NEIGHBOURS LOSE PLYMOUTH ROAD CONSERVATION AREA BATTLE

The proposed extension would be at the rear of this terraced Plymouth Road property- but neighbours on either side objected

The proposed extension at the rear of this terraced Plymouth Road property prompted objections from the neighbours living on either side

Neighbours living on either side of a 5-bedroomed £640,000 terraced  house (at 69 Plymouth Road)  have lost their battle against plans to build a rear extension to that property – and objections by Penarth Town Council’s planning committee have been over-ruled.    

The two pairs of next-door neighbours had both objected to what they had described as  “un-neighbourly” plans for a single storey rear “wrap-around” extension the rear of  No 69 which would “fill in ” the gap between the gable annexe at the rear of the property and the side boundary.

The contentious application had already come before Penarth Town Council who had recommended refusal . However Vale of Glamorgan planning officers decided to recommend approval of the scheme. It was then “called-in” for consideration by the full Vale of Glamorgan planning committee by Cllr Maureen Kelly Owen (Conservative Plymouth Ward)  .

Neighbour Mrs Elspeth Clark was one of the objectors who addressed the planning committee

Neighbour Mrs Elspeth Clark was one of the objectors who addressed the planning committee

The neighbours attended the planning committee meeting in person to voice their concerns.

Mrs Elspeth Clark said she and her  husband objected to the application on the grounds of loss of privacy and amenity specifically relating to raising the height of the current patio of No 69 by 1ft 4inches – so that “any adult standing on it” would be able to look down into her garden with “a significant impact” on their privacy.

Mrs Clark  said It is very dismaying that this application was made to the council without any consultation with us”. The plans – she said– “had been submitted with neither thought nor care of the impact on the neighbours”.   On “conservation grounds”  Mrs Clark said the scheme was a “gross overwhelming development which would result in a significant change character “ .The extension would cover the whole width of the garden and would be  “completely out of sympathy with the original Victorian architecture”.

Dr Andrew Grant represented Mr and Mrs

Dr Andrew Grant represented Mr and Mrs Arthur

Dr Andrew Grant – speaking for the other neighbours (Mr and Mrs Arthur of  71 Plymouth Road) – said the proposed extension was “overdeveloped, overbearing and  overshadowing with significant impact on light and amenity”. The side wall of No. 69 would now be up against the party-wall of 71 and the hight of the wall increased to 3.2 metres with above it a black slate roof rising to 4 metres.  Dr Grant said the light levels in the kitchen and dining room of no 69 – which were “already marginal” would lose reflected light and would need “all-year-round electric lighting”.

Dr Grant said the “outside return” of No. 71 [a rear feature of most terraced Victorian houses] provided “space and light” . If the scheme was approved it would set an “unsympathetic precedent”  for the Penarth Conservation Area .

The applicant Mr Peter Mulaney

The applicant Mr Peter Mulaney

Next to speak was Peter Mulaney – the owner of No 69 Plymouth Road – whose application this was. He proposed a concession  – a modification to the submitted plans which would retain the “status quo” and maintain his patio at its existing height.   He denied that the roof of his proposed extension would affect the light for No 67 Plymouth Road, which would be 6 feet away from the party fence wall.

Mr Mulaney admitted the plans would increase the “footprint of the property” but pointed out that because the extension would be at the rear  – this would not be visible from Plymouth Road or from Sully Terrace Lane because of existing fencing and outbuildings. He acknowledged that a small section of the party-wall with No 67 would be exposed to the elements but he would ensure the wall was “weatherproofed”  .

Mr Mulaney said that since moving to Penarth he and his wife had tried to foster good relations with the neighbours and “had complied with all the issues they have raised on both sides promptly and in good faith. We have not questioned any terms they have required of us – financial or otherwise even when they have been inconvenient to us, or have presented financial challenges at unexpected times”.  

As No 71 Plymouth Road was situated South of No 69  there would – he said – be “no change in the direct sunlight available to the rear of the property”.

69 Plymouth Road

69 Plymouth Road

Planning Officer Victoria Robinson pointed out that the application site (i.e. No. 69 Plymouth Road) is to the North of No. 71 and therefore  would would not take any direct sunlight from that property. The officers considered that there were “no significant harmful effects to either neighbour to  either side”. 

The planning application for No.69 Plymouth Road was voted through by the committee .

 

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.

8 Responses to NEIGHBOURS LOSE PLYMOUTH ROAD CONSERVATION AREA BATTLE

  1. Mark Foster says:

    Good God!

    All you people care about is your pathetic, rain-soaked, primitive suburban life styles. You should be forcibly ethnically cleansed to suburbs like Grangetown, Canton, Roath and Splott or cities like Malmo to replace your compatriots who have suffered fates far worse at the hands of Zionist globalists.

    Look you boyo, “raising the height of the current patio of No 69 by 1ft 4inches – so that “any adult standing on it” would be able to look down into her garden with “a significant impact” on their privacy.” Indeed!

    • Harry says:

      Apologies for not matching your superior way of looking at things.

    • Chris David says:

      God? Really- you’re a believer, explains a bit. Anyway you upgraded yourself to Cosmeston so why haven’t you moved back to Riverside? Oh let me guess…no may get arrested 🙂

  2. Sam says:

    Meanwhile in Aleppo…

  3. Gareth says:

    I feel a ‘For Sale’ sign coming on.

  4. Ron foxton says:

    Can I come round and look over the wall from the 1’4″ raised patio? I’m intrigued as to what my ‘significant impact’ on your neighbours privacy might discover… I’m betting on Trump sympathisers but would be happy with urban nudism or perhaps just ornamental koi carp botherers?

    • Tom says:

      Perhaps you’ll find people who value their privacy and abhor the current chav trend for “extending” all the time. I imagine you’re just the kind of person they were hoping to avoid.

      • Ron (loadsamoneeeee) Foxton says:

        Then I promise only to stare in their direction for the briefest of 20min shifts at any one time. Wearing my Versace shellsuit (natch) and largin’ it with my gauche, moneyed mates as we plan our next triple bifolding palatial glass extension. Come over for an expensive trappist ‘blonde’ and bring the wife, the jacuzzis lovely…

Comments are closed.