Agenda item

Revised layout for the erection of new dwelling, including parking and sewerage treatment plant 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To Refuse

 

1.    A demand has not been proven for erecting a new dwelling in open countryside, therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of policies PCYFF 1 and PS17 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, as well as paragraphs 4.2.37 - 38 of Planning Policy Wales and part 4.3.1 of TAN 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities which ensures that new houses in open countryside may only be permitted in specific and exceptional circumstances.  

 

2.    This development would have a detrimental effect on the landscape causing urban encroachment onto a greenfield site in open countryside. It is not considered that the proposal would add to or improve the character and appearance of the site and it would not integrate with its surroundings. The application is therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

 

Revised layout for the erection of a new dwelling, including parking and sewage treatment plant

 

The officer drew attention to the late observations form which contained land drainage details - after receiving these observations, the third reason for refusal, which was noted in the report, was removed.

 

a)       The Planning Manager explained that this was a full application to erect a new single-storey dwelling-house on a parcel of land near Capel Rhoslan. The site was considered a site in open countryside, outside any development boundary and away from a cluster village as defined in the LDP.

 

It was noted that the application was submitted to the Committee at the request of the local member.

 

It was explained that policy TAI 6 which allowed new affordable housing in clusters, did not apply here because of the distance of the site from the village. It was reported that only new dwellings that infilled between buildings or were located immediately adjacent to the curtilage of a building would be permitted by this policy, and with the application site located far from the nearest housing cluster, the policy was not supportive of such an application.

 

Subsequently, it was reported that policy PCYFF1 was the relevant policy here; which allowed new development in open countryside where there was evidence of justification for this. It was also explained that policy PS17 Settlement Strategy confirmed that only housing developments that complied with Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 6 would be permitted in open countryside, with support for developments such as agricultural dwellings or housing attached to a rural enterprise.

 

The officer drew attention to the information within the Design and Access Statement which noted that the applicant worked in the army and wished to build a house near his parents who resided in Capel Rhoslan. Although it appeared that the applicant was a local person, born and bred in the area, no evidence had been submitted that a current need for a house existed, or a need for an affordable dwelling. The site was not considered suitable as a rural exception site because of its location away from the cluster, and there was no agricultural holding on the land or any proven agricultural or rural enterprise justification. As such, it was reported that none of the policies within the LDP or national policy were supportive of such an application.

 

In the context of visual amenities, although the design of the dwelling had been amended since the previous refusal, permitting the application would result in a new development on green land in open countryside, which would inevitably lead to an urban spread to the countryside, in a place that was visible from the road and nearby public footpaths. Therefore, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP.

 

Having weighed up the proposal against the relevant policy requirements and after giving full consideration to the response to the consultations and the objections received, it was concluded that the proposal was contrary to several local and national policies, therefore the recommendation was to refuse the application.

 

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

·         He supported the application

·         The applicant wanted to return to live to the area where he had been brought up – he was a young man and needed a house close to his parents

·         The housing need had been included in the original Design and Access Statement

·         Average prices in the area were out of the applicant’s reach  – this was a reasonable application to have a dwelling

·         The application was for a single-storey, three-bedroom dwelling – a house for a family who needed to support the applicant's parents

·         There was a 106 condition on the house – the agreement had been made between the Council and the applicant's parents

·         The proposal was located in the Chapel's garden and close to a residential building (another property nearby)

·         The original application had been supported by the Community Council but their support had not been included in the officers' report

·         In planning terms, the site was in 'open countryside' but it would only be a few metres from the Chapel – the Chapel was located as a focal point for the community, it served the community and there was a collection of dwellings nearby

·         The village was a 'cluster village' - the boundary was not easy to interpret

·         The site had been designated in the LDP as land suitable for solar panels – this was poor quality land, rather than good, green agricultural land

·         The Biodiversity Unit had noted that it would not have an impact on species

·         The officers had noted that the materials for the proposal did not suit the area – the design was in the form of sheds with an exterior finish of black corrugated sheets – emulating a traditional agricultural structure – it was not overbearing – this was a single-storey dwelling

·         No objections from Gwynedd Consultancy, Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Water or the Transportation Unit

·         This was not an application to exploit the planning system, but an application from an individual to build a house near his family and bring up a Welsh-speaking family

·         He asked the Committee to consider policy Tai 15 and support the application on its own merits

 

c)       In response to the observations, the members were reminded of the need to consider the proposal as it had been submitted; in principle, this was an open-market house, and even if the application was being considered as an affordable dwelling, it would still be against policy because of the countryside element. It was also noted that the 106 condition was only on the Chapel, and that the terms of the 106 did not apply to the development in question.

 

It was confirmed that the observations of the Community Council had been received

 

d)      It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application because it was contrary to local and national policy.

 

e)       During the ensuing discussion, a Member commented that should the need for an affordable house be proved, then it would be possible to consider this.

 

RESOLVED: DECISION: To refuse

 

1.    There is no proven need for erecting a new dwelling in open countryside, therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of policies PCYFF 1 and PS17 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, as well as paragraphs 4.2.37 - 38 of Planning Policy Wales and part 4.3.1 of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities which ensures that new dwellings in open countryside may only be permitted in specific and exceptional circumstances. 

 

2.    This development would have a detrimental effect on the landscape causing urban spread onto a greenfield site in open countryside. It is not considered that the proposal would add to or enhance the character and appearance of the site nor that it would integrate with its surroundings. The application is therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.