Agenda item

Erection of new dwelling

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwilym Evans

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

 

⁠To defer to conduct a site visit

 

Erection of new dwelling

 

a)    The ⁠Senior Planning Officer highlighted that it was a full application for the erection of a family dwelling of a detached two-storey design, with the gable end of the property facing the public road; the proposed house would be of a modern pitched roof design built into the slope. It would measure approximately 7.2m high to the highest point of the roof, with a balcony on a substantial terrace being installed to the rear of the property which would extend out approximately 2.5m and serve the floor.

 

An application for a single property on this site (26.02.2026) under reference C25/0927/15/LL had been refused. Although some amendments had been made to the plans of the current application, including the removal of two first-floor openings that faced the property next door and reducing the size of the balcony so that it did not extend out past the house's side elevation, the size and layout of the property generally continued to be the same in terms of size and scale.

 

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee for a decision at the Local Member's request.

 

Reference was made to Policy TAI 15 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) which stated that Councils would seek to ensure an appropriate level of affordable housing in the plan area. Two or more housing units was the threshold, and as only one unit was proposed in this case, Policy TAI 15 was not relevant in this case, and it was not necessary to provide an affordable element.

 

Policy PCYFF 3 required developments to offer a design of high-quality that respected and assimilated with the character and context of the area. In this case, it was considered that the proposed house did not reflect the traditional design of the adjacent terraced houses on Warden Street. Although the design had been modified somewhat since the previous application, its bulk, height and more contemporary features continued to appear disproportionate and out of character with the local environment. In addition, as the site was on a slope, the dwelling would sit higher than the surrounding houses and therefore stand out in the landscape. As a result, it was considered that the building would create an oppressive effect and would not naturally blend into the streetscape or the surrounding landscape. The proposal therefore did not add to or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and was contrary to the requirements of policy PCYFF 3. Although some materials attempted to refer to the historic landscape, it was considered that a more sensitive design for the site could be submitted.

 

In terms of residential amenities, significant concerns were raised about the impact of the development on neighbouring properties. Although the proposed balcony had been reduced, it remained a prominent feature at the rear of the property and was likely to cause over-looking and privacy issues – these risks particularly affected residents of the neighbouring chapel and No. 10 Warden Street.

 

In addition, it was considered that the location and layout of the property meant that movements in and out of the new house would take place in a narrow gap near No. 10, rather than towards the street like the rest of the houses. This would create a sense of oppression and negatively impact the residential amenities of that property. As a result, the proposal was considered to have an unacceptable impact on nearby residents and was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 2.

 

The proposed biodiversity improvements were considered to meet the requirements of policies PS19 and AMG5 and Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales. The SUDS application had been submitted and approved – the proposal was acceptable and complied with the requirements of TAN 15.

 

It was explained that the property would provide a family home for a local person from the village and therefore it was not considered that it would be detrimental to the Welsh language. It was noted that conditions could be imposed, if the application was granted, to ensure a Welsh name for the dwelling; the proposal complied with the requirements of policy PS 1.

 

The Planning Officers recommended that the application be refused as the modern design of the proposed dwelling, with the extensive balcony and glazed doors/windows on the front and rear elevations, did not respect the character of neighbouring houses or that which was in the vicinity - the features would be incompatible. ⁠The proposal would not complement nor enhance the character and appearance of the site or area. Full consideration had not been given to its historical and built context and that its layout, appearance, scale, height, mass and treatment of the elevations contained incongruous, dominant and alien features that did not respect the context of the streetscape or site. The proposal was therefore considered contrary to criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy PCYFF 3:

 

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

·        That he was brought up in Llanberis.

·        Several efforts had been made to submit an application and discuss with officers.

·        Accepted that the design was modern, but there was a need to move with the times - not everyone wanted a quarry house.

·        Several new, bold houses had been built in the village - some on the old Library site - these were modern, and it could be argued that they did not suit the surrounding area.

·        Design inconsistencies throughout the village.

·        The house would not have an impact on the flats as they were located at ground level.

·        An Airbnb was on the first floor of the flats - therefore, was there a priority over local people?

·        The SUDS application had been approved.

·        The application was within the development boundary of the village.

 

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

·        That he was speaking on behalf of the Community Council which was supportive of the application.

·        While he welcomed recent new housing to the village it could be argued that they did not suit the surrounding area.

·        There were no objections locally and neighbours were in favour of the application.

·        There was a real need for housing in the village – several had been sold and were now used as Airbnbs or second homes – welcomed this as an opportunity for a local family to stay in the village.

·        Urged the committee to approve with possible conditions.

 

ch) It was proposed and seconded to defer so that further discussions could be held with the applicant, and a site visit could take place so that the Committee could consider the issues in more detail.

 

RESOLVED: To defer in order to undertake a site visit.