Demolition of existing external store, alterations to existing main house and part single storey, part two store extension to side and rear.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams
Decision:
To refuse the application on grounds of overdevelopment
Minutes:
It was noted that late observations had been
received
The Planning
Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that it was
an application to renovate and extend an existing house. It was
reported that the new development would increase the number of bedrooms
from three to four, which would increase the size of the downstairs living
space.
The property was located on the slopes of Mynydd Nefyn at the top of a
private road (which was partly a public footpath) which led to the unclassified
road of Bryn Glas. The site was located in open countryside, approximately 340m
to the east of the development boundary of Nefyn Local Service Centre, and 50m
outside the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
This application had been discussed at the
Planning Committee on 02/03/2020 when a decision on the application was
deferred in order to arrange a site visit and to allow the submission of a
protected species report. A Survey of Protected Species report was received on 29 May 2020.
Additional
photographs and a video were shown as it had not been
possible to hold a site visit due to the Covid-19 restrictions.
It was noted that
late observations had been received (but not included on the late observations
form) from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, concerned that the
scale and design of the extension would create an alien feature in the
landscape. It was added that observations had also been received from the AONB
officer (not included in the report), expressing concern about the scale of the
side extensions, the large windows and their impact on the AONB.
It was reported that the newly designed house would be
substantially larger than the existing house, and the internal floor surface
area would more than double. Having said this, there would be no increase in
the building's height, and it was believed that the new design submitted was of
a high quality and that the use of stone, glass and
slate was appropriate for the location. It was acknowledged
that opinions regarding the design were ‘subjective’.
The property was
in an open location on the hill slope, and therefore it was visible to the
public from the nearby highway and other public areas. Whilst
appreciative of the concern regarding the sensitivity of the landscape in this
area, officers did not consider that the extensions as they had been designed
would have a significantly detrimental impact on the quality of the landscape,
and it was not considered that the proposal would impact the setting of the
AONB, or the views out of it, in a detrimental manner.
Attention was drawn
to observations that had been received in relation to an over-provision of
holiday units in the area, but it was highlighted that this was an application
for a house, and not for holiday accommodation. It was also
acknowledged that the visual impact was a cause for concern, and that
design matters could be contentious; however the officers had weighed up the
application against the requirements of the relevant policies, as well as
considering the observations and the objections received. It was
therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable and met the local
and national planning policy requirements, and that it should be approved with
the conditions included in the report.
a)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following points:-
·
Tan y Mynydd had been empty for a number of years,
and it was now in a state of considerable decay. It was
intended to renovate and develop Tan y Mynydd to create an attractive
home to share with family and friends, while appreciating everything that the
beauty of Pen Llŷn had to offer.
·
Extended family had been residents at Aberafon
Holiday Park in Nefyn for a number of years. The applicant and her father were
lifelong members of Nefyn sailing club and Nefyn golf club, were regular
sponsors of The Sportsman in the village of Nefyn, and were shareholders in Yr
Heliwr public house.
·
This was not an application for a holiday home or a
rental property - it was an application for a family home with an intention to
spend many future years in the community with their children and grandchildren.
·
They were eager for the house to integrate into the
landscape, and had therefore chosen local builders and companies, and local
building materials. Consequently, the building would assimilate far better
within the rough landscape than the bright white render of the existing house.
·
She had lived in Wales for over thirty years; her
children were Welsh; her businesses were located in North Wales, employing
nearly thirty people and serving the local community
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member made the following points:-
·
It should be ensured that the AONB was protected –
it must receive the same protection as a National Park
·
The application was totally unacceptable, and the
proposal would be oppressive in the landscape
·
A 'subjective opinion' set a dangerous precedent as
the renovations were significant
·
Mynydd Nefyn had traditional cottages and
smallholdings
·
Concern that a precedent would be set of buying
'small' houses along the boundary of the AONB, then applying for permission to
significantly extend these houses - instead of buying a larger house in the
first place
·
It would have a significant impact on the area's
house prices
c)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application
ch) During the ensuing discussion members made the following main
observations:
·
The proposal would be an eyesore on the slopes of
Mynydd Nefyn
·
The proposal was an over-development - the size of
the extension would double the floor space
·
The traditional character of the house should be
retained
·
A public footpath was located in part of the site –
this could create problems on private land
·
The proposed plan was intrusive, oppressive, too
prominent, large and inappropriate on the slopes of Mynydd Nefyn - contrary to
strategic policy 19 - with the aim of improving the natural environment
·
Concern about setting a precedent, and an increase
in local house prices
·
Contrary to Policy 3 that noted the scale, and
Policy Tai 13 that noted that a development 'should not create a visual impact
significantly greater than the existing dwelling... seek to safeguard the open
countryside...'. There was a need for stronger
policies so that any modification to the building could be
prevented.
·
Buildings such as these would destroy what visitors
enjoyed about the area
·
Suggested buying a larger house in the first place
·
The environment, countryside, landscape and the
people of the area must be protected
·
Nefyn was being targeted in the same way as
Abersoch in the past
·
The size could be permitted in some cases, but not
in relation to affordable houses applying for more floor space
·
The design was of a high quality and an improvement
to the existing house
·
There was a nearby house with an extension
RESOLVED
to refuse the application
Supporting documents: