Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillors Alan Slade and Chris Tew.
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 20th November 2024 were confirmed as a true and accurate record.
4.1 The Chair informed the Committee that this item would not be considered at this meeting.
5.1 The Senior Planner presented the report to Members in detail and displayed photographs and plans of the site. 5.2 The Chair informed Members that there were third party speakers who wished to speak in relation to the application and invited the first speaker Mr Andrew Ayles to address the committee. 5.3 Mr Andrew Ayles, Planning Agent speaking on behalf of the objector raised the following points: · He wished to make a strong objection on behalf of his client who resided at 6 Caernarvon Crecent which neighboured the property. · He wanted to draw Members attention to key local development plan policies which were pertinent to the development. · Policy BW1 of the Local Development Plan required good design in development which was sensitive to the immediate and wider setting. The policy was clear that poor and insensitive design could have a negative visual impact and could affect neighbouring properties. · Chapter 5 of Torfaen’s House Extension and Alterations Supplementary Guidance contained clear advice as to householder proposals and the potential impacts on neighbouring properties. Extensions that created an unacceptable sense of enclosure or appear overbearing when viewing from a neighbouring property or garden would not be permitted. Extensions should not cause any significant loss of daylight or sunlight to habitable rooms or gardens. Rear extensions should not detract from the character of the existing dwelling. Oversized extensions could cause significant disruption to the balance of the building and harm its character and appearance of the general street scene. Extensions should sit comfortably in the context of the existing dwelling and area. The overall shape, size and position of extensions should not dominate the existing house or its neighbours and should harmonise with the original appearance. Development which would result in significant reduction of an existing important space or gap between neighbouring properties was not acceptable. · Having established the policy context to Committee he wanted to focus on the concerns in relation to the applicant’s proposal. · He pointed out that the rear extension of the property was greater than half the width of the original building and a combination of roof height and the depth of the extension at short distance of the shared boundary with 6 Caernarvon Close and would have an imposing impact. · 3 The Pastures was at a higher ground level to the homes on Caernarvon Close and the positioning of the proposed extension so close to the shared boundary would have a detrimental impact on the outlook enjoyed from the neighbour’s home. · His client enjoyed the use of her garden which was a quiet haven, and the proposed plans showed that the extension would have a music room. The music room which would be located at a short distance from his client’s property would impact on their tranquil setting. There was no technical information or justification for the music room, or any sound proofing measures proposed. · The existing property already had a window overlooking the rear garden of his client’s property and they were concerned that if an additional windows were added at a later date to the rear extension, it would overlook the clients property and affect their privacy. He requested that if Members did support the application, which he hoped that they would not, that permitted development rights allowing any windows in the side or rear elevation be removed. · In light of the concerns highlighted he invited Planning Committee to defer the application to enable a planning site visit to be undertaken so that Members could view the site from the rear garden of 6 Caernarvon Close so that they could appreciate the impact the two-storey extension would have on his client. 5.4 Mr Ashley Vowles, Applicant addressed the Committee and made the following comments: · He thanked Planning Committee for the opportunity to address them today. · He stated that his parents bought the property in 1970 and it was his family home. · He wanted to make the proposed changes to the property so that he could enjoy the property in his retirement. · The objector raised concerns regarding the proposal for a music room, however the property already had a music room, which was a dining room with a piano in. He used to play the piano regularly and had never received complaints by neighbours. · He had employed the same architect that had carried out the plans on all the other extensions in the street in order that the design would reflect the surrounding area. If the proposal was accepted, it would be the fifth extension on the street. · The proposal would not result in the loss of sunlight to the neighbour’s property, which had been confirmed by the Planning Officer. · The adjoining hedge between his property and 6 Caernarvon Crecent caused a shadow and loss of light on his property. · A biodiversity survey had been undertaken and as part of the development it was proposed to plant trees, erect bat boxes and he would be making the property as eco-friendly as possible by rainwater harvesting and possibly installing solar panels. · There were two hedges on the boundary of his property and 6 Caernarvon Cresent one that he maintained and one that the complainant maintained. For extra privacy his neighbours at number 6 could grow their hedge higher. · The neighbour raised concerns regarding the installation of additional windows in the future, he had no plans to do this. · Mr Ayles invited Members to carry out a site visit, however the Planning Officers had already visited the property on a number of occasions. · He gave thanks to the Planner for his advice. · He had worked with the architect to make the proposal fit in with the surrounding area. 5.5 Members asked a number of questions, and the following responses were given by Officers: · There were at least four properties on the road that had front extensions and approximately two other properties that had rear extensions. · The complainant’s property was located to the South, and the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, so the proposal would not cause any loss of light. · There would be no shadowing to the complainant’s property from the development. · There were Velux windows proposed in the bedroom and ensuite, but they were for light and it would be difficult to see out of them due to the angle. · A bat survey had been submitted with the application. The proposal included the installation of bat tubes, bird boxes and additional planting. The Council’s Ecologist was satisfied with the ecological mitigation proposed. · There was sufficient parking on the drive for three cars. 5.6 After considering the report, photos and plans Members felt that the extension was not out of keeping with the area and it was not necessary for a site visit. 5.7 Members unanimously agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report. 5.8 The Chair wished everyone a Happy Christmas and a peaceful 2025.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.