Issue - meetings

Erection of new dwelling

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwilym Evans

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse the application

Reasons:

1.     The modern design of the proposed dwelling, with its large balcony and glass doors/windows on the front and rear elevations, does not respect the character of the neighbouring houses nor that within the vicinity and these features would be incongruous. ⁠The proposal would not complement nor enhance the character and appearance of the site or area. The proposal has not given full consideration to its historical and built context and that in terms of its siting, appearance, scale, height, massing and elevational treatment contains incoherent, dominant and alien features that do not respect the streetscape or site context. The proposal is therefore, considered contrary to criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy PCYFF 3: ⁠Design and Place Shaping of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026).

2.     Due to the location, size and height of the balcony and the front of the proposed dwelling which faces the next door property, it is considered that the proposal would overlook and have a dominant and overbearing impact and would be detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents in terms of noise and nuisance. For this reason, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) relating to protecting the amenities of residents and the local area.

Erection of new dwelling

a)    The ⁠ Senior Planning Manager - Minerals and Waste highlighted that the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee on 15 June 2026, where a decision had been deferred in order to undertake a site visit. A site visit was conducted on 8 July 2026.

It was noted that it was a full application for the erection of a family dwelling of a detached two-storey design, with the gable end of the property facing the public road; the proposed house would be of a modern pitched roof design built into the slope. It would measure approximately 7.2m high to the highest point of the roof, with a balcony on a substantial terrace being installed to the rear of the property which would extend out approximately 2.5m and serve the floor.

An application for a single property on this site (26.02.2026) under reference C25/0927/15/LL had been refused. Although some amendments had been made to the plans of the current application, including the removal of two first-floor openings that faced the property next door and reducing the size of the balcony so that it did not extend out past the house's side elevation, the size and layout of the property generally continued to be the same in terms of size and scale.

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee for a decision at the Local Member's request.

Reference was made to Policy TAI 15 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) which stated that Councils would seek to ensure an appropriate level of affordable housing in the plan area. Two or more housing units was the threshold, and as only one unit was proposed in this case, Policy TAI 15 was not relevant and it was not necessary to provide an affordable element.

In the context of visual amenities, it was noted that Policy PCYFF 3 required developments to offer a design of high quality that respected and assimilated with the character and context of the area. In this case, it was considered that the proposed house did not reflect the traditional design of the adjacent terraced houses on Warden Street. Although the design had been modified somewhat since the previous application, its bulk, height and more contemporary features continued to appear disproportionate and out of character with the local environment. In addition, as the site was on a slope, the dwelling would sit higher than the surrounding houses and therefore stand out in the landscape. As a result, it was considered that the building would create an oppressive effect and would not naturally blend into the streetscape or the surrounding landscape. The proposal therefore did not add to or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and was contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 3. Although some materials attempted to refer to the historic landscape, it was considered that a more sensitive design for the site could be submitted.

In terms of general and residential amenities, reference was made to significant concerns regarding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6