Neighbours living on either side of a terraced house – 69 Plymouth Road – are objecting to what they describe as “un-neighbourly” plans for a rear extension to the property.
The extension has been applied for by the owners of No.69 – an Victorian 5-bedroom £640,000 mid-terrace property with a long rear garden.
The neighbours who live either side of 69 Plymouth Road are objecting to the proposed extension and turned up in person to explain their concerns to Penarth Town Council’s planning committee this week.
Mrs Arthur of 71 Plymouth Road – speaking on behalf of her husband and herself – said the proposed extension to No 69 would “push out the side wall right up to our party-wall. It would increase the vertical height of that wall from 2 metres to 3.2 metres. At that height it would then create a black slate roof of up to 4 metres high.” . She said the height and proximity of the extension would make it “overbearing” and would result in serious “overshadowing – with critical light impact to our property”. Her conservatory would lose light and the “rear return” her property would “become a tunnel”.
The development plans also include raising the level of No 69’s patio “above the current garden level.” This would lead , Mrs Arthur said – “to overlooking – and loss of privacy” . She said if the application was approved it would set an “unsympathetic precedent” for the Penarth Conservation Area.
Mrs Arthur added that the plans had been submitted by their next-door neighbour without any consultation. She also thought a 5-metre holly tree in the garden of No 69 would be lost in the construction.
The other neighbour – Mr Clark – also outlined his objections and those of his wife . The plan to increase the height of the patio by 1ft 4in would – he said – enable any adult to look down into his garden. He too said the owner of No 69 had not consulted him or his wife about the plans. These plans – he said – seemed to have been “developed and submitted with neither thought nor care as to the impact on neighbours”.
Mr Clark called the proposals “a gross, overwhelming development which would result in a significant change of character” [of the property]. He said failure to protect “a house such as this from the kind of gross overdevelopment planned, would make the Conservation Area status meaningless and eventually pointless”.
Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said this application had major implications because all the houses were in a terrace . The back part of each house had to have “an area in between to allow the light” and the original Victorian builders had known this. Cllr Williams said he would be calling for a “site-visit” by the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s planning committee so that councillors would see for themselves what the implications of the proposed development would be for next-door neighbours .
Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward) thanked the objectors for their presentations and said the application should not receive the approval of the Penarth Council’s planning committee. The proposal was “ugly in size and appearance, is out of character with existing Victorian properties and is unsympathetic”. He stressed the importance of retaining the character of the dwelling – and of those surrounding it.
The chairman Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) noted that “‘ugliness” was not considered to be a planning matter – to which Cllr Ernest responded that this was “a fair point”.
Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said he wanted to get on his particular hobby-horse about “building on boundaries again”. It would be “un-neighbourly” and “is going to cause tremendous problems in the construction phase – assuming planning permission is given. From that point of view it’s just wrong” – he said .
Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell) had picked up on Mrs Arthur’s concerns about the potential loss of the holly tree in the rear garden. Its loss would be “a disappointment”. Cllr Wilson said one of the problem in Penarth was that “It’s very difficult to move really-really upmarket without spending an absolute fortune – and therefore a lot of people are doing these internal developments.” He thought it was a disappointment that the applicant had submitted the plans. It was an overbearing and overdeveloped application and he supported its rejection.
Cllr Gwyn Roberts (Labour St Augustine’s) said it was important the committee put its objection “in valid planning terms as far as possible” . There were two elements he disliked – one was the extension itself and the other was the “strange” raised terrace – with consequential “gross invasion of privacy” . He thought the committee should object on the grounds of un-neighbourliness, overbearing development, effect on light and privacy of next-door neighbours and the effect on the symmetry of listed buildings within a Conservation Area. He also thought the tree – if 40 years old – could be made the subject of a Tree Preservation Order .
Deputy chair of planning Cllr Mike Cuddy (Labour St Augustine’s) suggested that the criterion that developments should “preserve or enhance” the Conservation Area could also be included in the committee’s formal recommendation to the Vale of Glamorgan Council .
The planning appliction will next be considered in a meeting of the full Vale of Glamorgan planning committee at which the couples living either side of the proposed development will have a opportunity to address Vale councillors – as will the applicants , Mr and Mrs Mulaney.