The Vale of Glamorgan Council has recently made decisions on four planning applications for the Penarth area.

See the decisions made by the council between Monday, November 18, and Sunday, November 24.

Front garden excavation and driveway

An application to excavate the front garden at 150 Redlands Road, providing a driveway for off-road parking, has been approved.

The work must begin within five years and be aligned with the approved plans.

The walls are to be constructed from red facing brick.

Biodiversity enhancements must be completed before the development's first use and retained while the development exists.

Proposed pitched roof tile replacement

An application to replace the pitched roof tiles with a flat grey concrete or similar tile at 45 Althorp Drive has been approved.

The work must start within five years and adhere to the approved plans.

Biodiversity enhancement measures outlined in the Green Infrastructure Statement must be implemented before the development's first use and retained throughout the development's existence.

Extension to school building

An application for a single-storey extension to the existing school building at St Cyres School on Sully Road, designed to accommodate a physical and medical resource base, has been approved.

The work must commence within five years and follow the approved plans.

Biodiversity enhancement measures detailed in the plan and the Green Infrastructure Statement must be completed before the development's first use and maintained while the development exists.

Garage work

An application for repairs to a redundant garage, converting it to provide amenity space, a home office, and a guest bedroom for flat 2A at 15 Marine Parade, has been refused.

The council stated: "By reason that the proposed converted garage is considered to form part of a separate planning unit and does not fall within the residential curtilage of the flat, the authority would have no ability to control the converted garage to be used ancillary to the dwelling by means of a condition, leading to the potential that the building could be used as a separate residential unit, independent of the flat.

"Furthermore, given that the building is considered a separate residential unit, given the lack of any private amenity space or evidence that there is access to shared amenity space, the proposal is considered unacceptable on the living standards of future occupants.

"The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy MD2 (Design of New Development) and also the advice set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential and Householder Development."