A FAMILY’S hopes of building an annexe for an unwell relative have been bolstered by councillors sympathetic to their situation.
Newport City Council planning officers had opposed plans for the annexe, storage space, and home working area next to a converted barn in Bishton.
They said the location, size and design of the development at Ridings View would be a “prominent” and “bulky” addition to the property.
It would also have a “detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing barn conversion and the wider complex”.
Speaking at a council planning committee meeting, on Wednesday June 4, applicant Sinead Johnson defended the plans.
She said the annexe project was “deeply personal” and would “allow my mother to remain close to her family”.
The proposals had been “carefully considered and designed to meet her needs” and are “in no way excessive”, Ms Johnson added
She suggested it was “misleading” to portray the wider site as “untouched countryside”, and claimed the council had taken a more “robust” stance on her plans when compared to other developments in the area.
“This feels like a two-tier and inconsistent approach to planning,” she alleged.
Ms Johnson also said the annexe would be smaller than the council’s sizing rules for a one-bedroom flat.
But case officer Grant Hawkins disputed that claim, telling the committee the overall footprint of the proposed development would be a 43% increase of the property’s current size.
He said the existing barn conversion was “simple and understated” in appearance, and claimed the proposed additions were “overtly contemporary” and would be “incongruous”.
However, several members of the committee questioned the officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission.
Cllr Will Routley favoured approving the project, and told colleagues the annexe “isn’t just an arbitrary extension” and “serves a vital purpose”.
Cllr Mark Howells suggested that if planning permission was granted, a condition should be included to ensure the annexe remained “ancillary” to the main home and would not be sold off as a separate property in future.
Senior planning officer Andrew Ferguson said his department would “need to consider several conditions” and would come back to the committee at a future meeting with suggestions.
The committee rejected the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission, and will reconvene to reconsider the matter.
