Erection of new dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth A. Roberts
Minutes:
Erection of new dwelling.
(a)
The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the Planning Committee had visited the site on 8 December 2017. This
was an application for the erection of one dwelling on a plot of empty land
within a residential area of the city of Bangor. It was noted that the
development boundary ran along the southern boundary of the site and outline
planning permission had been granted to erect a house on the site on appeal in
2013, which had now expired.
It was explained
that the site was triangular and that it was located off the Bryn Heulog
Terrace private road adjacent to a terrace of houses. It was noted that the
site backed onto a terrace of houses along Caernarfon Road and it stood behind
the long and narrow gardens of those houses on a plot of land on higher ground
between the gardens and the public bridleway. It was explained that the site
ran in an opposite direction to the gardens, which meant that it abutted seven
gardens. The vehicular access off the bridleway would have a parking space for
at least two vehicles on the site.
Considering
that planning permission had been granted for a residential development on the
plot in the past, it was emphasised that the principle of developing a house
here was acceptable; however, the application that was the subject of an appeal
related to specific plans for a two-storey house facing Bryn Heulog Terrace
without any windows facing the rear of the houses located on Caernarfon Road.
It
was explained that the new plans were substantially different to those that
were the subject of the appeal.
It
was not believed that the design as submitted was acceptable in terms of the
impact on visual, general and residential amenities, and the two first-floor
windows would lead to substantial unacceptable overlooking over the gardens and
windows of the rear of the houses on Caernarfon Road, and would create an
overbearing high wall impact on the top of a slope behind the houses. Concern was also expressed about the impact
on the street-scene.
It
was explained that officers had discussed and had suggested to the applicant
before he had submitted the application, that the development of an
appropriately designed dormer bungalow, could be acceptable on the site.
The
recommendation of the planning officers was to refuse the application for the
reasons noted in the report.
(b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:
·
that he was the Local Member for the area
·
that he had lived in this area all his life and wished to build
a home for himself and his family and this was a once in a lifetime opportunity
to have a home to live in the area
·
that he had spoken with the neighbours about the application and
had ensured that the site would be levelled and that retaining walls would be
built along with high screening along the entire site in order to retain
privacy
·
that the setting of the house on the far corner of the site was
to avoid any element of overlooking and he had gained assurance from the
Planning Department that they were happy with the house being built on the site
but that there were concerns regarding the windows facing the terrace on
Caernarfon Road.
·
the applicant enquired about the planning authority's policy in
terms of the acceptable distance between a new building and an existing terrace
·
In response, the Planning Department noted that it did not have
any specific policy. Therefore, the
applicant had looked at the policies of other authorities such as the Planning
Departments of Flintshire and Conwy which had a policy noting that a distance
of 22 metres was acceptable as the separation distance between the ground floor
windows of an existing house. With this
in mind, the distance from the windows to the existing terrace was measured and
he was of the opinion that the application would comply with the specific
measurement of 22 metres should Gwynedd Council adopt this policy.
·
Very recently, it had been noted that Gwynedd Council had
approved a first-floor extension to a property located two doors away from this
site, and had permitted the first-floor windows to overlook gardens.
·
The applicant was of the opinion that he had not been treated
very fairly.
(c)
In
response, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the Planning Officers
dealt with every application on its own merit and that the advice provided by
officers was completely professional and independent. Attention was drawn to the fact that there was
a history to the application in question and that the applicant had received
advice in terms of the type of house that would be suitable for this site. It
was emphasised that attention had been given to the appeal in 2013 and the
Planning Committee was directed to paragraph 5.3 of the report which
highlighted clearly the type of house that would have been acceptable on this
site.
Furthermore,
reference was made to paragraph 5.6 which explained the type of application and
the type of house which was completely different to what had been approved upon
appeal.
He emphasised that
the principle of building a house on the site was acceptable, provided that the
house was of a suitable size and design.
(ch)
The Planning Manager added that the planning officers had visited the site and
had offered advice to the applicant with a consistent and clear message
(verbally and in writing), that a residential development on the site could be
suitable subject to overcoming very obvious concerns about over-looking into
nearby houses at Caernarfon Road and reference was made to the fact that a
number of these houses were lower than the site. It was recognised that a
distance of 22 metres was acknowledged as a reasonable distance between houses
in order to avoid overlooking, but that this guidance had not been adopted by
Gwynedd Council but that it was accepted as a general guidance by officers and
in appeals. It was emphasised that the houses on Caernarfon Road already
existed and the application before the committee was for a new house, and
consequently, it was explained that the overlooking was much worse as the site
was higher, and in this case, consideration needed to be given to the land
levels, use of windows, use of gardens and how private they were at present, as
well as the distance guidance of 22 metres.
(d) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application.
(dd) During the ensuing discussion the following
points were highlighted by individual members:
(i) An enquiry was made as to whether the
application could be approved to delegate powers to planning officers to
approve the application following a discussion with the applicant on an
acceptable design.
In response, the
Senior Planning Service Manager explained that if the Committee was happy with
the recommendation, that planning officers would be more than willing to
discuss with the applicant a plan that would be acceptable and one that could
be approved.
(ii) It was asked whether the distance
measurements (namely 22 metres) were included in law?
In response, the
Planning Manager explained that the law did not stipulate how near or far a
building should be, but in the context of an appeal decision, a description had
been given of the type of property that could be acceptable for the site but
that the design of the application as submitted was the complete opposite. It
was added that the site visit had been useful to appreciate the type of
property that was the subject of the application and its relationship with all
nearby properties and the planning officers' views that it was unacceptable in
its current form was reiterated.
(iii)
Reference was made to a previous
application in Tywyn, previously discussed by the Planning Committee, when it
was noted that the over-looking was immaterial to planning.
In response, it
was explained that the Tywyn application was in an urban situation that was
different to this site. In the Tywyn application, the over-looking was unacceptable
but the application before the committee was considered inappropriate due to
the nature of this site.
Resolved: To refuse for the following reason:
The proposed development
would be harmful to the residential amenities of occupiers of local properties
as it would cause significant overlooking effects into or towards the private
spaces of those properties and that it would also cause a domineering structure
for those houses. Nor is it believed that the plans submitted show a design of
high quality which gives full consideration to the built environment context of
the site. The proposal would not add to or improve the character and appearance
of the site nor the area in general and therefore, it is believed that the
application is contrary to policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Gwynedd and
Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.
Supporting documents: