Issue - meetings

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

The application was for a single storey extension to the existing two storey dwelling and the formation of a new vehicular access with parking and turning area at Coed Issa Cottage, Llanfynydd.

Mrs A. Beesom spoke against the application on the following grounds: inaccurate plans that did not display Coed Issa Farm and Coed Issa Cottage were linked together; proposed rear door egressed into Coed Issa Farm utility building, not an open area; internal door served as rear door to Farm; rear door used as thoroughfare for the two properties when it was under single ownership but had not been used in many years; the septic tank was located 1 metre into her boundary and there was no current arrangement for dispersal of overflow water; no mention of sewage disposal in the report; retaining wall of the outbuilding should remain untouched as if removed it would undermine her land; the road was 40mph, not 30mph as stated in the report; there were two natural water courses that flowed through the site which fed the farm outbuildings.

Councillor Wisinger proposed the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. He commented that it was clear from the site visit that the current dwelling would benefit from the proposed extension.

Councillor Thomas said the application was within the policy guidelines of a 50% guide for approving an extension.

Councillor Richard Jones queried whether the application should be deferred pending clarification on the speed limit of the road which he felt was a key factor to the application.

Councillor Butler commented that the report did not include any information on access and egress, overflow of water or a septic tank and queried whether they would be dealt with via conditions.

Councillor Roberts said there was a highway gain if the application was approved as there would be a provision for off road parking.

The officer explained that the application was for an extension to the right hand side of the dwelling which met the requirements of the relevant policy.  All other issues would be dealt with by conditions.  He clarified it was for an extra bedroom and bathroom facility.

The highways officer explained that visibility splays did not meet the guidance set for a 30mph limit and did not meet them for a 40mph limit either. However, the highways authority was keen to encourage parking within the site and was satisfied that an access could be created which was sufficient to protect the safety of highway users.

In summing up, Councillor Wisinger concurred that any parking on the site as opposed to the highway could only be of benefit.

            RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report of Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).