Cyngor GwyneddAgenda item
Application for the erection
of a three storey three bedroom dwelling with parking area.
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Griffith
Decision:
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.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents:
-
Plot 11 Ffordd Caernarfon, Y Felinheli, Gwynedd, LL56 4RZ, item 9.
PDF 279 KB -
Plans, item 9.
PDF 2 MB