Venue: Cyfarfod Rhithiol / Virtual Meeting. View directions
Contact: Lowri Haf Evans 01286 679878
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: None to note The committee
extended their deepest sympathy to the family of Councillor Charles Jones. |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters. Additional documents: Minutes: a) The
Solicitor, Rhun ap
Gareth, in item 5.4 on the agenda (planning application number C19/1072/11/LL)
as his uncle lived near the site. The
officer was of the view that it was a prejudicial interest and he left the
meeting during the discussion on the application. b) The
following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items
noted: Councillor
Gruffydd Williams (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item
5.1 on the agenda, (planning application number C20/0607/42/DT); Councillor
John Brynmor Hughes (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to
item 5.2 on the agenda (planning application number C20/0070/39/DT) |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. Additional documents: Minutes: None to note |
|
The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 20th October 2020, be signed as a true record. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair
signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 20
October 2020, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered the following applications for development. Details of the applications were expanded upon and questions were answered in relation to the plans and policy aspects |
|
Application No C20/0607/42/DT - Garth Hudol Rhodfa'r Môr, Nefyn, Pwllheli PDF 228 KB Two storey extension LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED to refuse the application Reasons: ·
Substantial extension that changes the form and
appearance of the existing house which will have a detrimental impact on its
character. ·
Proximity of the proposed extension will have a
detrimental/damaging impact on the amenities of the adjacent house (Ceris) by
overshadowing the side windows Minutes: Two-storey
extension a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
this was an application for a two-storey extension to an existing dwelling which would extend 3.6m from the existing wall.
There would be a single-storey element to the extension, with a mono-pitch roof
at the southern end of the structure; the extension would measure 5.5m long
with 1.5m of this being one-storey; this would create an additional lounge
downstairs and extend the current bedroom and create an additional bathroom on
the first floor. It was highlighted that the property
was a substantial detached house in a residential area within the development
boundary of the Nefyn Local Service Centre. The
officer added that the application was submitted to
the Committee at the request of the Local Member. She
referred to Policy AT3 which refers to protecting
non-designated heritage assets that are of local significance. It was recognised that Garth Hudol
had some historical significance due to its literary connection and that it was
indeed a distinctive and attractive building that was valuable in terms of its
place in the streetscape. Having said
this, the scale of the proposed extension was fairly small
compared to the original house, and its design was in keeping and acceptable
with the original in respect of features such as the shape and roof height, and
size and position of the windows. Consequently, it was considered that the
development was sympathetic to its built environment and, via appropriate conditions, the use of suitable materials could be secured
to ensure consistency with the original house. The officer added that the building
was not listed and neither the building nor its
features were statutorily protected. Given
that the extension would be positioned west of the property next
door, the officer reported that it was inevitable that there would be
some loss of light to the windows of Ceris from the
development, especially late in the day. However, it was noted that the side
windows of Ceris already looked towards the side
elevation of Garth Hudol and essentially the impact
of the development would be to bring a 5.5m length of side elevation 3.6m
closer, with only 4m of this being two-storey. The officer drew further
attention to the fact that Garth Hudol could complete
developments under permitted development rights which
would enable the owners to erect a 3m high structure directly near the boundary
with the neighbours. It was recognised that there would be some harm to the amenities of Ceris in terms of shadowing and loss of light, but it was not considered that those detrimental impacts in themselves were significant enough compared to the existing situation to justify refusing the application. In response to concerns regarding the impact on the privacy of Ceris, it was noted that the windows in the extension's northern elevation would look over the neighbours' garden, with the front garden of Ceris already visible from the nearby road. Consequently, it was not considered that the extension ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Application No C20/0070/39/DT - Ty Wiggins, 12 Lôn Cernyw, Bwlchtocyn, Pwllheli PDF 330 KB Extension
including raising height of roof LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes Link
to relevant background information Additional documents: Decision: To postpone to prepare a video and additional images of the
estate and the site Minutes: An extension
including raising the roof height 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 for an extension
which would entail raising the height of the roof to a property located
in the countryside of the Bwlchtocyn area and within
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. She added that the site was also situated within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic
Interest and within a housing estate. The application was
being submitted to the Committee at the request of the Local Member. It was explained that from looking at the property from the
front, the height of the roof apex would be raised from approx. 5 metres to 6.5
metres, with a pitched roof to also be placed above the existing garage. The
rear extension would create a balcony on the first-floor level with decking to
remain beneath it on the ground-floor level. The extension was considered acceptable in terms of its design, scale and
size and in proportion with the existing property – it would not be an
over-development, with sufficient amenity land remaining for the property's
use. The officer acknowledged the concerns that had been
submitted with regard to raising the roof level and the fact that the
other dwellings on the estate were single-storey dwellings. Although it would
create a higher property, it was considered that the overall design retained a
similar appearance to the existing property, particularly so on the front
elevation which faced the estate, and that it did not
have an oppressive effect on the rest of the estate. It was added that the property was located at
the furthest end of the estate, where the land was on a lower level, therefore raising the height would not have a harmful
impact on the area's visual amenities. The officer also acknowledged concerns
that the proposal would create a precedent for similar developments on the
remainder of the estate, however, each application would have to be assessed on its own merits, and the fact that this
application would receive planning permission would not set a precedent for the
rest of the estate. Reference was made to the observations of the AONB Unit, noting that
they had no objection given that the property was a relatively recent
single-storey dwelling, and was not in a prominent location from public places.
Consequently, it was not considered that the proposed
alterations would cause the building to impact on the AONB. Despite its
location within the AONB, the property was situated
amidst other houses and formed part of the current built form of this part of Bwlchtocyn and, consequently, it would not stand out in the
landscape. As a result it was not considered that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the area or on the AONB, and the proposal's design was considered acceptable. Also, the officers did not consider that there were implications in terms of road safety and the ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Application No C20/0350/42/DT - Fferm Cae Rhug Ffordd Dewi Sant, Nefyn, Pwllheli PDF 231 KB Construction of
garage and extension of curtilage LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Gruffydd Williams Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Decision: The applicant has withdrawn the application Minutes: The applicant had withdrawn the application |
|
Application No C20/0623/19/AC - Land At Lon Cefnwerthyd, Bontnewydd, Caernarfon PDF 272 KB
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 Additional documents: Decision: 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 Minutes: 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. |