Agenda item

Full application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new dwelling and associated works 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Morris Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION: To defer in order to conduct a site visit

 

Full application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new dwelling and associated works

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

a)            The  Development Control Team Leader highlighted  that it was a full application to demolish existing structures and construct a new detached two-storey dwelling and associated works. An external balcony would be included on part of the dwelling's first floor on the south-eastern elevation, namely the elevation that would look away from any neighbouring property. The site was located within the development boundary and within the Western Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. The application had been amended twice since it was originally submitted in response to observations received and following discussions with officers.

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee for a decision at the local member’s request due to concern about the size of the proposed house and its proximity to other houses.

It was explained that the site in question had already been developed and, therefore, was considered as a brownfield site and was located within the development boundary of the village of Edern. The proposal, therefore, met the requirements of policies PS 5, PCYFF 1 and PS17 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (LDP).

 

The requirements of policy TAI 15 noted that an appropriate level of affordable housing must be ensured in the plan's area. Depending on the scale of developments, a contribution towards affordable housing provision was expected in accordance with the threshold recognised for the county's settlements. In the case of the village of Edern, which had been identified as a rural/coastal/local village, the threshold was 2 or more units.  As this proposal was for the provision of one new house only, it did not meet this threshold to consider affordable provision.

 

In the context of the visual amenities, currently, the site consisted of industrial-like sheds that were quite simple in design, which stood unnoticed within the plot. It was acknowledged that the proposed house would be larger in size than the existing buildings but in response to highlighted concerns, the building had been amended from what had been originally submitted. The new house was located within part of the site that was within the development boundary, and although this meant it was closer to the northern boundary of the site than it would have been should it have been pushed further into the site, it was not considered that its location within the site was unreasonable. The roof ridge height of the existing highest shed was 3.3m and the height of the ridge of the proposed roof would be 5.8m.

 

In the context of general and residential amenities, it was noted that the site was surrounded to the south-west, north and the north-west by dwellings with open lands extending past the southern/south-eastern boundary of the site. Elements of overlooking already existed due to the location of the existing buildings. There were trees/shrubs within the garden and nearby gardens reduced some of the impact.  It was considered that a real effort had been made to reduce the impact of what had been originally submitted and it can be seen that the amendments responded to the concerns highlighted by planning officers. It was believed that the reduced height in one part of the building, contributed to the improvement and that the other changes, namely reducing the external balcony and changing some windows, improved the proposal in terms of the impact on neighbours.

 

Having considered all relevant matters including the local and national policies and guidance, as well as all the observations and objections received, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable

 

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

·         That he had been born and bred in Edern and lived in Gorwel, Lôn Groesffordd.

·         As there had been no consultation with neighbours before submitting the application, he had asked the opinion of thirteen closest neighbours of which a copy had been submitted to the committee.

·         The main reasons for objecting were; negative impact of the house on the beauty and appearance of the village, impact of overshadowing and loss of privacy by overlooking the rear of the dwellings.

·         The dwelling would have a negative impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents by overshadowing and loss of privacy by overlooking the rear of neighbouring houses.

·         The neighbours of Dol Erw, Yr Hafod and Gorwel had a right to privacy on their rear elevation - felt strongly that the dwelling would substantially affect their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy at the rear of their houses. Although noting that obscure glass had been added to some windows on the first floor, this did not alleviate the infliction of losing privacy.

·         From the ground floor of the house, it would be possible to see into the two bedrooms, kitchen, dining room and two attic rooms of Gorwel, as well as the entire rear garden.

·         The location of the external door on the south-western elevation not only meant that residents of the dwelling would disturb the privacy of Gorwel residents, but anyone visiting the house would also disturb their privacy.

·         The glass of windows in bedroom 4 or the landing window were not obscure, therefore, no effort had been made to reduce the negative impact on Yr Hafod and Dol Erw, while the windows were open or closed - changing the type of glass did not change the fact that we would be overlooked when windows were open.

·         Overshadowing concerns had already been highlighted, disappointing that a dwelling shadow impact assessment had not been prepared. Not only concerned that the dwelling would overshadow the gardens, but due to the height of the house in comparison with Gorwel, Dol Erw and Hafod, the windows of at the back of the houses would be overshadowed.

·         The scale, height and size of the dwelling would have a negative impact on the character, beauty and appearance of the village.

·         Only a cross-section of the dwelling against Dol Erw and Schiehallion had been submitted. Although the ridge height of the house was slightly lower than Schiehallion, this was not the closest neighbour to the house.

·         A request had been made on more than one occasion for a cross-section of the dwelling against the neighbouring houses on Lôn Groesffordd. Very disappointing that no effort had been made to prepare this.

·         In addition, the majority would see the house from Lôn Groesffordd, the main road through the village.

·         The ridge of the house would be much higher than over 93% of its closest neighbours on Lôn Groesffordd. Without a plan of the dwelling within the context of the village, it was not possible for closest neighbours, the planning department, or Committee Councillors to assess the impact of the house on the village and the existing streetscape.

·         It was noted that the plan indicated trees between the house and the elevation from Lôn Groesffordd. This did not reduce the negative impact of the house, because the trees would be bare for half the year. These were not evergreen trees.

·         Should the elevation of the house within the context of Lôn Groesffordd be favourable to the application, why not include it?

·         Encouraged the Committee to support neighbours to request a real assessment of the impact of the dwelling on the beauty and appearance of the village and on the privacy of closest neighbours.

 

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

·         He was born and bred from Edern, and he had been brought up there with his family. Had attended Ysgol Edern and Ysgol Uwchradd Botwnnog and had lived in Edern all his life. His children had also attended Ysgol Edern and Ysgol Uwchradd Botwnnog.

·         He was a local businessman who employed fifteen local people and collaborated with various other local businesses and ensured that the Welsh language came first throughout the company.

·         Hard-working in the village - chair of the Edern playground committee.

·         Him and his family were eager to remain in their area and only wanted to construct one dwelling in order to have a home and wanted to raise a family here.

·         They had an advantage of having land within the development boundary of the village. Felt very strongly about remaining in his area as his parents were within reach as they grew older.

·         He was aware of the concerns and complaints that had been submitted and had attempted to respond positively to the observations by re-designing the plans.

·         He did not want to cause an argument - the site was within the development boundary, and he was seeking to design a home that would not disturb others.

·         That privacy was important for all.

 

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

·         That a percentage of Edern residents was fervently in favour of the application but there was discontent amongst others with a petition that had been collected as the proposal affected the privacy of closest neighbours and the size of the proposal.

·         That adaptations to the plans had been welcomed.

·         He was in favour of the applicant's need to have a new house in Edern, the village where he was born and bred, but there was a need to be fair and consider the opinion and observations of nearby residents.

·         "It was believed that the development in its amended form was now acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenities of nearby residents" - would the officer state this if they lived nearby? ...in the shadow of such a prominent house that would create a detrimental impact on the privacy of neighbours?

·         If consideration would be given to approve the application, proposed a condition to 'move' the house slightly to the south - meaning that 95% would be within the boundary and the rest would be slightly on the boundary. Saw no reasons for the possibility of doing this.

·         This would be a compromise to alleviate 'real' concerns and be fair to everyone.

 

It was proposed and seconded to conduct a site visit.

 

RESOLVED: To defer in order to conduct a site visit