Agenda item

Cliff stabilisation works, demolition and reconstruction of a single House

Local Member: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To defer in order to conduct a site visit

 

Demolition of existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling in its place, and work to stabilise the cliffs

a)    The Senior Development Control Officer highlighted that this was a full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling, together with work to stabilise coastal cliffs. Externally, the new house would include a pitched roof finished in dark zinc and the finishes of the exterior walls would be a combination of timber boards on the upper floor and natural stone on the lower floors. He noted that the site and existing building were located at the foot of the cliffs of Nefyn Beach, and the cliffs were designated as the Clogwyni Pen Llŷn Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and was also the Porthdinllaen to Porth Pistyll Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). He added that the site was outside the current development boundary of Nefyn with access gained to the site along the beach as well as a public footpath that led down from the top of the cliff past the site and onwards to the beach below.

 

He explained that the existing site contained a house that dated back to the late 1960s/early 1970s and of a style that included flat roofs. Its appearance conveyed those of that era. The site and the wider area were within the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest designation, and outside a nearby flood zone (which only applied to the beach). He noted that elements of the proposal had been amended since the original submission because of comments received, which included the external finishes of the dwelling following a comment by the AONB Unit (although the site was not within the AONB, these were considered as general comments).

 

He added that originally, a part of the proposal involved diverting the existing public footpath that ran past the site and repositioning it to be further from the building. Following discussions and after receiving comments on the proposal from the Council's Rights of Way Unit, Nefyn Town Council and members of the public, it was decided that the proposal was too contentious and therefore the path would stay as it was.

 

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee by the Local Member for reasons of it being an over-development of the site, that it would destabilise the cliffs and have an adverse impact on the area.

In the context of relevant policies, reference was made to the requirements of policy PS 5 which stated that priority should be given to the effective use of land and infrastructure, prioritising the re-use of previously used land and buildings, wherever possible. In this case, a dwelling already existed, and the site was already developed, therefore the proposal satisfied the general requirements of policy PS 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP). It was added that Policy TAI 13 of the LDP related specifically to replacement dwellings and set a series of criteria that must be conformed to (where appropriate) in order to approve such schemes.

The officer added that the application had obviously involved some considerable scrutiny due to several specialist considerations that would not normally be found to the same degree at least, with most Planning applications to demolish and re-build residential housing. It was reported that qualified companies and/or individuals had assessed the information to hand and had stated their opinion, and that the findings and recommendations of the specialist reports would be included as formal conditions so that the development would have to be carried out in strict conformity to the recommended measures. By ensuring this, the development would be carried out in full compliance with the general consent agreed. Should the situation change in terms of amending the proposal in response to a situation that arises, then we would have to respond at that time to any new situation.

 

In response to some of the objections that had been received expressing concern that granting permission would set a dangerous precedent, it was noted that there was a lawful right to have a dwelling on the site, and that the applicant would be entitled to adapt it without planning permission. It was noted that the size and bulk of the house matched the existing dwelling, but a pitched roof was proposed instead of a flat roof.

 

For the purpose of the application, it was noted that the specialist information had been assessed and found to be acceptable. The proposal was considered acceptable and in compliance with the requirements of the relevant policies.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant made the following observations:

·           There had been significant damage recently to the cliffs

·           Carrying out the adaptations would secure the cliff behind Morlais – which would subsequently ensure the safety of the family and the public

·           The path in front of the house was the only path that allowed access to the beach at high tide – the work would be a means to preserve the path

·           The existing building was unpopular – the pre-fab material would be replaced with more sympathetic materials

·           The size would be similar to the existing house but with less glass, and would use local stone and have a pitched roof which would have a more pleasing appearance

·           If the application was not approved, permission would be required to secure the cliffs and retain the house as it was

·           The main driver behind the development was safety

·           Most of the consultees supported the application

·           The safety of the family, and users of the footpath and the beach needed to be ensured

 

c)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations:

·         A large number had objected – how many complaints had been received?

·         The original application had included moving the footpath – he was very pleased that the route of the path would remain unchanged – need a condition to secure the use of the path for fishermen and the public

·         A slip and a series of steps connected the site and the beach – the handrail was unstable – there was no reference to this in the report

·         The existing dwelling was an eye-sore – he welcomed the fact that it would be demolished

·         It was a matter of opinion as to whether the proposal's design was an improvement

·         He accepted that the site was not part of the AONB, but it must be taken into account that it bordered the AONB and was located in one of the most beautiful places

·         Several applications had been refused based on design within the AONB but had then been approved on appeal

·         Considering the context of the objections, he suggested that the members visit the site

 

          ch)  It was proposed and seconded to conduct a site visit

 

             RESOLVED: To defer in order to conduct a site visit