Agenda item

Application for the amendment of condition 2 of planning approval C21/1210/38/LL to refer to amended plans submitted as part of this Section 73 Application rather than the plans referred to as submitted on the 14/12/21 as referred to in Condition 02.  

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Angela Russell          

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse the application

Reasons:

·        An overdevelopment. Concern that the height and size of the proposal would create an oppressive element over neighbouring properties and would disturb and affect the amenities of neighbours contrary to policy PCYFF 2

 

Application to amend condition 2 of planning permission C21/1210/38/LL to refer to revised plans as part of this s73 application rather than the plans submitted on 14/12/21 as referred to in condition 2.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form. It was noted that the Community Council ⁠had presented observations and the Planning Manager had fully read them out aloud.

 

Some Members had visited the site on 8 November 2024

 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a retrospective application to amend a condition on planning permission that was previously granted to retain the development as it had been built. Following an investigation into allegations that the development had not been built in accordance with what was approved, it became clear that there were inconsistencies on earlier plans that were approved in terms of the height of the original house with the prospective property although the rest of the plans from a design standpoint were correct. As a result, and to regulate the situation, a further application was submitted to amend the condition relating to carrying out the development in accordance with the plans approved.

 

It was reported that the application had been submitted to the committee at the request of the Local Member in response to local concerns.

 

A discussion on the application was postponed in a previous committee to correct the plans from the standpoint of form and layout of the access and the parking area in front of the site and to reflect what is seen on the site. It was explained that the footpath had changed to a winding access ramp instead of a row of straight stairs as originally shown on the plans submitted. As a result, a second consultation was held with the Community Council, the Local Member, neighbours, objectors and the Transportation Unit. It was noted that with the consent of the Committee Chair, a site visit was held to give the Committee members an opportunity to see the property and the surrounding area.

 

Attention was drawn to the lengthy planning history of the site, detailing that an application to demolish a bungalow and erect a brand-new dwelling had been refused. It was highlighted that the application had been refused due to the appearance and design, local market housing policy and the impact on neighbours' amenities. Following this, an application was approved to erect a single-storey house on the site.

 

It was highlighted that there had been allegations that the owner had built the house that was refused, but it was noted that this was incorrect and reference was made to the plans and the pictures submitted as part of the committee report which showed that the development seen on the site was completely different to the refused plan. It was reiterated that this plan included three floors to the property (a garage on the ground floor, living space on the first floor and living space within the roof space, as well as a balcony). It was noted that the development that was now seen on the site was a single-storey dwelling - it did not include a balcony and living space, roof space or a garage under the property. As an ancillary note, it was also noted that minor amendments had been approved to the original permission.

 

In the context of the principle of the development, it was noted that the application had already been accepted through previous permission and no changes had been made from a policy standpoint. It was therefore considered that the principle remained to be acceptable. In terms of the design of the proposal, it was suggested that the appearance was the same as the previous permission, and although there was increase in the height, such height was not uncommon in comparatively intense built situations such as this and it does not stand out as the highest building in the neighbourhood. It was considered that the amendments to the access arrangements offered improvement to the design and ensured access to all.

 

In the context of residential amenities, consideration was given to the changes, which concluded that the impact of what has been built was substantially greater than what was already approved.

 

It was reported, as with any retrospective application, that there is a need to consider the application on its own merits and, although it was not possible to excuse any unauthorised work, the fact that the application was retrospective was not a valid reason for refusing it, and the planning process should not be used as a process to punish an applicant. It was reiterated that the applicant had listened and received advice from officers and had submitted an application to try to regulate the situation. Despite acknowledging that there were strong feelings against the application locally, the changes were not considered to be substantially different in terms of impact and appearance compared to the original permissions and it was not considered that the impact would create a more significant detrimental impact than what was considered acceptable in the past.

 

It was considered that the application was acceptable and the Officers recommended to approve.

