Agenda item

Application No C21/1220/42/LL Morlais Lôn Penrallt, Nefyn, Pwllheli, Gwynedd, LL53 6EP

Cliff stabilisation works, demolition and reconstruction of a single house

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

Decision:

DECISION: To approve – conditions

1. Time

2. In accordance with plans

3. Materials

4. Building Control Plan

5. Biodiversity Matters

6. Matters relating to the cliff

7. Protect the public footpath

8. Withdrawal of PD rights

Minutes:

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

Some Members had visited the site on 05-09-23

a) The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that the application had already been discussed at a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 July 2023. At that time it had been resolved to defer the decision in order to conduct a site visit so that Members had an opportunity to see the site in the context of its location.

It was noted that it 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. It was noted that the site and existing building were located at the foot of the cliffs of Nefyn Beach, and the cliffs had been 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). It was 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.

It was 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 and its appearance conveyed those of that era. The site and the wider area was within the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest designation, and outside a nearby flood zone (which only applied to the beach). It was noted that elements of the proposal had been amended since the original submission as a result 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).

It was 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 had been decided that the proposal was too contentious and therefore the path would stay as it was. The application had been submitted to the 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 Gwynedd and Anglesey 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.

It was noted that the application had obviously involved some considerable scrutiny due to a number of specialist considerations that would not normally be found to the same degree at least, with the majority of 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 Local Member made the following observations:

· Thanked those Members who had visited the site

· That the location was within the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and abutted significant sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

· That the proposed building was not an improvement to the existing building. It was a matter of opinion as to whether the proposal's design was an improvement

· A vast number of local residents had objected

· The original application had included moving the footpath - he welcomed that the route of the path would remain unchanged - needed a condition to secure the use of the path for fishermen and the public

· If approved, there was a need to ensure that the footpath to the beach was protected during the construction period and remained open for fishermen and pedestrians

c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application

ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

· Gave thanks for the opportunity to visit the site

· The proposal was an improvement to what already existed

· The existing site did not appear as a dwelling

· The existing building was formless, shabby and distasteful compared to the area’s traditional cottages

· Black and grey colours were not in-keeping with the area – they were dark colours

· In time, there would be complaints as to why the proposal was approved, as was seen with the existing building!

· The building would be part of an iconic view that was seen when driving from Pistyll towards Nefyn

· The proposal was not an improvement

In response to a question regarding 'de-risking' and what this meant in the context of the cliffs' stability, it was noted that the applicant was responsible for ensuring that the land was suitable for the development proposed, and when adopting a de-risking method on the level of the plan, that the local planning authority would impose conditions to address risks. It was added that concerns about the cliffs' instability had been discussed and that the specialist evidence submitted by the applicant had been verified by engineering specialists noting that the specialist report had been completed by competent and experienced individuals who were obviously satisfied with the findings of the report as it was.

Considering the assessments undertaken, the specialist opinion provided and the lack of information or technical and specialist information to contradict by proving beyond doubt that the plans and measures made were unsuitable, it must be accepted that the construction plan and mitigation measures proposed were appropriate to protect the proposal. It was the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the building was operated in accordance with the plans.

In response to the observations relating to finishes and materials, the Senior Planning Officer noted that it would be possible to impose conditions to manage this. He added that the illustrations only included suggestions, but different resources could be agreed upon such as stone, timber, slates. He noted that he was confident that the finish could be agreed upon so that there would be no impact and that the building assimilated better to the background.

In response to a comment regarding imposing a condition to ensure the safety of public footpath users during the construction period, it was noted that public protection was a fundamental condition for the proposal, along with an application for a building control plan.

RESOLVED: To approve with conditions