First-floor extension at Pentwyn Road, Resolven

What was proposed

The application sought a first-floor extension above the existing single-storey part of the dwelling, with changes to the roof structure.

“Planning consent is sought for the construction of a first-floor extension.”

“The extension will be built above the existing single storey element of the host dwelling, incorporating a change to the roof structure to provide hip-to-gable elements also.”

Officer report

The site

The detached dwelling is isolated within a wooded area, with a generous garden, detached garage and location outside settlement limits in open countryside.

“The application site comprises a detached dwelling, located in Resolven, sited on the lane between Waterfall Road, Neath Road and Pentwyn Road. The property is located in relative isolation within a densely wooded area, benefiting from a generous curtilage and rear garden area, and a detached garage.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered a residential extension and garage in 1982, followed by a pitched roof on the rear extension and garage in 1995.

“N1982/0217: Residential extension and garage. Application approved on 7 th…”

“N1995/0389: Pitched roof on rear extension and garage. Application approved on 18 th September 1995.”

Officer report

Why officers objected

The altered roof, increased scale and massing, and cumulative extensions were considered contrary to design and countryside extension policies.

“The proposed first-floor extension totally alters the roof design of the host dwelling, transforming it from a hipped to a gable-ended roof, distorting the massing and overall character and appearance of the host dwelling, whilst also contributing towards increasing the overall scale and massing of the dwelling.”

“This is further exacerbated by the construction of the first-floor extension above the existing single storey element, which in itself was an extension to the original dwelling. This results in the creation of a large two-storey, gable ended dwelling, losing the integrity and design of the original property.”

Officer report

Consultation and responses

The community council made no comments, and no representations were received after the site notice was displayed.

“A site notice was placed adjacent to the application site on 21 st October 2025.”

“In response, to date, no representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The local ward member was due to speak in favour of the application.

Members’ view

Members considered the dwelling isolated from any particular streetscene or character and did not consider the extension excessively large or massive.

“The Planning Committee felt the host dwelling was situated in an isolated location, and as such did not form part of any particular streetscene or character. Members also felt that the proposed extension would not give rise to excessive scale and massing of the property.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted against the officers’ recommendation for refusal and then voted in favour of approving the application.

“The Committee voted against the Officers recommendation for Refusal, as detailed within the circulated report. A further vote was taken whereby the Committee voted in favour of Approving Application No:”

Minutes