Application for the erection of a
two-storey dwelling with garage
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Owain Williams
Decision:
To refuse
1.
The proposed house is contrary to criterion
13 of policy PS5, criterion 1 of policy PCYFF 2 and criterion 1 and 10 of
policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017
because of the size and scale and design of the new dwelling specifically its height,
bulk, land and ground levels which means that the proposal is not in keeping
with the area's building pattern.
2.
The proposed house is contrary to criterion
13 of policy PS5, criterion 7 of policy PCYFF2 and criterion 10 of policy PCYFF
3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 due to the size
and scale and design of the new dwelling specifically its height, bulk, land
and ground levels and the location of the windows on the northern elevation
which means that the proposal causes a significantly detrimental impact on the
amenities and privacy of the residents of the property situated in adjacent to
the site.
Minutes:
Application for the erection of a two-storey house with garage
a)
The Development
Control Officer highlighted
that the application site was within the development boundary of the village of Clynnog Fawr on an empty plot of land located parallel
to a standard vehicular access leading to existing residential dwellings to the rear and side of this
proposed development.
It was explained that
a previous application for this proposal
was refused under
C20/1049/34/LL due to its size, scale and
design and its impact on
nearby properties. It was acknowledged
that this proposal was approximately 0.5m lower than the plan refused under the previous application, and the application's agent had provided additional plans that included
the streetscape and a plan
of the existing levels.
The application
was submitted to the Committee
at the Local Member’s request
The application
had been deferred in the Committee on 12.07.2021 in order to correct the site address and
re-consult to ensure that consultees and neighbours were aware of the application site.
In considering the general, visual and residential
amenities, it was noted that the site was located in a fairly
prominent location, adjacent to the main road in and out
of the village and was surrounded by buildings of various sizes, design and elevations.
Officers had not been convinced in this case
that this was the right building size and design
for the site. It was considered that there was a need to consider its location
and land levels better to enable the development to contribute to the area's character and enable
it to integrate more and in an acceptable
way with the pattern and character
of the local area. It was
not considered that the design conveyed this and, as such,
the development could not
be supported in the form it was submitted. It was considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 2,
3 and 4 and PS5 of the LDP.
It was noted that
the proposal avoided the inclusion of windows (on the northern elevation) in number
and form that would affect
the residents of neighbouring
properties. Nevertheless,
the plan indicated that some of the windows would be opaque, however, it was considered that this would
have a worse impact than what was approved in the past and would give
the feeling of overlooking
(due to their number and height)
from the perspective of the
properties next door.
Also, it was reported that the site was considerably higher than the neighbouring property, and the proposal to erect a full two-storey property on this
level of land would create an
incompatible feature in the area as well as cause a markedly oppressive effect on the neighbouring property. It was added that the land level
would also increase overlooking into the back garden of the neighbouring property - although the garden was currently
visible from the site, the site was not used, therefore any current overlooking
was only occasional.
Having considered all the relevant planning matters, including local and national policies
and guidelines, it was considered that the proposal was unacceptable in terms of its
scale, design, location and land/ground levels for
this site. In addition, it was considered that the proposal had a detrimental impact on the privacy
and amenities of the neighbouring properties due to its size,
height, location and number of windows
that are relevant considerations forming part of the considerations to recommend the refusal of the application. Although the site was located within the development boundary, and planning
history indicated that a residential dwelling was approved on this site
in the past, it was not considered
that the proposal was suitable to justify approving the development in its submitted
form.
b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant
noted the following main points and presented a video that had been made in a
bedroom of a property opposite to the site:
·
That it was
proposed to build a two-storey dwelling on land adjacent to Plas
Beuno that would create a significant impact on their
property and would spoil the view from the front of their property. Certainly,
the views boasted in the pamphlets during the property sale period would not
exist.
·
The impact
of the development together with the loss of views would cause a sense of
overlooking and of being 'hemmed in'.
·
They had
moved from Telford to this rural area of north Wales to look for a better life,
and had chosen this location specifically for its beautiful views and there was
no overlooking from nearby houses.
