A FAMILY’S plan to build an annexe for an older relative at their home has been approved at the second attempt.
In May, Newport City Council planning officers originally recommended the application, next to a converted barn in Bishton, should be refused.
They argued the development would be a “prominent” and “bulky” addition to the rural setting.
But councillors on the planning committee were sympathetic to applicant Sinead Johnson’s plans, which she said would allow her mother to move closer to her family while maintaining some independence.
The committee met on Wednesday to reconsider the application, and while officers stuck with their original recommendation to refuse planning permission, they also proposed some conditions as a compromise – in case councillors were minded to overrule them.
Ms Johnson spoke of her “appreciation for how thoughtful the committee has engaged with our application”, and said her family would “fully support” the officers’ “reasonable and proportionate” planning conditions.
She explained that her mother was currently living in Pembrokeshire but would be able to move to Bishton and live in a “safe, adapted space” that was “carefully designed to meet her medical needs”.
Case officer Grant Hawkins said council planners still considered the proposed development would “erode the simple form” of the existing barn, and be an “incongruous addition to the property”.
Senior planning officer Andrew Ferguson said the department’s recommendation “remains the same” but told councillors they had the power to go against that advice.
Cllr Trevor Watkins questioned officers’ claims the new buildings would be “unsympathetic” to the site.
Cllr Stephen Cocks urged caution when going against planners’ recommendations, however, given the site’s proximity to the Gwent Levels.
“Is this a one off?” he asked, adding: “We are not talking about an adaptation, we are talking about putting up a building that’s maybe there for 200 or 300 years.”
Mr Hawkins said the application site was within the urban boundary, but “very much on the periphery” – and any development on the Levels would be subject to stricter planning controls.
A majority of committee members voted for an alternative recommendation, granting planning permission for the development, subject to several conditions.
