Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the main issues related to the raising of the wall plate and the roofline to provide accommodation in the roof space.  The application was considered to be contrary to policies GEN1 and HSG12. 

            Mr. A. Jones, the applicant, spoke in favour of the proposal and said that he and his family had lived in the property for 18 months and had been praised for their enhancements to the dwelling.  The application was proposing raising the front elevation by 400mm to allow the introduction of living space at the second floor level which would provide an overall height increase of 5.33% on the original dwelling.  This would still be lower than the semi-detached properties to the north west of the building.  The proposed roof lights would be tinted and would blend in and all elevations would be finished in the same materials as the original dwelling.  The proposed extension over the single storey element would increase the floor space by 11 square metres and would facilitate a decent sized third bedroom.  The dormer windows to the rear elevation would be set back from the gable end and would only be visible for a few metres in each direction and would not encroach on neighbour’s space or light.  There was only one dwelling to the rear of the property and this was over 400 metres away.  The properties on Pentre Road varied in scale and colour and a dwelling three doors away was significantly taller than what was proposed in this application and was located much closer to the road.  Mr. Jones felt that this proposal added to the mix of dwellings in the area rather than adversely affecting the streetscape.  The original proposal included dormer windows to the front of the dwelling but this element had now been removed from the application.  It was reported that the rooflights were too large but Mr. Jones felt that there were other properties in the vicinity with larger glassed aspects to the front of the dwellings.       

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would result in an imposing dwelling and was inappropriate in this area.  Councillor Derek Butler concurred and felt that allowing this dwelling to become three storey would not be in keeping with the surroundings and would generate applications from other residents for similar proposals. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Matt Wright, spoke in support of the application.  He agreed that there were a range of properties in the area and said that there had not been any objections to this proposal.  The change to the roof line was very small and he asked the Committee to vote against the recommendation of officers to allow the applicant to develop his family home as he felt that the application was a reasonable interpretation of planning law. 

            Councillor Richard Jones agreed with the proposal to refuse the application and spoke of similar applications in Buckley.  He felt that the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the neighbouring property which was a bungalow.  Councillor Owen Thomas spoke in support of the application and agreed that the properties in the road were of differing heights and scales and that the enhancements proposed would be an enhancement to the dwelling.  Councillor Mike Peers said that it was reported in paragraph 2.01 that the scheme did not harmonise with the site.  He sought clarification on the percentage increase and he suggested that the decision on whether to approve or refuse the application was a matter of opinion.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that there were a mix of dwellings in the area but felt that the decision to refuse the application to allow the property to become three storey was correct.  Councillor Marion Bateman asked whether it was essential to raise the ridge height and whether the space would be uninhabitable if it was not raised. 

            In response, the officer said that he did not have the details of the percentage increase with him but that this was not the issue here. He added that the increase to the right hand side of the dwelling was below 50%.  The increase in the ridge line would give the impression that the property was three storey and that the visual impact was a concern. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that it was a dominant building and that the provision of roof lights and a dormer made it a three storey dwelling.  He felt that allowing a two storey side extension as well as raising the ridge height would make the property even more dominant.  A similar proposal had been refused in 2015 and he felt that this application should also be refused.   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).