Agenda item

Demolition of existing rear extension together with the erection of a part two storey and part single storey extension to the rear of the property, together with the provision of French doors and erect a new 1.8m fence by the right of way.

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Lesley Day

 

Link to relevant background documents

Demolition of an existing rear extension and the erection of a part two-storey and part single-storey extension to the rear of the property, along with the provision of French doors and erection of new 1.8m fence near the right of way

 

 

(a)  The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the property was a three storey, end house in a row of seven listed dwellings (Grade II).  It was noted that the proposal was to demolish part of the existing two-storey rear section and re-build new sections and demolish the one storey building and re-erect a one storey extension in its place.   The Planning Committee visited the site in June.   It was noted that no internal adaptations formed part of the application and reference was made to the full details within the report before Committee.  Reference was made to late information received from the agent submitting a report by a structural engineer in order to justify the demolition work.

 

It was noted that the site was located within the development boundaries of the City of Bangor with an unclassified road running nearby and an access road to the back with a public right of way leading along the front of the terrace and along the side of the site. 

 

Based on the information in paragraphs 5.3 - 5.7, it was not considered that the extension was excessive in terms of size, or that it dominated any nearby property.  It was not considered that the new windows to the first floor of the extension would cause any overlooking of other properties and the slate roofs and materials to the external walls were acceptable.

        

Following a period of public consultation, several objections were received and a response was given to these within the report in paragraphs 5.12 - 5.14.

 

         It was considered that the principle of demolishing on the scale shown as part of the             application and then extend/re-build the rear extension was acceptable from the perspective         of local and national policies despite the disagreement in views from the statutory            consultees and officers and it was considered that it would be beneficial to receive            justification for the work and confirmation and clear reasons for demolishing sections of the             building.   

 

Attention was drawn to the fact that the agent had submitted a report from a structural engineer to justify the demolition work but it was not considered that the evidence gave sufficient explanation regarding the structural condition of the walls and why it was not possible to maintain them as they were.   Therefore, two sets of different types of information had been received from the agent - first dealing with sustainability and energy matters and the second in the form of a structural engineer's report, however, it was not clear from the report received if the walls were dangerous or merely not good enough to support the proposed extensions.  Therefore, the planning officers had not been totally convinced that the submitted information gave sufficient justification for demolition. 

 

Should the above-mentioned justification for the demolition work be acceptable, it was considered that the size, design and materials of the new extension including the fence would also be acceptable and in accordance with the relevant policies. However, the proposal was not considered acceptable in its current form as no robust information had been submitted to justify the demolition work and why the existing listed building could not be adapted as it was. Consequently, the planning officers’ recommendation was to refuse the application. 

        

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the objector noted that he welcomed the Planning Department's recommendation to refuse the application and the following main points were noted:

 

·         That Glandwr Terrace had been recognised as having national importance by being designated as a Grade II listed building and listing did not mean a grand property but humble buildings such as Glandwr Terrace to ensure a correct representation of national history.   

·         Glandwr Terrace was a good example and represented a time or period when there was increasing wealth linked to maritime trading and the slate industry.

·         That the terrace made a significant contribution to the character of the Garth area and the Pier setting.

·         There was no need or any reason to demolish a section of number 7 as the structure had been large enough for generations. 

·         That it was important to retain the front of the building as all of Number 7 had been listed not just the front.   

 

(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:

 

·         The proposed development would assist to create an appropriate home for the current and future needs of the owners.  

·         That the condition of the existing external building was serious and was bulging 

·         There were no appropriate foundations and the walls were unsafe 

·         The extension was not fit for purpose without significant expenditure that could not be justified 

·         The proposal did not entail substantial demolition work, approximately 20% and this would not impact on the character of the property 

·         That the proposal offered a suitable solution and it was a good design that was in keeping with a listed building and the wider context

·         There were no firm reasons to refuse the application and a plea was made to the Committee to show their support for the proposal to the Planning Inspector. 

 

 

  (ch)   The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application                         and he supported its refusal for the following reasons:

 

·         That families had maintained their homes carefully and they were in keeping with  traditional design

·         The main features of the terrace had remained whole

·         Since submitting the original planning application CADW had acknowledged that Glandwr Terrace was of national importance

·         CADW had also recommended in strong terms that sections of Garth ward should be earmarked, including Glandwr Terrace, for conservation area status

·         The proposals comprised significant alterations to the back of the property including the demolition of a substantial section of the property to be replaced with a larger structure with a larger footprint that would extend beyond the current line of the terrace gable-end

·         There were a proposals to change the roof line 

·         There was no robust justification regarding the alterations and reference was made to the specific policies of Gwynedd Council and national policies to this end 

·         The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the existing uniformity of the rear of each of the seven properties in the terrace

·         The proposed extension did not offer an acceptable reduction and it was not in keeping with the garden design and the Member was of the view that it would create a detrimental impact to the listed building 

·         The fence would be an eyesore and prevent views and access to the beach steps located at the gable-end of the property. 

·         A plea was made for the Committee to approve the refusal of the application

 

 

(d) In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the application dated back to 2013 and at the time the building had not been listed.  Observations had been received from statutory bodies to the listed application and therefore these were vitally important in the context of the application.   He was of the view that 20% of demolition work on a listed building was considered substantial and although a late report had been received from a structural engineer the planning officers, following further assessment, continued to be of the opinion that the information did not justify the need for demolition work on a listed building.    

 

         (dd) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

(e) The following points were noted in favour of the refusal:

 

·         that Glandwr Terrace was an important part of Bangor's history and certainly for a worldwide site designation regarding the slate industry

·         that all the terrace was listed and their backs were just as important as the front of the buildings

·         the importance of retaining the structure of the buildings as they were

·         that attention had to be given to the observations received from statutory bodies who specialise in the field 

 

(f) A member noted that he did not support the refusal of the application due to the risk that the building was unsafe and should be demolished and re-built and therefore it was difficult to refuse as it was not contrary to policy.   

 

(ff) In response to a query regarding deferral of the application to receive more information, the Senior Manager Planning Service explained that the contents of the engineering report did not justify demolition and therefore there was no reason to defer the application again.  

 

 

Resolved:       To refuse as no robust information was submitted to justify the demolition work and why the existing listed building could not be adapted in its existing form in accordance with the advice given in Welsh Office Circular 61/96 Planning and the Historic Environment:  Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas and Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales.