Demolition of existing external
store, alterations to existing main house and part single storey, part 2 storey
extension to side and rear to create enlarged living accommodation.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd
Williams
Decision:
DECISION:
To refuse, contrary to the recommendation:
Reasons for refusal:
The extension was considered to be
·
an
over-development that would have a detrimental impact on the area's visual
amenities
·
would
have a detrimental impact on views into and out of the AONB, contrary to Policy
PCYFF 3 and MG 1 of the LDP.
Minutes:
Demolition of existing external store, alterations
to the existing main house and part single-storey, part two-storey extension to
side and rear to create more living space
Attention was drawn to the late observations form.
a) The
Senior Officer stated that this was an application to alter and expand the
existing property, and that it was a re-submission of a plan previously refused
by the Committee (application number C20/0022/42/DT). This application was discussed at the Planning Committee on 24/05/2021 when
it was decided to defer the discussion in order to allow further consideration
of the observations submitted by the Llŷn AONB
Joint Advisory Committee.
The
application was submitted to the Committee at the
local member’s request.
The
property was located on the slopes of Mynydd Nefyn in open countryside, approximately 340m to the east
of the development boundary and 50m outside the Llŷn
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It
was explained that the development would include:
·
Demolishing an existing outbuilding and relocating a
stone wall in order to create a parking and turning area
·
Demolishing a rear two-storey extension and a glass
side extension
·
Erecting a two-storey extension in the form of a
crescent with three dormer windows in the front elevation and rooflights in the rear elevation together with the erection
of a one storey extension with a monopitch
slate roof along its front.
·
Erecting a balcony on the gable-end of the existing
house
Slides were shown to exhibit the setting of the house and how it
would take its place in the landscape. It was reiterated
that the applicant was seeking to respond to the committee's concerns.
Having considered
the comments received from the AONB joint advisory committee, the concerns
highlighted around the sensitivity of the landscape in the area were appreciated. Nevertheless, the planning officers did
not consider that extensions as designed would have a significant additional harmful
impact on the quality of the designated landscape and that the proposal would
not affect the setting of the AONB, or the views from it, in a harmful way. It was considered that the proposal was an improvement of the
previously refused plan in terms of its impact on the landscape and that it met
local and national planning policy requirements.
b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:
·
Members were reminded of the statutory duty to protect
the AONB
·
That traditional cottages were located along the
mountain from Nefyn to Pistyll
·
A property near the proposal had been extended many
times between 2008 and 2011
·
Overdevelopments were not needed on the Mountain-side
·
Impacted views
·
That people came to stay in the area to appreciate
their surroundings
·
That policies allowed too much discretion for the
officer to give their views, rather than the views of the joint advisory
committee and individuals
·
The development was a step too far
·
That house prices were out of the reach of local
people
·
That such plans would gentrify the area
·
Pleaded with the committee to refuse the application.
c) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:
- The
proposal was an over development
- the
proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area
- it
would have a detrimental impact on views into and out of the AONB
- it
would create a cumulative impact, if approved
ch) During
the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:
·
The design was good - improved the building
·
There was no grounds for refusal
·
A matter of opinion
·
Concerns about an appeal
·
Whilst accepting the views of officers, the local community
objected to this development and there was a duty on us to listen to their
views
·
It was a large house, substantially-sized, oppressive
in the landscape
·
Could be seen from Nefyn, Morfa Nefyn, Buan
and Edern
·
The pleasure of one family would cause displeasure to
local people and visitors
·
That the other houses on the mountain did not appear
to be as oppressive
·
Contrary to policy PS19 - it did not protect / enhance
the local area
·
That the applicant intended to change the character of
the house they had bought
·
Creating a gentrified area
·
It would be a destructive step for Mynydd
Nefyn, which was an attraction for tourists
·
Unnecessary and a dangerous precedent
d) In
response to a question regarding to what point one could build an extension on
an extension on an extension, it was noted that no policies controlled what was
acceptable - that more consideration was given to the design, quality, size and
appearance.
A
request was made for a registered vote
RESOLVED:
To
refuse, contrary to the recommendation:
The
extension was considered to be
• an
overdevelopment that would have a detrimental impact on the area's visual
amenities
• it would have a detrimental impact on
views into and out of the AONB, contrary to Policy PCYFF 3 and MG 1 of the LDP.
In
accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote was
recorded:
In
favour: Stephen Churchman, Elwyn
Edwards, Simon Glyn, Louise Hughes, Berwyn Parry Jones, Gareth T Jones, Dilwyn
Lloyd, Edgar Owen, Eirwyn Williams and Owain Williams (12)
Against: Anne Lloyd Jones (1)
Abstentions: (0)
Supporting documents: