Erection of a new
residential dwelling
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eirwyn Williams
Decision:
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
Minutes:
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
Supporting documents: