Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing external store, alterations to existing main house and part single storey, part two store extension to side and rear.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse the application on grounds of overdevelopment

It was noted that late observations had been received

The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that it was an application to renovate and extend an existing house. It was reported that the new development would increase the number of bedrooms from three to four, which would increase the size of the downstairs living space.

The property was located on the slopes of Mynydd Nefyn at the top of a private road (which was partly a public footpath) which led to the unclassified road of Bryn Glas. The site was located in open countryside, approximately 340m to the east of the development boundary of Nefyn Local Service Centre, and 50m outside the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

This application had been discussed at the Planning Committee on 02/03/2020 when a decision on the application was deferred in order to arrange a site visit and to allow the submission of a protected species report. A Survey of Protected Species report was received on 29 May 2020.

Additional photographs and a video were shown as it had not been possible to hold a site visit due to the Covid-19 restrictions.

It was noted that late observations had been received (but not included on the late observations form) from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, concerned that the scale and design of the extension would create an alien feature in the landscape. It was added that observations had also been received from the AONB officer (not included in the report), expressing concern about the scale of the side extensions, the large windows and their impact on the AONB.

It was reported that the newly designed house would be substantially larger than the existing house, and the internal floor surface area would more than double. Having said this, there would be no increase in the building's height, and it was believed that the new design submitted was of a high quality and that the use of stone, glass and slate was appropriate for the location. It was acknowledged that opinions regarding the design were ‘subjective’. 

The property was in an open location on the hill slope, and therefore it was visible to the public from the nearby highway and other public areas. Whilst appreciative of the concern regarding the sensitivity of the landscape in this area, officers did not consider that the extensions as they had been designed would have a significantly detrimental impact on the quality of the landscape, and it was not considered that the proposal would impact the setting of the AONB, or the views out of it, in a detrimental manner.

            Attention was drawn to observations that had been received in relation to an over-provision of holiday units in the area, but it was highlighted that this was an application for a house, and not for holiday accommodation. It was also acknowledged that the visual impact was a cause for concern, and that design matters could be contentious; however the officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7