Agenda item

Full application for the construction of a 3 bedroom two storey dwelling (C3 use) and creation of a new vehicular access

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

To defer in order to conduct a site visit

Full application to construct a 3-bedroom, two-storey residential property (C3 use) as well as the creation of a new vehicular access

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application for erecting a two-storey residential property within a section of garden in an existing property in the village of Edern. The application was submitted to the committee at the local member’s request.

It was explained that the site was located within the Edern development boundary which was a village identified as a Rural Village in the LDP and policy TAI1 was considered when assessing the application. It was highlighted that the indicative housing supply level for Edern was 12 units, with a total of 3 units completed and 4 units in the windfall land bank. Based on this information, approving a development on this scale would be completely acceptable based on the Village's indicative growth level and as there was only a proposal for 1 house, it did not reach the threshold of needing an affordable housing contribution.

It was reported that planning permission existed on the site until January this year for the same development and that decision had been considered under the LDP - the same policy considerations remained. It was reiterated, as there was no change in policy or terrestrial terms, refusing the application would be unreasonable and would be a subject of appeal costs if the application would be refused. However, attention was drawn to an older planning history where applications were refused based on the fact that the proposal added to the number of second homes, concern about the size of the site and the ability to provide access, parking and amenity space and that there was no contrary information available to the council. It was highlighted, at this time, that the policies were different, the planning applications were outline ones without the need to show an indicative layout.

In the context of transportation and access matters, it was noted that it was possible to provide a quality access and plenty of turning space and parking within the curtilage. The transportation unit had no objection.

It was noted that the applicant had confirmed that the proposal was for a class C3 permanent residential house which meant that it was possible to manage the use through a condition to ensure that this was a permanent residential use and not a holiday use or second home use. In terms of visual impacts, it was explained that there was a variety in the size and design of nearby houses which included traditional houses and more modern ones with a variety and mix of clusters of terrace houses and separate two-storey houses seen throughout the village. With the proposal located near other houses, it was not considered that it would be prominent in the landscape.

In terms of construction materials, it was considered that slate, render, timber boards and stone would be suitable for the location and in-keeping with the local construction materials. In terms of the balcony, it was acknowledged that features such as balconies were common on other houses within the wider area which varied in terms of size and appearance, and therefore, it was not considered that this proposal would be significantly different, if at all, to the types of developments already approved locally. Although there was concern about the impact of the house on neighbours, it was considered that the dwelling had been carefully designed to protect neighbours' amenities and that there were no grounds to refuse the application based on amenity impact, in accordance with policy PCYFF 2.

The Local Planning Authority Officers noted that there were no valid planning reasons to refuse the application, and therefore recommended that the Committee approved the application and include conditions.

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

·       That he spoke on behalf of the local residents of Edern to object to the application on the grounds of over-development - the proposal was too big, too prominent and out of reach of local people

·       That Glascoed had been a holiday accommodation for years

·       That access to the property was unsuitable - Lôn Cae Glas Road was an unclassified road, no pavement, narrow, muddy, high hedges and unsafe. Although there was a 20mph restriction, it was a single-lane road.

·       Although the Transportation Unit had made an application for a detailed plan for the proposed access point, no response was received

·       That Nefyn Town Council objected to the application on the grounds of over-development

·       Having a balcony would create an impact of over-looking on nearby houses

·       Historical applications had been refused (12/86 and 11/95). The 2019 application had been approved, but no construction had happened on the site

·       That there were 15 conditions to the application if it were approved. No confirmation of C3 use only or response to adapting the entrance

·       Encouraged the Committee to refuse the application or delay and conduct a site visit

c)              It was proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of over-development. The proposal was squeezed to a narrow plot of land as well as over-looking impacts on neighbours' residential amenities.

The Members were reminded that planning on this exact site had been approved 5 years ago and that time was running out before commencing construction.

There was no seconder to the proposal.

ch)      It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to conduct a site visit.

            RESOLVED:

            To defer in order to conduct a site visit