Agenda item

Two storey rear extension 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin Walker Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

RESOLVED: To defer a decision and conduct a site visit

 

 

Two-storey extension at the rear of the property

 

a)           The Planning Manager highlighted that this application was for the demolition of an existing multi-purpose room at the rear of the property and erecting a two-storey flat roof extension. It was explained that the property was a semi-detached property in a residential area in the city of Bangor, with the application submitted to the Planning Committee at the request of the local member.

 

Reference was made to the objections received. In terms of design and appearance, it was considered that this type of extension was not unexpected in residential areas, and therefore it would not have an unacceptable visual impact. In response to the comments that raised concerns about loss of light, it was noted that a detailed assessment of the impacts had concluded that the impact of the extension would not be harmful, based on the loss of light or oppressive impact (despite it being a two-storey extension, it was only 0.5m longer than the existing rear extension).

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which referred to the cumulative impact of adaptations with planning permission, permitted adaptations (i.e., extensions and alterations that did not require planning consent) and the cumulative impact of the proposal. It was explained that the plans submitted showed the impact of all proposed elements, and therefore it was possible to alter the situation as a whole. Individual consideration was not given to the porch, the gable end extension on the side of the roof and the dormer window in the back, due to the extant permission, as well as the fact that it would be possible to build the flat roof extension, which is the subject of this application, without completing the rest of the alterations. Consequently, the Officers were not of the opinion that the cumulative impact of all of these elements were harmful should they all be implemented.

 

Reference was made to the objections received regarding the broader water overflow problems on the street in general, as well as the development's impact on the area's drains. It was noted that the observations received from Welsh Water asked for a condition to prevent additional flows of surface water into the sewerage system. The Council's Drainage Unit did not object to the proposal. Despite acknowledging the concern, there was no robust evidence to highlight that the extension would affect or worsen the current situation. Subject to the nature of the drains, private or as a part of the public drainage system, it was reiterated that there would be protection either through the building control procedure or Welsh Water rules, therefore it was not considered that there was a planning reason to object to the proposal based on drainage matters.

 

Having considered all relevant planning matters, the local and national policies and guidance, the proposal was considered to be acceptable. The Officers recommended to approve the application with conditions.

 

b)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·        That the occupier of property number 16 had contacted Hafod Planning for advice regarding the application, and the response had been submitted in a letter to officers (dated 06-01-25).

·        They strongly encouraged conducting a site visit so that the Members understood the views of the occupier of number 16 and the impact that the oppressive extension would have on her house.

·        Number 16 would lose light to the rear of the house and this would affect the occupier's amenities.

·        That the land to the rear of the building was very steep and was the same as the first floor of the property.

·        There had been flood problems in the past - the occupier of number 16 was concerned about this.

 

c)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following observations:

·        That he wanted to provide a place for his family that would provide sufficient space for the children to visit him. Although some of the children came and went, they needed rooms for them.

·        The house, with the extension, would offer 4 bedrooms and an office.

·        His partner needed an office to work / study from home, and he, as a self-employed person, needed an office so that he could do his administrative work.

·        Could not afford to buy a larger house.

·        The location of Belmont Avenue was convenient.

·        That the plans were not out of character - a number of nearby houses had extensions.

 

d)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following comments:

·        That she objected the application.

·        That she, as the Local Member, knew the area very well.

·        That there were three contentious reasons for refusing - drainage, amenities and character.

·        Character - the house would look very different to all other houses and would create a substantial visible impact to the appearance of a semi-detached house. The extension was of a substantial scale.

·       Amenities - next door would lose light and the extension created unbearable substantial overlooking.

·        Drainage - consideration had to be given to the steep landscape of the garden in the rear of the property, as well as a drain that had been installed between number 14 and 16 to deal with surface water (historical flooding problems here).

·        The work of laying the foundations for the extension was likely to have an impact - this element had not been met.

·        Drainage, overflow, surface water and an increase in water levels - a meeting was needed with YGC to discuss this. Some houses in the street had damp and water pumps - the situation needed a thorough assessment and a robust drainage system.

·        Encouraged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

e)          It was proposed and seconded to conduct a site visit.

 

RESOLVED: To defer a decision and conduct a site visit.