Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

Ms. J. Bayntun, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The extension proposed at Woodside seems to be out of keeping with the design and character of a pair of semi-detached houses because of its size and position.

·         It will make the kitchen at Sunnyside very dark as well as spoiling the outlook from the kitchen windows.

·         Sunnyside and Woodside were originally designed in such a way that the rear sections were set wide apart from each other to protect the amenity of both dwellings.  The extension at Woodside would be built right up to the joint boundary. 

·         From inside the kitchen at Sunnyside the proposed extension would be visually overbearing and oppressive.

·         The proposed two storey extension at Woodside projects further out than the extension at Sunnyside.  It would block the afternoon sun and cast a shadow over all of the rooms at the rear of Sunnyside.

·         Sunnyside’s kitchen has two windows, both of which receive direct sunlight that would be blocked by the proposed extension.

·         The proximity and size of the extension would also significantly reduce the ambient light received at other times of the day.

·         Because of its position in relation to Woodside, the two storey extension at Sunnyside does not have a similar impact upon Woodside because the sun never shines from that direction.

·         The restriction of light to the kitchen at Sunnyside would force the residents to use electric lighting at all times of the day.

·         It would be more appropriate to build the extension at Woodside further away from the joint boundary or even sideways, adjacent to the rear.

The applicant, Mr. Cooke, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The applicant wants to keep the character of the property.  Therefore, he decided not to extend to the front and rear as per the 2014 original plans which had received approval from Planning Committee.

·         This application, with guidance from the Planning Department, was to have a substantially reduced extension instead of the 2014 original application.

·         It was considered that the best option was to extend the property to the rear which was in keeping with the neighbour’s extension at Sunnyside and not diminishing the original character of the property.

·         To build the two storey extension, the applicant is removing an existing bathroom so the actual impact of the new extension will only be one metre.  The two storey extension will match the neighbour’s extension at Sunnyside.

·         This extension complies with the guidance of the Planning Case Officer’s report.

·         At the site inspection the applicant marked out the proposed extension. With the topography of the ground, the extension at a certain point is at least 100mm to 150mm lower and the roofline is set back by 300mm. Access to light for the neighbour is therefore more accessible.

·         The applicant is only intending to extend his property by 30% more than its original footprint. This will provide an upstairs family bathroom and a larger kitchen.

The local Member for Shirenewton, also a Planning Committee Member, decided to comment on this application after listening to the Planning Committee’s views.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, Members considered that a significant proportion of the application could be undertaken via permitted development rights.  The only part of the development that would not be covered via permitted development rights would be the two storey element of the application.  However, the two storey extension could be constructed to three metres depth and the four metres depth of the single storey below.  The matter for determination is whether that extra one metre of depth from the two storey extension is detrimental to the neighbour’s amenity or not.

Though the extension will have an impact on the neighbour’s amenity, something taller than that proposed could have been built without the need for any consent.

The local Member summed up by stating that she has sympathy with the neighbour regarding the issue in relation to the kitchen window.  However, there is the issue regarding the planning policies.  In terms of the development, the only issue might be if the two storey and single storey together might impact cumulatively creating overshadowing and overdevelopment. However, the applicant is applying for planning permission for a two storey extension and the neighbour has already built a similar two storey extension.

There is also a one storey extension which is very close to the boundary and this will have an impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Planning Committee could consider the situation with regard to residential amenity. Even with permitted development rights, according to the Planning Policy for Wales, the Committee should consider reasonableness, also, i.e., overshadowing.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DC/2017/01120 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval              -           13

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           2

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/01120 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.