Issue - meetings

Application to vary conditions 2 and 21 of planning permission C19/0014/19/LL in order to reposition plots 14 and 29 and reposition garage of plot 17, reduce slab level of plots 18 and 26 and remove part of footpath to the hammerhead

LOCAL MEMBER; Councillor Peter Garlick

Link to relevant background documents

To approve the application subject to the following conditions:

1.      Time

2.      Comply with relevant plans and all the reports

3.      Materials/slate - details in accordance with what was agreed under C19/0994/19/AC

4.      Landscaping and site boundaries - details in accordance with what was agreed under C19/0994/19/AC, C19/1082/19/RA and C20/0226/19/RA

5.      Highways CEMP - details in accordance with what was agreed under C19/0994/19/AC

6.      Drainage

7.      Biodiversity and controlling environmental impacts -  details in accordance with what was agreed under C19/0994/19/AC

8.      Archaeology - details in accordance with what was agreed under C19/1082/19/RA

9.      Building Control Plan

10.   Removal of general development rights for the affordable houses.

11.   Removal of general development rights from plots 14, 15, 16, 17 (including the installation of additional windows and roof lights) 

12.   Agree on opaque glass for a bedroom window at the rear of plot 14 and agree on opening method

13.   Welsh name for the housing estate and houses

14.   Details and timetable for installing the equipment in the open space.

15.   Agree arrangements to secure affordable housing. - details in accordance with what was agreed under C19/0994/19/AC

Note

SUDS

An application to vary conditions 2 and 21 of planning permission C19/0014/19/LL in order to reposition plots 14 and 29 and reposition the garage of plot 17, reduce the slab level of plots 18 and 26 and remove part of footpath to the hammerhead.

            Attention was drawn to the late observations form

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this was an application to vary conditions 2 and 21 of planning permission C19/0014/19/LL. She reported that the original planning permission C19/0014/19/LL was for erecting 29 living units together with creating a new vehicular access, parking spaces, landscaping and a public open space.

She drew attention to the fact that an application for a non-material amendment to the changes before the Committee had been submitted under reference C20/0198/19/DA and had been refused because the repositioning of plot 14 was likely to have an impact on nearby properties which would need to be assessed as part of a formal application. It was noted that the remaining amendments were non-material and were the subject of this application for the convenience of dealing with all the matters together.

Members were reminded that the principle of developing this site had already received planning permission under C19/0014/19/LL, and that the amendments to the proposal before the Committee had no impact on the location, total number, percentage of affordable housing, mix of housing or the general design of the site. It was therefore considered that the proposal still complied with the requirements of policies PS 16, PS 17, PCYFF 1, TAI 3 and TAI 15 of the LDP as had been confirmed in the previous application. It was added that the construction work had already commenced on the site.

It was highlighted that the proposal entailed repositioning plot 14 approximately 1m closer to plot 15 (which was directly next door) in order to distance the property from the hedge that bordered the whole site. Reference was made to the property named 'Tywyn' which was located beside the site and abutted the rear of plots 14, 15 and 16, with the rear of plot 14 facing the back garden of 'Tywyn'.  Repositioning plot 14, as proposed in this application, would mean that the oriel window at the back of plot 14 would look over a small area of the far corner of the back garden of 'Tywyn'. Since this area was so small and was located in a corner at the far end of the garden (an extensive garden, and located away from the sections directly near the house of 'Tywyn') it was not considered that it would have a significant detrimental effect on the privacy of the property of 'Tywyn'.  It was highlighted that the owner of Tywyn objected to the proposal on the grounds of any overlooking of his property. However, in this case the potential overlooking was considered to be minimal, and compared with the extensive area of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9