Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 16^th November 2015.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site was located in the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) designation.  A number of objections had been received which had been noted in the comments of the AONB but they had not raised any objections following the submission of proposed amendments to the application in relation to the removal of the gable end window. 

                        Councillor Nigel Steele-Mortimer, the Local Member, sought clarification on whether he was permitted to speak on the application.  The Chairman advised that at the previous meeting, he had exercised his discretion to allow Councillor Steele-Mortimer to speak notwithstanding that notice to speak had not been submitted.  The Chairman said he would exercise his discretion again on this occasion, but in future local members who were not members of the committee and who wished to speak must submit the requisite notice, or the Chairman may decide not to exercise his discretion to allow them to speak.

                        The Housing & Planning Solicitor confirmed that paragraph 22.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitution required members who wished to speak on matters significantly affecting their ward to register 24 hours before the meeting and this was not a new rule.  He reminded members that on this occasion the Chairman had exercised his discretion to allow Councillor Steele-Mortimer to speak.  Councillor Bithell requested that all Members be advised of the requirement to register.  Councillor Carol Ellis suggested that Members be asked on the consultation form whether they wished to speak at Committee rather than needing to register separately.  The Housing & Planning Solicitor confirmed that a reminder could be sent to all Members about the requirement.

                        Mrs. S. Appleton spoke against the application.  She was the owner of the neighbouring property at Pen y Parc and strongly objected to the proposals due to the close proximity of the extension to her property.  She commented on the three different versions of the proposals and expressed concern at the officer recommendation of approval despite objections from the Local Member and Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor Community Council.  The footprint of the extension took in all available land within the site and was extremely close to the shared boundary.  The report at paragraph 7.07 referred to extension being approximately 2 metres from the neighbouring property and Mrs. Appleton raised concern that the actual figure was not reported which she suggested was only 33 inches.  The proposal was overbearing and would create a narrow alleyway between the properties and the extension was being built off the wall.  She did not feel that this was reasonable and added that it did not comply with the Council’s policy on space around dwellings.  She asked the Committee to challenge the proximity of the extension to her property and to take account of the comments of the Local Member.               

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that this was a clear cut decision and that the extension would be built on land up to the boundary with the distance between the extension and the building next door including a wall.  It had been suggested that there were very few properties with little space between them but Councillor Roberts did not feel that this was true and commented on terraced properties.  He felt that approval of the application was the correct decision as refusal would be difficult to defend on appeal and could result in costs against the Council. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell apologised for not attending the site visit.  He concurred that the figure reported in paragraph 7.07 should be the actual figure not an approximation but said that it was clear from the report that the extension complied with space around dwellings guidelines.  There had been another extension to the property but this had been 34 years ago.  The property was in a Conservation Area but there had been no objections from the AONB Joint Advisory Committee and in policy terms the application should not be refused. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Steele-Mortimer, thanked the Chairman for exercising his discretion to allow him to speak and those Councillors that had attended the site visit.  He commented on the proposed extension which would reduce the gap between the two properties by 80% leaving a gap between the buildings of approximately 1.5 metres.  He suggested that the proposal would result in a terrace effect which he did not feel should be forced upon residents.  He felt that the application should be refused as it was overbearing and was too close to the neighbouring property and this would allow the applicant to submit a more appropriate application. 

            Councillor Mike Peers sought clarification on why the Community Council was objecting to the application and queried the percentage increase of the extensions.  He agreed that the proposal seemed close to the neighbouring property.  Councillor Owen Thomas raised concern about the proposal to render the building rather than building it with stone which he felt would be more appropriate in a conservation area.  He suggested that the proposals would result in a very small garden area for the property and agreed that the extension would be close to the neighbouring property and that the actual figures should be provided.  He felt that the proposal would not enhance the village and that the building materials should be reconsidered. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer advised that the distance from gable to gable was 1.5 metres.  He confirmed that it was not proposed to build the extension off the wall and that the extension would be rendered to match the extension built in 1981.  He commented on properties in the area that were a mix of stone and render so the proposal would not result in the extension being out of character with the area.  A window that would have overlooked the neighbouring property in the original application had been moved and the bedroom window would now overlook the road.  He felt that the proposal including the scale of the proposal was in character with the area and the rendered appearance was in keeping with other properties. The officer added that the Community Council had not specified their reasons for objecting. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager suggested that rendering the extension would allow the original building that was built of stone to be identified and would not detract from the character of the area.  He advised that he did not have details of the percentage increase but reminded Members that the 50% baseline figure was used to assist planning judgement on whether it was acceptable or not but was not part of the policy. 

            In summing up, Councillor Roberts said that the site was in the settlement boundary and the 50% figure was not material to the Committee’s consideration.  He did not feel that there was a planning reason to defer or refuse the application to enable the applicant to propose an alternative as it was a clear cut decision. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).