A large extension proposed for the right hand side and the rear of No. 10 Knowbury Avenue was recommended for refusal because it was judged to be "unneighbourly"

A large extension proposed for the right hand side and the rear of No. 10 Knowbury Avenue was recommended for refusal because it was judged to be “unneighbourly”

The next-door neighbours of a house in Knowbury Avenue – which the owners want to turn from a 2-bedroomed dwelling into a 5-bedroom house –  last night attended Penarth Town Council’s planning committee meeting in person to convince councillors to oppose the scheme.

Councillors were considering an application by the owner of 10 Knowbury Avenue to build a two-storey side and rear extension to the existing two-bedroomed dwelling, plus an entrance porch , new raised deck, and various other features.

Town Clerk Emma Smith whose planning minutes were queried by Conservative councillors

Town Clerk Emma Smith

The Town Clerk Emma Boyden  reported to councillors that the scheme involved extending the property right up to its boundary with the house next door – No 8 Knowbury Avenue, which is the home of Mr and Mrs Jarvis, the couple who had asked for permission to address the planning committee.

Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) chairman of Penarth planning committee

Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) chairman of Penarth planning committee

Planning Committee chairman Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) noted that the “the proposed extension is considerably bigger than the original property” and invited Mr and Mrs Jarvis to address the committee.

Mrs Jarvis said the objections that she and her husband had to their neighbour’s proposed extension were that it was “unsympathetic in appearance to adjacent properties,  it is visually oppressive and overbearing, and it shows a total disregard of construction requirements”.

Mrs Jarvis told the committee that there were 24 houses in Knowbury Avenue, many of which had been extended – but in most cases this had been done at the rear of the properties. The width of the original frontages had been left unchanged .

The proposed extension to No 10 Knowbury Avenue would be on the right of the building - and to the rear

The proposed extension to No 10 Knowbury Avenue would be on the right of the building – and to the rear

She said if the plan went ahead her home would be uniquely affected by having a  large two-storey side extension and a large two-storey rear extension erected in very close proximity to it .

Mrs Jarvis also pointed out that as No.10 was on a higher ground level than No.8 and therefore the proposed extensions would “present an oppressive and overbearing structure”.

Also, because the Jarvis’s dining room window faces south, the proposed extension would also “involve a significant loss of natural light”. She said she and her husband would be “the neighbours most negatively affected by the current application”.

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

In the ensuing discussion Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said  “From a planning point of view I always get upset when people build right up to the boundary”. He said the development was “crazy” . Knowbury Avenue was “a row of detached houses and they should stay like that”  .

Cllr Neil Thomas said the applicants would be “more than doubling the footprint of their property”.

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said that “as the ward councillor – at this moment anyway “ [an allusion to his controversial “deselection” as Vale Councillor by the Penarth Conservative Association]. Cllr Williams said he had looked at this property with neighbours and considered that the proposed front porch, replacement windows and the rear extension were acceptable but that the “two storey extensions at the side would leave a tall wall which would be extremely close to No.8 and would be extremely offensive”. Cllr Williams said that he would “bite the bullet straight away” , would recommend refusal and that he intended to “call in” the application for consideration by the full Vale of Glamorgan planning committee.

Cllr Gwyn Roberts (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Gwyn Roberts (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Gwyn Roberts (Labour St Augustines) noted that the extension of No.10 Knowbury Avenue would be directly south of No.8 – meaning that “for a large part of the year  [No 8] would be in permanent shade”.  He said the committee should not support the application because of the interruption to natural light  .

Cllr Anthony Ernest, Conservative Plymouth Ward

Cllr Anthony Ernest, Conservative Plymouth Ward

Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said the application would be  “a gross overdevelopment – the built structure would be doubled in size”  . He said the practice of building up to the boundary wall “causes untold problems”.  He seconded Cllr Williams’s motion to recommend refusal of the application.

Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines) said he hoped the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s planning officer would take due note of the research which had been done on “substrates” because the development “could render the existing structures unsafe and could put both buildings at risk” .

