Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of extensions and alterations to dwelling including construction of retaining walls, front block wall and excavation works to form level front parking area including removal of front hedge (partly retrospective) (copy attached).

 

Councillor Emrys Wynne left the meeting for this agenda item only as he had declared a prejudicial interest.

 

An application was submitted for the erection of extensions and alterations to dwelling including construction of retaining walls, front block wall and excavation works to form level front parking area including removal of front hedge (partly retrospective) at Pendorlan, Llanfair Road, Ruthin.

 

Public Speakers –

 

Mr Alun Jones (Against) – Informed the committee he lived next door to the property site. He stated he had three main concerns with the planning application.

1-    Loss of light and over shadowing – due to close proximity to the shared boundary and property. The rear single storey extension projects would over shadow the bungalow and the main bedroom window.

2-    Property projecting out at front – The two storey extension was proposed to project 1.7m further than the existing property. He stated Denbighshire planning guidance advised such extensions should not normally project excessively in front of the building unless in keeping with other developments. It was felt the window of the extension would overlook our garden and have an over bearing effect on the property and main private garden area. 

3-    Loss of privacy – the extension was so close to the neighbouring property and would have an impact on the privacy of the property. The elevation of the front window would overlook our garden. The proposed new first floor window would be 4m from the boundary and only result in loss of privacy of my property.

 

Mr Jones stated that two alterations that would be acceptable to him would be to move the two storey extension a further 2m away from the boundary. This would lessen the over bearing affect the extension would have on his neighbouring property. The second alteration would be to move the front of the two storey extension back, to be flush with the existing property ensuring privacy in our garden. The design of the front elevated window in the extension needs to be addressed to reduce the loss of privacy. 

 

Catrin Thomas (For) – Both my husband and I, have been born and raised in Ruthin along with my children. We purchased the property early this year, to stay local to Ruthin town, local businesses and children’s school. We are currently living between families houses and a caravan, whilst developments to Pendorlan are completed. Prior to the planning application submission, I visited the owners of Bryn Celyn to discuss the application and was informed they had no issues. I was very saddened to see the objections online, we believe we have done all we can to work with our neighbours. The ordeal has created stress and upset to our whole family. Our plan for development of the house to a more energy efficient, spacious home for our family would improve the street scene and bring curb appeal to the Llanfair Road.

We have worked closely with planning officers and also worked to amend the original plans with the objecting neighbours. The living layout of the existing house is very dated and does not offer open plan living. The plot layout is also back to front with parking at the rear and the garden at the front, near the busy main road not suitable for families with young children like us.

All except our property and one other have front driveways and rear gardens, our aim was to create a front driveway with level parking and a secure rear garden for our children to play.

The planning officer asked us to amend the initial plans following concerns raised of the neighbours at Bryn Celyn. We worked closely with our architect to reduce the impact on the neighbouring bungalow. We reduced the roof height and creating a dorma-style two storey extension. The Planning officer agreed we had done all we could and the revised plans were inline with Planning guidelines.

You can see from the aerial view map of Pendorlan, it is the last house in the road and by far one of the largest plots and would easily accommodate larger sized properties on the plot. Only 18% of our plot will be used for the development of the extension.

 

General debate - The Chair confirmed that a site visit had taken place. Vice-Chair Councillor Christine Marston had been in attendance for the site visit. She informed members it was good to see the site and noted the steep drive to the back of the house. There was quite a difference in height from the main road and back garden. It was good to see the relationship between the neighbours on the road.

Councillor Peter Scott had also been at the site visit, he stated the development of the site would make a difference to the plot and its current standing. It was Councillor Scott’s opinion there was no reason to refuse the application and he proposed to grant the application.

 

Local Member Councillor Bobby Feeley stated it was disappointing when neighbours fall out over disputes on house developments. It was a difficult situation for all involved.

The work and excavation at the site had begun and speedily which resulted in the previous front garden demolished, the private bungalow had now been made visible and exposed from the main road. The proposed planning application would extend the current property overlooking the neighbouring properties.

Councillor Feeley stated within the report the building control officer had stated ‘most of the excavation work is ok’, it was her opinion that the stability of part of the boundary wall had been destabilised. The Local member asked for reassurance this work to resolve this issue would be completed first.

Local Member Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts, stated it was an unfortunate situation, as he knew both parties he stated he would remain neutral during the debate.

 

Councillor Peter Scott reiterated that following the site visit, he was proposing to grant planning permission with the attached conditions in line with officer recommendations. Councillor Peter Scott stated he was in favour to amend and include the boundary wall as part of the programme of work. Councillor Christine Marston seconded the application.

 

The Planning Officer informed members that the timing and detailing of any retaining walls could be dealt with by the imposition of a planning condition. In response to members concerns on the proximity of the proposed extensions, members were informed the property was being built taller than the neighbouring properties but further way. The planning application, showed the first floor window, at the front elevation looked over rear garden of the neighbouring bungalow. There was nothing in planning guidance that would suggest this was unreasonable.

Members asked that the boundary wall be completed at the earliest stage of the development. The Planning officer confirmed that a condition could be included to details of boundary treatments and retaining walls to be further supplied and implemented before work commenced on the development of the extension. Councillor Scott was in agreement. The Planning officer stated the position of the boundary wall, was within guidelines and officers had no reason to request a change.

Following member’s questions, officers confirmed that only one additional window had been included in the proposed plans. It was proposed that it would be a ground floor window of obscured glass. The window would also be screened to the neighbours by the boundary fence. It was also confirmed that a condition had been included to state no additional windows other than those shown to be added.

 

Proposed by Councillor Peter Scott that the application be granted in

accordance with officers recommendation with the added condition of the boundary wall work to be supplied and implemented before work on the extension commenced, seconded by Councillor Christine Marston.

 

Vote –

For – 15

Abstain – 2

Against – 0

 

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer

Recommendations, as detailed within the report and supplementary papers with the inclusion of the additional boundary wall condition as proposed by Councillor Scott.