 

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

·       That they represented Penygraig residents and the people next door to Woodcroft

·       That the current height of the building was 2m higher than the plans

·       That the plan did not follow the design and access statement

·       That the plans were incorrect - no as built overlays were shown. An independent architect had compared the plans - possible to present copies.

·       That the application did not comply with the LDP policies

·       It created an incompatible feature in the local environment; harmful to residential amenities.

·       The house was the size of an open market house, not a local market house.

·       Had been built contrary to plans - concern that this could set a precedent to act against the advice of the planning department.

·       That the building was an over-development - this was a two-storey building, and not a single-storey as had been approved. One large, pointless window on the second floor

·       This was an attempt from the developer for approval and not to receive advice.

·       Concern once again of placing buildings within a close community with permanent neighbours - sites like these were becoming scarce.

 

c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following observations:

·       That the current 2m height was not higher than what was approved - there was only a difference of 25cm

·       The plans were correct - the applicant had not ignored the planning process

·       That the plans aimed to correct a mistake made in the original street-scene plan and some other minor amendments - the size was correct - the building being erected was substantially smaller than the plans that were refused

·       No intention for the house to become a holiday home - this would be a full-time home for the applicant

·       It would not have a detrimental impact on nearby gardens - a nearby holiday accommodation score praised the beauty and the tranquillity - no score impact

·       The sun's path did not create a shadow over the cottage and garden next door

 

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

·       Disagreed with the officers' conclusions - the building was an incompatible feature within the local built environment, contrary to PCYFF3 criteria - the design did not suit the area; it did not add or improve the character or appearance of the site

·       Expert planning evidence had highlighted that the building had been erected to a height that was refused in 2021 – the plans had been magnified

·       That the site was within an AONB and Mynydd Tir y Cwmwd area which was within a SSSI - contrary to AMG 1 policy requirements

·       The proposed development was harmful to the residential amenities of nearby property owners - it created an oppressive element over neighbouring gardens and an overlooking impact - contrary to PCYFF 2 - protecting the amenities of local residents

·       The house was beyond the size earmarked for a local market house and was therefore contrary to Policy TAI 5 - creating an open market dwelling that would exclude the majority of local residents - therefore contrary to Policy TAI 5 objectives

·       The levels were incorrect - the concerns needed to be addressed

·       The proposal had ruined Bwthyn Begw

·       Concern of setting a dangerous precedent of not accepting advice and submitting a retrospective application

·       A suggestion to defer to ensure that it was possible to check the measurements with a third party or refuse as it was a feature that was visible from the shoreline, the sea and the mountain. The AONB needed to be protected.

 

e)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the refusal reasons 1 and 2 to application C21/0452/38/LL (2021):

·       'The proposed building would create an incompatible feature in the local built environment and, consequently, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Criteria 1, 2 and 3 of policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP 2011-2026 as the proposal does not add or enhance the character and appearance of the site or the area in terms of layout, appearance, scale, height, mass and elevation treatment. It was not considered that the development would suit the area in terms of design and layout and it would likely be harmful to the built environment in this part of the Llŷn AONB. The application was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy AMG 1 of the LDP.

·       The proposed development would be harmful to the residential amenities of nearby property owners as it would create an oppressive element over neighbouring gardens and would also cause substantial overlooking impacts that would be harmful to the amenities of those properties' residents. The application was contrary to policy PCYFF2 of the LDP as it related to protecting the amenities of local residents.'

 

f)      During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·       That the proposal seemed to be oppressive - larger than what was approved

·       Concern of setting a dangerous precedent of ignoring conditions and planning rules - needed to check developments step-by-step.

·       That the building was unsuitable in its environment.

·       Needed specific facts / measurements - what was on the site from what was originally approved?

·       The measurements were unclear - the building was built and therefore the proposal needed to be assessed based on what was to be seen on the site.

·       That evidence had been submitted highlighting errors in the levels.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse the application

Reason: 

·       Over-development. Concern that the height and size of the proposal creates an oppressive element over a nearby property and disturbs and impacts neighbours' amenities, contrary to Policy PCYFF 2