Agenda item

Full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling (C3 use) and construction of a new replacement dwelling (C3 use) with improvements to an existing access. 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve, contrary to the recommendation

 

1.     5 years

2.     In accordance with the plans

3.     Finish and slates on the roof

4.     Archaeology condition - archive record

5.     Biodiversity enhancements

Full application to demolish an existing dwelling (C3 use) and construction of a new replacement dwelling (C3 use) with improvements to an existing access.

 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that the proposal entailed the demolition of an existing empty building (which had clearly retained its status as a residential property) and the erection of a 4-bedroom, two-storey building partially over the footprint of the existing property but would be slightly higher. It was explained that the site was located within the development boundary of the village of Sarn Bach with a parallel class 3 public road and a public footpath leading off the road through the site. It was added that an existing vehicular entrance led past the gable of the property serving the site and was access to an established camping and touring caravan site attached to the property to the rear of the main building. The neighbouring buildings were to some extent a mix in design and finishes, but all included common features in form and finishes such as slate roofs and a finish of natural stone and render. 

 

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

 

In the context of the principle of the development, policy TAI 13 (demolition and re-erection of houses) was considered, highlighting that policy TAI 5 was not relevant because the existing property, considering its delegated rights to extend, was beyond the requirements of the policy. It was noted that the proposal complied with the requirements of policy TAI 13 and that there was no objection to the principle of demolishing the property and erecting another in its place.

 

However, it was considered that the proposed property, due to its design, finishes and scale would completely change the character of the site and attract the eye to an unacceptable degree. It would not respect its site context and location within the village. It was recognised that various examples of development had been permitted within the area, but that each application had to be considered on its own merit – in this case, it was not considered that the proposal had entirely succeeded in enhancing the character and appearance of the site as the design would create a much more prominent feature and would not integrate or contribute positively to the local streetscape and the development pattern of the surrounding area. The view was supported by the observations of the AONB Unit. It was accepted that an effort had been made to change the design of the property, but it was not possible to overcome all the concerns in terms of visual impact and impact on the AONB. To this end, the proposal conflicted with the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2, PCYFF 3 and AMG 1 of the LDP together with the advice of Technical Advice Note 12.

 

Reference was made to matters regarding residential amenities, transport, language and biodiversity, noting that they were acceptable.

 

The proposal was considered unacceptable in its submitted form as it failed to meet the requirements of relevant policies and guidelines. The officers recommended that the application be refused.

 

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

·        The intention was to demolish an old farmhouse and build a new house in its place – no legal restrictions – the value of the existing house was well above the threshold of what was considered affordable housing for a local person.

·        The applicants were a local Welsh-speaking family who intended to move from their farm in Cilan and retire to their Fferm Sarn property, to live and run the farm and their caravan park.

·        The farmhouse in Cilan would be released for rent to a local family.

·        The house was in poor condition. This had been confirmed by a structural engineer.

·        The property had been vacant for 20 years.

·        A 'Viability Assessment' proved that it would not be economical to renovate the house and that demolition was the solution. The principle of demolishing was not an issue.

·        It was not listed or located within a conservation area. There were no architectural features to the property.

·        It was within the local development boundary.

·        Good design – there was an intention to use traditional materials in the rebuild.

·        Officers were concerned about the size and scale of the design.

·        Permitted Developments Rights (PDR) could allow the size of a house to be expanded without planning permission.

·        The 30m2 proposal was less than PDR requirements - therefore, it could be argued that it was not too large for the area; the size had however been reduced following discussions.

·        No objections from the Community Council or neighbours.

·        It was proposed to rebuild slightly away from the road to improve the access, visibility and safety of public footpath users.

·        More economical to demolish and rebuild a house within the development boundary.

 

c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, a member from a neighbouring ward noted the following observations (on behalf of the Local Member):

·        It was not unusual to see a house being demolished and rebuilt in this area, but it was different here as a local family was submitting the application and not an applicant from across the border.

·        Three generations of the same family had farmed at Fferm Sarn. The applicant currently lived on a neighbouring farm in Cilan but wanted to retire from farming and run the caravan park that already existed at Fferm Sarn. He intended to rent the farm in Cilan to a young local family.

·        The house had been vacant for 15 years and was in a poor condition.

·        A Structural Report had highlighted that a lot of work would be required to bring a building up to standard and therefore the best option would be to demolish and rebuild.

·       Despite the collaboration and discussion with officers about changes to the plan to use the old slates of the house, adjust the size of the windows, reduce the size of the property's footprint and reuse of stones, it was disappointing that the officers were recommending to refuse the application.

·        The Community Council had not objected to the application.

·        The reasons for refusing were weak - they related to design, which was a matter of personal opinion. This was an ordinary house compared to the mansions in Abersoch.

·        The applicant was entitled to maintain the existing footprint under Planning Permission: Development Rights, without planning permission.

·        It was intended to create a new, larger entrance to improve safety for cars, caravans and public footpath users.

·        This was not a new house – it complied with the requirements of policy TAI 13.

·        Conversion of an empty house into a home. A great opportunity to use a dormant, unkempt house to a tidy, comfortable, energy efficient house.

·        Asked the Committee to grant the application.

 

    ch)   It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

Reason:  Design was a matter of opinion – this was acceptable given the diverse architecture of this particular area.

 

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

·        The Community Council did not object to the application.

·        It would bring an empty house back into use.

·        It was intended to move the property further back from the road.

·       The applicant was within his rights to build a larger house.

·        There were improvements here too – creating a safer access with better visibility – that were favourable to pedestrians and drivers.

·        There was a need to move with the times.

·        Houses of modern design and good quality should be supported – perhaps too strict with design rules.

 

·        The house did not suit the area – too different from the original house.

·        Design was a matter of opinion – while demolition and rebuilding would be acceptable, designs suitable for the area must be ensured. AONB comments needed to be considered.

 

In response to a question as to which design elements had been considered for this development, it was noted that the location, size, appearance, window pattern and balance of the design elements had been considered. Accepted that this was a matter of opinion, but it was the view of the local planning authority that the proposal was unacceptable in the submitted form.

 

RESOLVED To approve, contrary to the recommendation.

 

1.     5 years

2.     In accordance with the plans.

3.     Finish and slates on the roof.

4.     Archaeology condition - archive record.

5.     Biodiversity enhancements.