Agenda item

Retrospective application to rebuild  cottage and to include two storey side extensions and single storey rear extension.

 

Local Member: Councillor Angela Russell

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

·       Overdevelopment

·       A harmful effect on the landscape / AONB contrary to policy TAI 13.

 

A retrospective planning application to re-build a cottage with two-storey side extensions and a rear single-storey extension.

 

a)     The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that the application was to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new house in its place.  ⁠It was explained that the site was located on the outskirts of the village of Llanbedrog and outside any development boundary and was surrounded by extensive established woodland with land rising to the rear and the side of the property. It was reiterated that the site and the wider area were within the Llŷn AONB and the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest designations.

 

It was noted that the proposal did not involve an increase in the number of bedrooms and that the information submitted with the application confirmed that the current and intended use of the property was as a holiday cottage. Consequently, there would be no change to the use. It was expressed that planning consent has already been approved in 2021 to extend the original property, but the current proposal was the result of that proposal after discovering that the original cottage was not suitable to be extended.

 

Attention was drawn to Policy TAI 13 and its relevant criteria which specifically related to replacing dwellings. It was noted that the Structural Report on the original cottage had been submitted by a qualified engineer justifying the demolition work that was needed due to significant defects. Additionally, it was considered that the scale of the proposal was similar to what had been approved previously in the form of extensions to the original cottage.

 

In the context of visual amenities, the site was not entirely visible from public vantage points and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of its design and finish. It was not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the broader landscape including the AONB and the Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.  ⁠It stood a distance from any other property and it would not have a detrimental impact on any nearby residents. It was not considered that it would have any impact on road safety, as there was sufficient space to turn and park on the site.

 

In terms of biodiversity issues, it was noted that the proposal included acceptable improvements that would be secured through a planning condition.  

 

In terms of linguistic matters, the proposal did not involve any change of use and there was no increase in the number of bedrooms. Consequently, it was not considered that it would have any impact on the Welsh language.

 

Having considered all relevant planning matters, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable and the officers recommended approving the application with conditions.

 

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

·        Planning permission had been approved in 2021 and construction work had commenced the following summer.

·        Following heavy rainfall, the foundations had been found to be defective and unstable which had led to additional work.

·        The plans had been amended to be able to improve access and to move the location of the kitchen to have more light.

·        The original section in the middle of the house had been kept and the original stonework had been exposed.

·        The drainage system had been renewed - the system had been modernised.

·        The front door had been restored.

·        The house had been renewed for future generations

 

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

·        That retrospective applications had been increasing in her ward for some time with a vast number of residents contacting her asking her to intervene; highlighting concerns due to the lack of respect towards local planning policies.

·        The belief was that there was 'one rule for local people to live in 94 square metre houses and another rule for holiday home and holiday let owners!’
It appeared they had the right to demolish and extend the size of their properties.

·        The application was a classic example of extending and demolishing and rebuilding more than what was acceptable.

·        The application was within the boundary of the AONB and the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest - the report had intentionally chosen not to remind Members of the 'Statutory Duty to protect these designated lands'

·        The Community Council had noted ... "The new building is substantially larger than the original", however, the officer said "only slightly larger" without adding how much larger it was horizontally in additional square meters.

·        The Community Council said that the engineering work had had a considerable effect on biodiversity contrary to policies e.g. the biodiversity department had said that there was a possibility that the work had damaged bat roosts and bat habitats.

·        The costs of improving, repairing and altering in order to meet the requirements of the owners and current standards was "likely be substantial and prohibitive" - the risk once more of not having a report that had not been commissioned by the applicant. There should be an unbiased structural report from a third party - it was very easy to submit such a report after the house had been demolished and then submit a retrospective application.

·        Building within the footprint - it was very apparent to those who were familiar with the location that the new house was substantially larger than the original cottage. There was a history of one extension after the other before the retrospective application had been submitted to the Planning Committee. The officer stated "that extensive changes have been undertaken to the building over the years"

·        That the residents of Llanbedrog were pleading on the Committee to refuse the application - over-development of the site and harmful impact on the AONB and the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

 

   ch)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

           

            Reasons: That the proposal was an over-development and it would have a detrimental impact on the AONB

 

d)  During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·        There were several extensions here - had not kept to the original foundations / footprint.

·        The property was now substantially different to the original cottage.

·        There was a lack of respect for Cyngor Gwynedd's planning process - any architect, if there was a need to amend plans, would have known of the need to notify the planning department.

·        Another retrospective application - there was a need to manage the situation - it was developing into a fashionable thing to do.

·        There was a need to emphasise that planning permission was needed. Were there flaws in the system?

·        The new house was of a substantial size -  much bigger than the original - the requirement was to build on the footprint.

·        Concern regarding setting a precedent of demolishing small houses and building large houses in their place.

·        The size of three bedroom houses for local people was 94m2!

·        It would create a harmful impact on the AONB - trees had been felled.

 

In response to a question that the original house had been a holiday home and was demolished and if the proposal was now for a new house,  would there be a need to reconsider the new use of the house, it was noted that Policy 13 (Demolishing and Replacing which referred to the use of dwellings), stated that if the holiday use existed already, there was no need to consider changing it. Should a condition be set limiting the holiday use, the right to build a house would be lost.

 

In response to an observation on the footprint of the new house, it was noted that the original cottage measured 148m² and with the approved alterations it would have measured 184m²:  201m² had been built which overall was 50m² larger than the original surface area.

 

In response to a question that this was a second home and not a holiday cottage and whether it would be possible to change the use, it was noted that there was a right to change the use if needed, but this would mean losing a local house.

 

RESOLVED: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reasons:

·        Over-development

·        Harmful impact on the landscape / AONB contrary to policy TAI 13.