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell)

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell)

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell) said one of the elements discussed had been the “right to light” which was what he described as a “tort of nuisance”. There was a 25-year time limit on that and it was a matter of civil law and not planning.  Cllr Wilson also raised the other issue – whether or not the proposed development was “neighbourly” – and said he did not think that it was and he would recommend opposing the application on the grounds that “it’s a unneighbourly development and it’s not consistent with the street scene” . 

Winding up the discussion Cllr Neil Thomas said the committee would recommend refusal of the application. The final decision will be made by the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Ivor Bagman says:

    I’ll never forget
    The development
    On a pair of houses
    In Albert Crescent .

  2. John says:

    It’s one thing to build up to the boundary, but quite another to the built two storeys straight up. No wonder the neighbour objected.

  3. Joe blow says:

    Two bedroom? Shome mishtake surely?

    • NewsNet says:

      That was the description of the property read out by the Town Clerk in last night’s planning committee meeting

    • Bobby says:

      Yep, existing house layout on the planning portal shows 2 bedrooms. (I was bored ok)

    • e roberts says:

      We used to live in Caynham Avenue backing on to the Jarvis’s property and I can’t imagine that there are any two bedroomed properties in Knowbury Avenue. The propsed extension sounds horrendous.

  4. Ella says:

    Our neighbour put up a two storey extension, the council wouldn’t accept “loss of natural light” as a reason to refuse planning. We enjoyed the skyline & sun while we had it.

  5. Colin Davies says:

    Code for “we don’t want the improvements to this house to make the rest of the houses on the street look rubbish” I put up a two story side extension on my property approved by the Vale without any issues as did my neighbour on the next street over…

  6. I don’t understand the objections brought forward, haven’t a number of houses been allowed to extend. This plan looks to improve the property and the area it is in, taking a 2 bed and bringing a very well presented family home. It’s a sympathetically designed detached property.

  7. C Hooper says:

    Looks like a perfectly legitimate application to me bearing in mind that others in the locality have carried out similar development in the recent past. Fact. Opinion live and let live

  8. Sam Cooper says:

    Were the owners of number 10 invited to this seemingly biased meeting? I highly doubt it. The property needs a significant amount of work in order to be in keeping with all the other 3-5 bedroom extended properties on the street.

  9. c morgan says:

    It seems to me that this is about a small respectable hard working family who desperately want to improve what is currently an old fashioned and tired looking house into a fabulous family home. I have no doubt that there are other properties in the street which have been developed according to the owners needs without the fuss and upset that this process with undoubtedly cause. Some people who have been around a while dislike change and improvement but this should not hinder the young who have vision for the future after all they are future. Ofcourse the process would need to be monitored and planned according to necessary guidelines. I understand neighbours having reservations at first but this over the top reaction is ridiculous !

  10. R Thomas says:

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with the plans. This is clearly a family home to be lived in by a local family. I agree with the comments above the council meeting was clearly biased. I’d like to understand if any of the councillors had any type of links with the neighbours? In addition, has anyone considered the new large detached property been built in the garden of a property literally around the corner. I’d welcome an explanation from the council how this is different and indeed acceptable.

  11. Margaret says:

    There are already several similarly extended houses on Knowbury avenue and Caynham Avenue which fit in well with the street scene. However the new build house in a garden on Stanton way is very big and does not fit in well with the neighbouring houses but was given approval.

  12. B Looper says:

    There seems to be an unusually large number of comments above from different people supporting this application when the usual tone on this site could be described as a little more on the negative side, particularly when it comes to someone wanting to extend their property, which makes me wonder if they are from the same person. Not a criticism, just an observation.

    • M Francis says:

      Perhaps the commentators are just fed up with the not in my back yard lot. It is ironic that Neil Thomas the chairman of the planning committee doubled the footprint of his own house a few years ago with little regard for the neighbour. I know because I was one. Blatant cronyism at the meeting I think

Comments are closed.