PENARTH NEIGHBOURS GO HEAD-TO-HEAD IN HOME EXTENSION CLASH

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 came up before the Vale of Glamorgan planning committee last night

A classic clash between next-door neighbours in  Penarth came before the Vale of Glamorgan planning committee last night as two householders argued their case for and against a proposed home-extension scheme at  No 10 Knowbury Avenue.

The planning application had already come before Penarth Town council’s planning committee which had recommended rejection of the scheme – but what was said to be a modified proposal was then submitted – and had been  “called-in” by Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) to be considered by the full Vale planning committee.

The proposed rear extension and the side elevatoon of 10 Knowbuiry Avenue. Neighbours in No 8 Knowbury Avenue said the enlarged side of No 10 would be oppressive and overbearing and would adversely affect their property

The proposed rear extension and the side elevaton proposed for 10 Knowbury Avenue. Neighbours in No 8 Knowbury Avenue said the enlarged side of No 10 would be oppressive and overbearing and would adversely affect their property

The plan involves building a two storey side and rear extension, applying timber cladding to the front gable, installing a “raised deck area” above existing ground level on the rear lawn with a 1.6 metre high “privacy screen” either end of the raised deck.

Planning chief  Marcus Goldsworthy said the original plans (which had been recommended for refusal by Penarth Town Council) had been “amended following some discussions between the planning officer and the applicant to ensure that the impact on the neighbouring property was reduced”

However the neighbours at No.8 Knowbury Avenue , Mr and Mrs Michael Jarvis,  also objected to the amended scheme [as had Penarth Town Council] and elected to present their case in person to the Vale planning committee .

Mr and Mrs Michael Jarvis of 8 Knowbury Avenue present their objections to their neighbours planned extension

Mr and Mrs Michael Jarvis of 8 Knowbury Avenue present their objections to their neighbours’ planned extension

Mrs Jarvis said she and her husband were the neighbours most directly and most negatively affected by the proposed extension. She described the amended scheme as an “overbearing and oppressive development – completely disproportionate in scale in relation to the area of the original house “ and claimed that the “widthways extension would be detrimental to the pleasing street scene in Knowbury Avenue”.

Mr Jarvis said his dining room window faced Southwards toward the planned extension and would suffer a “significant loss of natural light”  . He conceded that the revised plans represented some improvement on the original scheme  – but his main objections were still relevant

Mrs Katie Smart spoke for her husband and daughters as the owners of No 10 Knowbury Avenue

Mrs Katie Smart spoke for her husband and daughters as the owners of No 10 Knowbury Avenue

Speaking for the development was  Mrs Katie Smart who was speaking on behalf of herself, her husband and her daughters as the owners of 10 Knowbury Avenue.

She said she had been disappointed to hear of the objections of her neighbours as “we simply want to renovate the tired and uninhabitable and delapidated house into a lovely family home for our children to grow up in.”  Mrs Smart said “It was never our intention to cause any worry or distress   to our neighbour as we intend to live here for the rest of our lives.” . To meet the concerns their architect had scaled down the plans – losing two rooms in the process and had “brought in”  the proposed boundary wall by a metre .  She said that the proposed building would be “less overbearing than most other properties in the street. “

Mrs Smart said she and her family felt the objections to the amended plan were “unreasonable and not proportionate to the building work and the final product we are proposing”. Mrs Smart said “We are not a large developer – just an average family wanting to build a modest home”.

Cllr Jeffrey James questioned whether wooding cladding obn the gable end of No 10 would fit in with the street scene

Cllr Jeffrey James questioned whether wooding cladding obn the gable end of No 10 would fit in with the street scene

Cllr Jeffrey James (Conservative Rhoose)  asked whether the wooden cladding proposed was consistent with the street scene?.  Mrs Smart said no other property in the street had wooden cladding but 8 others nearby did.  Planning chief Marcus Goldsworthy re-iterated that his officers now considered the scheme acceptable . Cllr James said he was prepared to move approval but felt the cladding was not in keeping with neighbouring properties – [additional restrictions were imposed on it].

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) encapsulated the essence of the issue - one which affects many properties in Penarth

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) encapsulated the essence of the issue – one which affects many properties in Penarth

It was Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward)  who encapsulated the essence of the issue by saying “We’ve got an established base of older people in Penarth who are living in properties that they’re satisfied with –  and we’ve got a group of residents who wish to buy and put their own stamp on these  homes with major alterations. We’ve had a classic case here tonight .”

Cllr Williams said the recommendations made by Penarth Town Council should carry far more weight than they do with the  [Vale Council] officers  because Penarth Council   represented the views of the elected representatives  – who knew what they wanted for their area. The Vale Council should, he said, give more weight to the views of Penarth Council .

Speaking of the “party-wall” issue Cllr Williams said he was sad that two neighbours had not been able to resolve their differences before coming to planning committee. A planning decision would always leave one party dissatisfied. He said his policy as a councillor had been to try to negotiate or mediate such matters “so that both parties could be happy”.

The vote was unanimously in favour of the development – with restrictions on cladding – except for Cllr Clive Williams who abstained.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . 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.

3 Responses to PENARTH NEIGHBOURS GO HEAD-TO-HEAD IN HOME EXTENSION CLASH

  1. Big Davey says:

    A tricky one this. No one wants to see a terraced house effect if all the houses in a row are allowed to ever develop. Yet if I owned this property, I would object to the soil stack on the outside of the neighbours house, see photo on left. Time change and so does building standards. I have every empathy with the owner but can also appreciate the neighbours point of view that the owner should have bought a bigger house in another street if that is what they wanted.

  2. Grey local! says:

    This type of planning dispute issue seems to be on the increase (see the recent debacle over a property in Clinton Rd) the planning dept and council should make up theor minds if they want to preserve the nature of the town or develop it perhaps to the detriment of some areas. But usually people buy a house relevant to their needs and if these change there is always the option to move

  3. Jacob says:

    I’m sure the family who lived in the house before managed with the amount of space it provided. What’s the matter with today’s families wanting to ‘extend’ all the time? Awful nouveaux mentality this ‘putting our stamp’ on things. Everyone wanting to make a house the biggest they can with the usual suspects of decking and cladding and underfloor heating and Juliet balconies and all the rest of it which will become as dated as corner baths before long. YAWN.

Comments are closed.