Agenda item

External alterations to previously approved scheme under ref: C08D/0205/40/LL to include first floor extensions, external materals and appearance. 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

DECISION: To refuse.

 

1.     The proposed development's size, bulk, design and finish would not reflect or respect the site as it would create an unacceptable and incongruous feature on the form and character of the landscape and the local area and, therefore, on the local area's visual amenities. The proposal is therefore contrary to criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017, as well as the advice contained in the Technical Advice Note 12 document: Design.

 

External changes to a plan previously approved under plan number C08D/0205/40/LL including a first-floor extension, elevations and external materials

 

a)      The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application to erect extensions to a two-storey house. ⁠⁠It was explained that the Council gave permission for single-storey and part two-storey extensions under reference C08D/0205/40/LL in 2008 with part of the extensions on a single-storey level partially erected, and that this application meant a change in the plan agreed in 2008. It was reiterated that the extensions had been located on the front, side and back elevation of the house and was a modern design and substantially bigger than the existing building.

 

It was noted that the site was located in open countryside and outside any development boundary as defined in the LDP. The existing property was a traditional two-storey house, finished with pebbledash, with the nearest residential property approximately 120m away.

 

The application was submitted to the committee at the local member’s request.

 

Reference was made to Policy PCYFF3 which stated that proposals would be approved, including extensions and changes to existing buildings and structures, if they complied with a number of criteria. The Local Planning Authority considered that the proposal, because of its size, bulk, design and finish, would create an alien feature in the open countryside and have a substantial negative impact on the area's visual amenities as it would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of existing house and houses in this area of countryside. As a result, the intention would not meet criteria 1, 2 and 3 of policy PCYFF3 in the LDP which ensured that proposals added to and improved the character and appearance of the site and the building in terms of setting, appearance, scale, height, mass and elevations treatment; that they respected the context of the site and its place in the local landscape; and used materials that were appropriate to its surroundings, nor the requirements of Technical Advice Note 12: Design that supports proposals of high-quality designs.

 

There were no objections in the context of highways, access and language, and the Biodiversity Unit had confirmed that the bat survey received along with plans that offered biodiversity enhancements were acceptable.

 

Having considered every relevant planning matter, it was not considered that the application could be supported based on its size, bulk, design and finish as it would create an alien feature in the countryside and have a substantial negative impact on the area's visual amenities. It was considered that the proposal was unacceptable and it was recommended that it should be refused.

 

b)      Taking advantage of the right to speak, the agent noted the following observations:

·         That the application was for extensions and changing materials of an application approved in 2008 under ref:C08D/0205/40/LL

·         That the original application was to create a floor extension with an area of 242m², and a first-floor extension of 60m² to the existing house in Tŷ'n Llwyn.

·         Building work had started some years ago and had been stopped for a few years by now, but the applicant wanted to make changes to what had already been approved before restarting.

·         The Officer noted in the report that there were no problems with the application in terms of General Amenities, Highways and Biodiversity and the only concerns and rationale behind refusing the application was the size and the materials that had been chosen.

·         The intention of the application was to add a ground floor extension of 39m² to what had already been approved in 2008; 24m² was part of the 'semi enclosed' area to the door, therefore an increase in the ground floor area of approximately 16% more than what had been originally approved

·         That there was also an intention to add approximately 86m² to the first floor on top of what had been approved in 2008.

·         That the materials chosen for the extensions this time was different to those approved in 2008, but the three main materials that were being proposed had been used in the local area several times. The three materials are corten, natural local stonework and charred natural trees.

-     Corten (like cladding) was a rather new material, but because of its appearance (steel that naturally rusts to an orange / brown colour), it gives a more traditional and historical appearance and echoed back to the old agricultural days. It was noted that corten had been used several times in the county with an example in Borth-y-Gest under applications C20/0471/44/LL and C21/0320/44/AC - a house located in a much more visible place than Tŷ'n Llwyn and adjacent to Ysgol Gynradd Borth-y-Gest. This example also used corten with natural stonework in the same way as the Tŷ'n Llwyn proposal.

-       Local Natural Masonry - local natural masonry was a material that had been used for hundreds, if not thousands of years in the area.

-       Charring Trees - the process of charring trees protected them from rotting. The appearance echoed back to the olden days where agricultural buildings were being clad in trees painted black - creating historical connections.

·      Bringing these three main materials together would create a striking building, by using materials that were seen locally, and therefore was a nod to its habitat.

·      The Officer noted in the report that the proposal did not meet criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy PCYFF3, but the applicant noted that the proposal; a) complied and improved the appearance of the site and the building and created a striking building; b) it sat in its habitat naturally - the proposal was not squeezed into the site and there was plenty of space surrounding it; c) used materials that were completely appropriate to the site and the environment.

 

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

·         The family was a local family, ran a business and employed locally

·         The family was a family of eight and therefore needed more space

·         The proposal was reasonable for a family

·         The proposal would not impact others - located approximately 120m away from other houses

·         The extension was behind the original house and therefore did not look much bigger

·         Discussions had been held between the agent and applicant regarding the design and suitable materials to ensure the best standard

·         That the design was in keeping with the site

·         The extension would keep the young people of the family local, to support the business, the language and the community

·         Supportive of the application

 

ch)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application - the extension was on top of an existing extension and was out of character

 

d)         In response to a comment regarding a suggestion to discuss further with the applicant about a more suitable application, the Assistant Head noted that if the plan was adapted, there would be a need to submit a brand-new application. He reiterated that a request for pre-application advice had been made but the guidance had not been accepted. He also noted that it was possible to have a different extension of a design that would respect the site and the existing property.

 

RESOLVED: Refuse.

 

1.    The proposed development's size, bulk, design and finish would not reflect or respect the site as it would create an unacceptable and incongruous feature on the form and character of the landscape and the local area and, therefore, on the local area's visual amenities. The proposal is therefore contrary to criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017, as well as the advice contained in the Technical Advice Note 12 document: Design.