   ⁠ 

·           The balcony would create a permanent impact on the residents of Morfa. 

·           There were some houses with a balcony in Morfa, but not on this street - this would stand out.   

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

Reason:   

Overlooking and impact on general and residential amenities - (ref policy PCYFF 2)  

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

Reason:  Refuse on grounds of overlooking, impact on neighbours – contrary to policy PCYFF 2