·
They had made an effort to settle in the local community, had learnt
to speak Welsh and built their forever home, they did not want to be forced
out
·
If they had
been aware when their offer on the house (plot 1 Plas
Beuno) was accepted that it was proposed to build a
two-storey dwelling on land near Plas Beuno, they would definitely not have proceeded with the
purchase. Many weeks after their offer had been accepted and when they had
committed financially to the purchase and could not withdraw, it was advertised
that it was intended to build on the land adjacent to the property they had
bought.
·
He believed
that the timing of the latest amended planning application C21/0376/34/LL was a
deliberate act in order not to endanger the sale of the other houses being
developed on the site near Plas Beuno.
·
That all
the marketing and promotion materials associated with the sale of the property
at Plas Beuno clearly
indicated that the proposed area for planning appeared as a green space.
·
Planning
permission had been refused on the site on two previous occasions - there was
no logic or reasonable grounds to approve it this time bearing in mind that the
development would have a significant impact on nearby housing
c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant
noted the following points:
·
He had been
brought up and lived in Clynnog and was an active
member of the community
·
The
application was to build a home for him and his family
·
The site
had been purchased in 2017 and he was aware that permission had been given on the
site in 2008 to construct a family home
·
He had
discussed the proposal with the Planning Manager in 2016 and had received
assurance that planning permission would be approved on the site as long as the
design was suitable and similar to the one approved in 2008
·
In 2020, an
architect was commissioned to plan a suitable house by amending previous plans
in order that the plan was in keeping with the houses opposite and in
accordance with the Planning Manager's recommendation
·
It was
proposed to move tonnes of soil in order to sink the house and to follow the
streetscape pattern and reduce overlooking
·
It was
disappointing that the recommendation was to refuse the application - no
correspondence had been received. He
felt that he had been misled by the Planning Manager and it was suggested that
erecting a house was acceptable as long as the design was striking
·
The report
was misleading in the context of the housing pattern - it was considered that
the current design fitted in better than the houses opposite.
·
There would
not be overlooking - it was proposed to install opaque windows to avoid this
·
A six-foot
fence would be erected for privacy
·
The owner
of the house next door had submitted a letter of support stating that he was
happy with the overlooking measures
·
It was
disappointing that other letters of support submitted by neighbours had not
been mentioned in the report
·
There was a
lack of housing locally and there was no house for sale in Clynnog
- his wish was to build a suitable home for him and his family so that he could
stay in the village and continue to contribute to the local community
·
Approving
the application would ensure that an affordable house would be released to
local people in the area.
d) Taking advantage of the right
to speak, the Local Member made the following points:
·
There was a suggestion by objectors
that the administrative arrangements were misleading
·
Some had bought houses under
the understanding that there was no intention
to build on the green area
·
A request for correspondence letters from the Planning Department to the applicants to be shared with the Local Member
·
A suggestion
to defer the decision - disagreement on both sides
ch) It was proposed
and seconded to refuse the application.
e)
During the ensuing discussion,
the following observations were made by members:
·
The applicant
was referring to the previous
planning guidance
·
The design
was not in-keeping with the
area
·
The type of house and design
was wrong and unsuitable
·
Detrimental, oppressive impact on the nearby houses
·
The house filled the plot - an overdevelopment
·
The size of
the house was too big for the site
RESOLVED
To refuse
the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed
house is contrary to
criterion 13 of policy PS5, criterion 1 of policy PCYFF 2 and criterion 1 and 10 of policy PCYFF 3 of the
Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 because of the size and scale and
design of the new dwelling specifically its height, bulk,
land and ground levels which
means that the proposal is not in keeping with the area's building pattern.
2. The proposed house is contrary to criterion 13 of policy PS5, criterion 7 of policy PCYFF2 and criterion 10 of policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 due to the size and scale and design of the new dwelling specifically its height, bulk, land and ground levels and the location of the windows on the northern elevation which means that the proposal causes a significantly detrimental impact on the amenities and privacy of the residents of the property situated in adjacent to the site.
Supporting documents: