Revised application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling along with associated works.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen Davies
Minutes:
(a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application, and noted that the proposed new house would be set back in the
plot on a site where a zinc agricultural shed was currently located. It was noted that it was proposed to create a
new access on the site of the existing dwelling, to extend the track from the
side of the carriageway to the house and turning in the direction of the access
gate to the adjacent field.
It was noted that the proposal did not comply with the
main criteria of the demolition policy and re-building in rural villages that
required new units to be located on the site of the original unit or as close
as practically possible to it. Due to its location and the angle of its setting,
it was considered that the proposal would create an
intrusive feature in the countryside that does not support the area's character or retain the general
development pattern of the street scene. The proposal was contrary to the principles of policy CH13 and B22 of the GUDP.
It was highlighted that Policy CH5 of GUDP approved proposals for residential developments in suitable locations in rural villages
for affordable houses for local
community need only. It was noted
that the development did
not comply, as no affordable housing
was proposed for local community need and it
was not in accordance with the size requirements
of affordable housing as outlined in
the Supplementary Planning Guidance: The Council's Affordable Housing.
Attention was drawn to the fact that no activity
survey formed part of the bats survey submitted with the application, as it was not the correct time of year and no
appropriate mitigation measures were proposed.
Therefore, the proposal was
contrary to policy A1 and policy B20 of the GUDP that state that
proposals which are likely to cause
disturbance or unacceptable damage to protected species and their habitats
will be refused unless any impact
can be reduced or effectively mitigated.
It was noted although
there was potential to develop the site, it was considered that the second-submission before them was not acceptable and based on the plans
submitted it was recommended that the application be refused.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:-
·
That the ecologists commissioned by the applicant
had noted that it was common to approve planning applications subject to the
receipt of a mitigation scheme;
·
That the existing building was ugly and the
proposal offered a modern and sustainable house;
·
That it was proposed to improve the existing access
in order to comply with highway standards and therefore it was not possible to
locate the house on the existing location;
·
The design and layout of
the proposed house would not cause harm to the village street scene;
·
That criterion 3, policy CH13 of the GUDP supported
applications where the new unit was located as close as practically possible to
the original site.
(a)
The local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee) made the following main points:-
·
The existing
house had been empty for four
years and had deteriorated considerably, the proposal would be an improvement to the village;
·
The applicant was local;
·
The house had to be located back from the
existing location as the rise in land level towards the back would overcome
difficulties with water flowing to the rear of the house;
·
The house design was compatible with
nearby dwellings;
·
The Community Council supported the
application and no local objection had been received;
·
The proposal would provide a better
access and parking provision within the curtilage.
(ch) In response to the agent's observations in
the context of approving the application subject to the receipt of a mitigation
scheme for bats, it was noted that this was not consistent with the guidance of
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and how the Committee considered applications and
it would not be possible to approve the application as it would be illegal to
undertake work on the building without conducting a bat activity survey and the
details of mitigation measures. It was
noted that the period when a bats activity survey could take place commenced in
May.
Two
options were highlighted to the Committee, namely:-
·
To refuse the application; or
·
Defer the application in order that the applicant
may submit the necessary information regarding bats and to negotiate the
re-location of the house, if so wished.
A Member noted that the layout of the house was not uniform with nearby
property, however, the issues with drainage and water in the existing house
location should be taken into consideration, therefore a technical report
should be requested to highlight why it was not possible to locate the house
closer to the location of the existing dwelling. It was added that the application before the
Committee was premature as the necessary information regarding bats had not
been submitted.
(d)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.
An
amendment was proposed to defer the application in order to receive the
necessary information regarding bats and a technical report to justify why it was
not possible to locate the house closer to the location of the existing
dwelling. The amendment was seconded.
RESOLVED to defer
the application.
Supporting documents: