Erection of a new
residential dwelling
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eirwyn Williams
Decision:
To defer in order to hold further discussions with the applicant regarding alternative materials for the roof and external walls
Minutes:
Attention was drawn to the
late observations form.
a) The
Planning Manager highlighted that the application related to constructing a new
house and creating a vehicular access off the estate road. It was explained that the site was located within Cricieth village's development boundary; on a narrow plot
within an estate of various houses on a slope that elevated towards the back of
the site, and was situated between two properties with another property
directly in front and opposite a narrow estate road. It was reiterated that the
application had been subject to several planning applications and an appeal -
six planning applications had been refused on the site in the past and
permission granted on the site via an appeal on grounds of the plans submitted
as part of application C08D/0870/35/LL, and it was confirmed that this
permission was still extant on the site.
The
application had been submitted to the Committee at the
Local Member’s request.
It
was reported that the report dealt with the matters raised in the previous
appeals; and assessed the proposal against the latest Local Development Plan
policies. It
was noted that appeal decisions (refusal and approval)
for the site had clearly stated that there was potential for a two-storey
property on the site to cause overlooking and an unacceptable impact on the
nearby residents on either side and to the front. The appeal decisions depended on the window
locations and floor levels to ensure that there was no adverse impact on nearby
housing.
It
was explained that the house in question was now 4m
wider and 1m longer than the property that had been approved. It was noted that
the property had been designed with an angle on the front in order that all the elevation did not look out in the same direction (to
seek to avoid overlooking). Therefore, the dwelling under consideration now was
slightly lower in terms of its roof ridge and also
wider and comprised of more openings on the first floor as opposed to the
original permission. It was considered that the
reduction in height did not compensate for the detrimental impact of increasing
its width and adding openings on the first floor. It was
considered that the proposal would have a significantly more detrimental
impact on the property of Pen y Bryn situated directly in front of the site,
than what had been mentioned as acceptable during the 2011 appeal. It was also considered that the size of the property
(specifically its width and bulk) meant that the property was not in keeping
with the estate's building pattern and design.
It was noted that transportation, access and drainage matters
were acceptable.
Based on the above assessment, it was considered that
the proposal was unacceptable as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) considered
that the house in question, due to its size (specifically its height and
width), the location of windows/doors and balconies on the front elevation and
the finished floor levels would have a significant detrimental impact on the
amenities and reasonable privacy of the property situated in front of the site.
It
was recommended to refuse the application for the
reasons included in the late observations form that had been amended to include
external materials / finish.
b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following points:
Drone footage was used to demonstrate the impact of
overlooking from the location of the new house.
·
That officers, having seen the evidence,
had agreed that the "documents demonstrate that the overlooking from the
balcony window would be the same as that approved on appeal".
·
Appeal decision observations - "I do
not consider that it will be possible to see the higher section of the proposed
dwelling as damaging within policy terms. It is the inter-visibility between
the main windows that is of potential concern."
·
It would not be possible to see the
windows of the proposal from the opposite house, unless the owner intended to sunbathe
on the roof.
·
To compare overlooking with the next door house, Hafan Deg, the difference was like night and day.
·
There were no windows on the side of the
house. The balcony was enclosed, in order to be able
to look outwards only.
·
The 'house' that had been approved was a
two-storey house that measured 180 square metres. The application in question
was a two-storey house, measuring 177 square metres, and was therefore smaller
than the one that had already been agreed.
·
The pattern on the estate was contrary to
the officers' comments as the majority of the houses
were located close to one, two or three boundaries on their land.
·
There was an element of overlooking on the
estate. Each house was unique in terms of its shape, size and form with window
sizes, the number of balconies, conservatories and patios ranging on the
estate.
·
The reasons
for refusal were not only misleading, but were also incorrect - this was an improvement on what had been approved on appeal.
·
That the house was SMALLER than what had been permitted.
·
That the house was set FURTHER BACK than
what had been permitted.
·
That the house was LOWER than what had been permitted.
·
That the house's location on the plot
COINCIDED with the pattern on the estate.
·
That every house on the estate was
different.
·
The house did not cause overlooking.
·
A young family returning to Cricieth to settle down.
c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
Local Member made the following points:
·
That he
agreed with the decision of the Town/Community Council
·
He was
supportive of the application
·
No objection
ch) Proposed and seconded to approve the
application contrary to the recommendation
d) During the ensuing discussion, the
following observations were made by members:
·
That the estate consisted of a mix of architectural
designs
·
The style of housing in Cricieth
was not uniform
·
The surface-area of the amended plan was smaller
·
It was intended to dig into the ground to avoid an
intrusive appearance
·
The balcony was enclosed therefore no impact on adjacent
housing
·
Happy with the layout and size of the development
·
Concern regarding external materials
·
No objection to the scheme, but sought to improve its
appearance
dd) An
amendment to the proposal was proposed and seconded - to defer the decision in
order to hold further discussions with the applicant on alternative
materials.
In response to the proposal to hold further
discussions with the applicant, the Planning Manager noted that it would be
possible to consider this and suggested using slate for the roof
which would be more in keeping with its environment.
RESOLVED:
To defer in order to hold further discussions with the applicant
regarding alternative materials for the roof and external walls
Supporting documents: