Agenda item

 

Application for the erection of a three storey three bedroom dwelling with parking area.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Griffith

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Time

2.         In accordance with the plans

3.         Slate

4.         Exterior finishes.

5.         Access and parking

6.         Reasonable Avoidance Measures for reptiles.

7.         No vegetation to be cleared during the bird nesting season.

8.         A Welsh name for the houses.

 

Application for the erection of a three-bedroom, three-storey house with a parking area

 

a)    The Planning Officer highlighted that it was intended to erect a three-storey dwelling, which would appear to be two-storey from Caernarfon Road. It was explained that there was extant planning permission on the site to erect of a four-storey building to include 4 self-contained residential units (reference C09A/0182/20/LL) - the permission was extant (had commenced) as the former residential property on the plot had been demolished.   This meant that the previously approved 4 units had been included already in the land bank and therefore there would be a reduction in the number of residential units provided.  Therefore the proposal would not be contrary to policy TAI 4 and did not provide more units than the indicative housing provision set for the settlement in that policy. As a result, no special justification was needed for the development.

 

Due to the nature of this plot, the new property would be in a very prominent location from public viewpoints and would be an addition to the row of houses erected on Caernarfon Road. It was noted that this part of the village of Felinheli had a significant variety in terms of architecture, scale, design and setting.

 

In the context of general and residential amenities, it was highlighted that the proposed plans noted that the back wall of the dwelling was to be located 2m further to the north-west than the building that could be erected as part of the extant permission. The part of the proposed dwelling that extends 2m further included the balconies on the three floors and a different shaped roof that would be 1m higher than the approved building.

 

Due to the size of the blank elevation that abuts/faces property no. 14, Caernarfon Road it had to be accepted that the current proposal was likely to create a structure that would have some obtrusive impact on parts of a residential garden and a conservatory extension to the rear of this property. It was explained that the garden was located to the rear of 14, Caernarfon Road and due to the site's topography it enjoyed high levels of residential amenity with unobstructed views towards the north west.  Despite this, the proposed dwelling was not significantly different to the four-storey building subject to the extant permission in terms of the form and setting of the rear wall as shown clearly on the proposed plans. For these reasons, it was not considered that the development would be likely to cause harm to the residential amenities that was significantly worse than the impact that would derive from constructing the building that was part of the extant permission.

 

In the context of transportation and access matters, it was noted that a response had been received from the Transportation Unit noting that the design of the front curtilage should be amended to coincide with the front curtilage of application C21/0445/20/LL. Following receipt of amended plans in line with the suggestions of the Transportation Unit, no further objection to the design of the footway was received and it was confirmed that other aspects of the proposal (such as parking provision) were acceptable. Attention was drawn to the number of conditions and notes about reminding the developer that there was a need to secure the relevant permits/licences to undertake street works suggested by the Transportation Unit.

 

Reference was made to the conditions that the Biodiversity Unit had confirmed should be imposed on the planning permission.

 

In the context of Safeguarding Existing Open Spaces and Disused Railway Lines, it was noted that the site abuts a designated open space to be safeguarded which runs between Crossing Cottage, Glan y Môr and Cwrt Menai. Following discussions with the agent, the Joint Planning Policy Unit and the Council's Property Service (which is the landowner of a section of the designation), it was established that the lack of clear boundaries and detail in old maps of the site meant that the original designation (re-used from the previous local plan), extends beyond the disused railway and on a section of plot 11A. It was understood that the purpose of this specific designation (under policy ISA 4) was to safeguard the disused railway line with the potential of extending Lôn Las Menai from its current end point on Ffordd Glan y Môr, along the disused railway line to meet Caernarfon Road.

 

The agent provided an amended site plan to show that there was sufficient distance between the property and the residential garden and the development would not overlap the disused railway line. Similarly, the proposal would not disrupt the use of the protected open space.

 

Having considered all the relevant matters, including local and national policies and guidance, as well as all the planning background, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable and satisfied the requirements of the relevant policies.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·         An image taken from the garden was highlighted - this outlined a sketch of the proposal on its current site

·         The proposed structure would protrude out by around 10 metres in front of her home and approximately 5m in front of her sun lounge - this was a few metres from other nearby properties in the row and was uncharacteristic

·         The height of the development would be approximately 9m above the road level compared to their property that was around 6m above the road level - this was 50% higher than their property and added to their concerns regarding shadowing.  Neighbours on the other side of the road shared these concerns, although they accepted that planning permission had already been given for this height on the property 

·         They had made an effort to contact Cadnant Planning, however, they appeared to be unwilling to discuss the matter.  They very rarely received replies to their e-mail messages or calls. Last time they had suggested that they 'should proceed with our objections' - there was no indication that they were willing to discuss a compromise (copies of e-mails available)

·         Cadnant believed that the proposed plans were within the boundaries of the existing planning permission. However, it was very difficult to measure this as there were no measurements in the original plans. In comparing the site plans of the existing planning permission (C12/0986/20/LL) with the current plans, it appeared that the new plans protruded out by approximately one or two metres beyond the approved plans. We request detailed, correct measurements of the previously approved plans prior to making a decision.

·         It was reasonable to ask for the development location to follow the natural line of the existing property.  We ask that consideration is given to the impact such a large and imposing structure has on more traditional property.  It had also been noted that the owners would not live permanently in the property - this was a cause for concern.

·         To ask that the development, including the balcony is constructed behind the red line (or as close as possible), (as noted in a drawing by the applicant).   This would be in-keeping with nearby property.

·         Local builders had informed them that drainage pipes ran adjacent to this line (at the side of the Menai Strait).  Although these could not be located on drainage maps, it would be wise to investigate this further.

·         There was a request to move the rear boundary to be in line with their property and as a result would create a dwelling that would be better in-keeping with the local area.           

  

c)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·         That the site was located within the development boundary of the village of Felinheli and bordered with Caernarfon Road that runs along the southern boundary of the site.  The site was in a residential area with number 14 Caernarfon Road situated to the south-west. 

·         Pre application discussions had taken place with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of a full application - the discussions had continued with planning officers, highway officers and neighbours since the application's submission.

·         There was previous permission on the site for a four-storey development to provide 4 flats. This permission was protected and was a material planning consideration when determining planning application C21/0446/20/LL.   

·         There was also permission on site for the erection of a three-storey residential house and this could be implemented up until January 2023 - the fall-back position that could exist under the developments that have been previously approved on the site had to be considered.

·         The requirements of the highways department had influenced the location where the house may be sited on the site, this meant having to move further into the plot (different to the plan originally submitted).  The proposed plan was similar to the previously approved plan in terms of its scale, design and setting.

·         Although an objection had been raised by the neighbours of number 14 Caernarfon Road, the officer's report highlighted that detailed consideration had been given to the impact on the residential amenities of the nearby house - the assessment confirmed that the proposal would not have any different impact to the protected plan (i.e. the 4-storey building for the flats).  Officers therefore confirmed that they considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of the impact on residential amenities.

 

ch)      Taking advantage of the right to speak, the local member made the following points:

·         The proposal was oppressive, likely to have a large impact on 14 Caernarfon Road

·         An extant permission existed on the site and therefore it was accepted that some type of development would take place, but running level with the rest of the houses on the road 

·         That the Community Council was concerned about transportation matters

·         It was disappointing that an aerial photograph had not been included in the report - one had been submitted by the applicant

·         That the proposal was enormous and out of character

·         The gable-end of the proposed house would have an oppressive impact on the neighbours

·         There was a lack of contact and communication between parties

 

d)         The Planning Manager displayed plans of the previous permission in comparison with the application in question outlining its size and layout

 

dd)    It was proposed and seconded to defer the application for the following  reasons:

·         To hold further discussions between the relevant parties to seek to reduce concerns

·         The proposal appeared to be oppressive and obtrusive.

·         There was a need to re-consider the design and it was suggested that parking spaces should be positioned under the building

 

The Head of Legal Services highlighted that if the application was deferred for re-design reasons, that the aim of the deferral suggested that a new application was sought.

 

In response by a Member, it was noted that there was room to hold further discussions regarding the building's design, its density and its obtrusive feature without having to consider a new application.

 

The Assistant Head of Environment highlighted that it was necessary to consider if there was an additional impact to the extant permission and the opinion of the officers was there was no additional impact.   He added that an 'alternative' application would be a new application, however, it would be possible to amend the density and impact.

 

dd)    During the ensuing discussion the following points were made by members:

·         That the existing plan was better than the previous permission

·         Parking concerns needed to be considered - this was an integral part of the development

·         Deferring the application and re-designing would be additional costs to the applicant.

 

e)    An amendment to approve the application was proposed and seconded

 

RESOLVED: To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Time

2.         In accordance with the plans

3.         Slate

4.         Exterior finishes

5.         Access and parking

6.         Reasonable Avoidance Measures for reptiles

7.         No vegetation to be cleared during the bird nesting season

8.         A Welsh name for the house.