Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement three storey dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts
Minutes:
Demolition of house to be replaced with a
three-storey house
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received, which included
the response of the AONB Joint Committee.
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, and noted that it had been submitted to the Planning
Committee on 18/12/2017, where it was resolved to defer consideration on the
application in order to obtain the opinion of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) Joint Advisory Committee. It was elaborated that the
application was a re-submission of an application that had been refused by the
Planning Committee on 25 September 2017.
It was
noted that the applicant had amended the proposal by reducing the size of the
proposed house in response to concerns raised by the Committee and the refusal
reasons of the previous application. It
was expressed that the interior layout of the building had been altered in
order to reduce the surface area of the building by 25%. Detailed plans were
submitted along with photographs showing the proposed house and the exterior
terraces extending back to follow the site's profile. It was suggested that the
building would not create an intrusive development in the landscape and
although the appearance of the house was different, it was not considered that
it would have a significant harmful impact on the landscape. The Members were reminded that the site was
located on Abersoch headland, outside the village development boundary and
within the AONB.
It was
emphasised that the proposal would involve demolishing the existing house on
the site and erecting a larger new house in its place. It was noted that local
and national policies supported re-using previously used land for developments,
and it was considered that the proposal met the requirements of policy TAI 13
of the LDP which specifically involved demolishing and erecting a new house
within the village boundary. With a house already existing on the site, the
proposal would not involve creating new residential unit(s) and, consequently,
the development would not add to the housing stock. The Council's Conservation
Officer confirmed that the current building was not of historical or
architectural value and that it did not justify listed status.
It was reported that there were many differently
designed houses in the area and there was no typical building pattern. With an
appearance that would be visible from the sea, it was considered that the
design of the proposal, from looking at it from the sea, blended in with the
site because it followed the shape, layout and profile of the site and the use
of materials that created a light design. It was explained that the design,
although modern, it was of a scale and of materials that would be in keeping
with the site and suitable to its location and context. It was noted that the
AONB Unit had no objection to the proposal, however, the Joint Committee had
stated that the proposal would be an over-development on a prominent site with
a substantially larger footprint than the existing house. The Joint Committee
also noted that the development would be intrusive.
Having weighed up the proposal in the context of
the relevant policies and the objectors’ arguments, it was considered that the
proposal was acceptable for approval. As there was a dwelling on the site
already, there would be no substantial change to the landscape or any
significant substantial impact on the amenities of nearby residents.
b) The local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee), objected, noting the following main points:
·
Local concern that the proposal was an
over-development and that it would not suit the site;
·
Despite the changes made to the original plans, the
house continued to be three-storeys and larger than the footprint of the
original house;
·
A letter was read reporting the observations and
concerns of the Llŷn AONB Joint Advisory Committee.
·
The Committee was asked to refuse the application
based on over-development and the negative impact on the AONB.
c)
It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application in accordance with the recommendation.
ch) During the ensuing discussion,
the following points were highlighted by individual Members:
·
It was appreciated that the applicant
had co-operated with the requirements of the officers and the Committee to
reduce the size and impact
·
The design
was good, innovative and in keeping with the landscape. The nearby houses had
no construction pattern
·
The
development was substantially larger than what already existed on the site
·
The development was obtrusive and would
be detrimental to the beauty of the headland.
·
Approving would set a precedent for
others to buy an old house and modify it into a modern house which would be
hostile for local people
·
The
applicant had asked for more than what he required in order to appear as if he
was willing to compromise when proposing a reduction in the scale of the
development.
·
There was an
insufficient reduction in size
·
There was a statutory duty to protect
the AONB and therefore the observations of the Joint Committee needed to be
prioritised.
d) In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Service
Manager highlighted the fact that the discussion had been interesting and
valuable and reflected the difference of opinion on the design of the
development. With the site within the
development boundary, there is no restriction to building size or a policy
asking for surface area difference. The Members were encouraged to consider the
observations of the AONB officer, as well as the advice of the planning
officers, in considering that the application overcame reasons for refusal - was
there a significant impact to this given that the applicant had already reduced
the size? It was added that the Committee's role was to weigh up the
information that had been submitted.
dd) In response to an observation regarding the possibility that the
applicant would appeal against the decision to refuse, and possible appeal
against the decision on the original plan, which was larger in terms of size,
it was reiterated that this was possible.
e) A vote was taken on the proposal. The
proposal fell.
f) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application based on
the observations of the Llŷn AONB Joint Advisory Committee.
RESOLVED to
refuse.
Reason:
The
proposal would be an over-development of a prominent site with a substantially
larger footprint than the existing house and would create an intrusive
development that would have a detrimental impact on views into, out and across
the AONB.
Supporting documents: