Raised garden and balcony at 4 Gwernifor Street, Mountain Ash

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for raised garden levels, flat roof alterations, a rear balcony, doors, retaining walls and boundary treatment.

“Retention of alteration to the existing mono-pitched roof above the two-storey rear extension to form a flat roof. The roof has been raised to align with the existing ridgeline and reaches a maximum height of approximately 5.6 metres. • Retention of alteration to the existing mono-pitched roof above the projection situated on the western side of the rear extension to form a flat roof.”

“APPLICATION NUMBER – 26/0030/FUL REPORT • Completion of a balcony to the rear of the two-storey extension, measuring approximately 5.4 metres in width and 2.25 metres in depth, with an overall height of approximately 4.6 metres including the balustrades. The balcony incorporates a diagonally projecting privacy screen positioned approximately 1 metre from the neighbouring bathroom window and extending towards the rear of the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a split-level mid-terraced house with a sloping rear garden, neighbouring terraces and staggered plot heights.

“The application site comprises a split-level, traditional, mid-terraced house, located within a residential area to the western part of Mountain Ash.”

“Neighbouring properties are of a similar style and size, and are arranged in linear terraces, but with staggered plot heights. They are located immediately to the east and west, with the nearest elevations of the properties to the opposite side of the rear lane set over 45m to the north.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The proposal was a revision to an earlier scheme, and no recent or relevant applications were recorded for the site.

“The current proposal represents a revision to an earlier scheme. The principal amendments include the relocation of the balcony privacy screen so that it is set back by 1 metre from the neighbouring bathroom window, a modest reduction in the height of the retaining walls, the introduction of additional boundary treatments, and the inclusion of a clearly defined boundary demarcation line on both the existing and proposed plans.”

“There are no recent or relevant applications on record with this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the development was considered acceptable in its appearance and effects on neighbouring privacy and amenity.

“RECOMMENDATION: GRANT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BELOW:”

“REASONS: The application is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Local Development Plan in respect of its visual impact and the impact it has upon the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring residential properties.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, drainage required further information, and no other statutory consultation responses were received.

“No objection - further information conditioned under AW10.”

“No other consultation responses have been received within the statutory period.”

Officer report

Who presented the application

The Planning and Enforcement Manager presented the application to the committee.

Members’ concerns

Members considered that the raised garden levels, retaining structures and boundary treatment would be overbearing and would cause severe overlooking and significant harm to neighbouring privacy and amenity.

“26/0030/FUL REPORT the neighbouring occupiers. It was also recognised that the raised garden levels and elevated balcony could increase opportunities for overlooking. However, the application was amended to incorporate mitigation measures, including the provision of a privacy screen and amendments to the layout of the raised garden area, including the introduction of a stepped section cut into the existing levels to reduce the apparent mass and prominence of the retaining…”

“It was therefore considered that the proposal would not result in a materially greater level of overlooking than is already experienced within the locality and that the privacy screen would provide further mitigation against direct views towards neighbouring properties. In considering the impact of the raised garden levels, retaining walls and boundary treatment, concerns regarding their height and prominence when viewed from No. Gwernifor Street, were acknowledged.”

Officer report

The committee vote

The committee refused the application contrary to the officer recommendation, while a motion to defer it failed.

“The Planning & Enforcement Manager presented the application to Committee and following consideration Members REFUSED the application contrary to the recommendation of the Director, Housing & Regeneration on the grounds that the proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing and proximity to No. Gwernifor Street, would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact and loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring property.”

“(Note: A motion to defer the application was seconded, but failed)”

Minutes