Agenda item

Erection of a new residential dwelling

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eirwyn Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

To defer in order to hold further discussions with the applicant regarding alternative materials for the roof and external walls

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