Agenda item

Erection of a new residential dwelling

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eirwyn Williams

Link to relevant background documents

To approve contrary to the decision

Conditions

5 years, in accordance with the plans, materials, withdrawal of permitted rights, drainage scheme, completion of parking, no more windows without permission

a)    The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that the Planning Committee had postponed making a decision on the application at its meeting on 22 March, 2021 to ask the officers to discuss materials for the roof and external cladding with the applicant.

The application proposed to erect a new house and create a vehicular access off the existing estate road. It was explained that the site was located within Cricieth village's development boundary; on a narrow plot within an estate of various houses on a slope that elevated towards the back of the site. It was situated between two properties with another property directly in front and opposite a narrow estate road.  It was reiterated that the application had been subject to several planning applications and an appeal – six planning applications had been refused on the site in the part and permission granted on the site via an appeal on grounds of the plans submitted as part of application C08D/0870/35/LL. It was confirmed that this permission was still extant on the site.

The application had been submitted to the Committee at the Local Member’s request.

It was reported that the report dealt with the matters that had been raised in the previous appeals; and assessed the proposal against the latest Local Development Plan policies. It was noted that the appeal decisions (refusal and approval) for the site had clearly stated that there was potential for a two-storey property on the site to cause over-looking and an unacceptable impact on the nearby residents at either side and to the front. The appeal decisions depended on the window locations and floor levels to ensure that there was no adverse impact on nearby housing.

It was explained that the house in question was now 4m wider and 1m longer than the property that had been approved. It was noted that the front of the property had been designed at an angle in order that the entire elevation did not look out in the same direction (to seek to avoid overlooking). Therefore, the dwelling under consideration was a little lower in terms of the roof ridge that what was approved, it was also wider and there were more openings on the first floor.  It was considered that the reduction in height was not a compromise for the detrimental impact of increasing its width and adding openings on the first floor. It was considered that the proposal would have a significantly more detrimental impact on the property of Pen y Bryn situated directly in front of the site, than what had been mentioned as acceptable during the 2011 appeal. It was also considered that the size of the property (specifically its width and bulk) meant that the property was not in keeping with the estate's building pattern and design

It was reported that the officers had discussed the material for the roof and the external cladding with the applicant's agent and that the agent was prepared to change the roof to a slate roof and to have cedar, rather than steel, cladding. Nevertheless, based on the assessment, the officers continued to consider the proposal unacceptable due to its size (specifically its height and width), the location of windows/doors and balconies on the front elevation and the finished floor levels would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities and reasonable privacy of the property situated in front of the site.  The recommendation was to refuse the application.

c)  Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

·         That he agreed with the decision of the Town/Community Council

·         No objection

ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the recommendation

d)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·           That the concerns about the external materials had been resolved

·           The external materials were now acceptable

·           The finished design was now more in keeping with nearby houses

·           There was no unique design of any type to the area

·           The impacts on the amenities of nearby housing and overlooking would be no worse than what had already been granted

RESOLVED:

To approve the application contrary to the recommendation

Conditions

5 years, in accordance with the plans, materials, withdrawal of permitted rights, drainage scheme, completion of parking, no more windows without permission