Agenda item

Application for the erection of a two-storey dwelling with garage

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Owain Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

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. 

 

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.