Revised application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling along with associated Works.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies
Minutes:
Revised
application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a
replacement dwelling and associated works
(a) The Senior Planning Service
Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that it had
been deferred at the Planning Committee in February 2016 in order to receive
the necessary information regarding bats and a technical report to justify why
it was not possible to locate the house closer to the location of the existing
dwelling. The application involved the demolition of an existing dwelling and
the construction of a replacement dwelling in a different location within the
property of 1-3 Arddgrach, Llannor,
and associated works, including a three-bedroom dormer bungalow with its front
elevation facing south-east. The house
would be finished with slate roofing and painted smooth render. It was intended to create a new entrance on
the site of the existing house, expanding a track from the side of the house's
carriageway and turning towards the entrance gate of the adjacent field. An application to demolish the building and
to erect a new building of the same design as this application, but further
back within the plot, had been refused last year. Reference was made to the
relevant policies within the report along with the responses to the public
consultations. In terms of the principle of the development, it was noted that
the proposal did not comply with all criteria within policy CH13 of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan. Although bat issues had been resolved by submitting
additional information, it was considered that planning officers were of the
opinion that the location and setting of the proposed dwelling was unsuitable
and contrary to the principle of the housing and design policies of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan. Although there
was potential to develop the site, it was not considered that the re-submission
before the committee was acceptable and based on the plans submitted it was
recommended that the application be refused.
(b) The Local Member (not a
member of this Planning committee) noted the following main points in favour of
the application:
·
Whilst
accepting that the location had changed, it was emphasised that it was not
possible to build on the same foundations due to the condition of the land in
terms of flooding from an embankment behind the houses.
·
The
above had been endorsed in an independent report by Mr Phil Jones, an expert in
drainage and flood management, and this noted, following inspection, that the
retaining wall leaked water and deposited water down the road. There was evidence of uncontrollable seepage
in a number of locations and it would be unwise to consider re-locating the
dwelling on the site of the existing house due to its proximity to the
retaining wall and the wet nature of the land. The house had to be located away from the
retaining wall and the associated drainage problems.
·
That
houses of a mixed size had been built in the village of Llannor
and that they blended in within the village.
·
That
the residents of the village were supportive of the application and that it
would be a significant improvement to be located on the site of the former
agricultural shed.
·
That
the applicant was local - a grandmother with her family around her.
·
That
all public consultations supported the application.
(c) Proposed and seconded to
approve the application contrary to the planning officers’ recommendation.
(ch) The following main points were noted in favour of
approving the application:
·
That
the plan was an improvement and that not building it in the location of the
existing house was suitable considering the opinion of the independent drainage
management expert.
·
That
there was a need for some flexibility in order to support houses in the
countryside for local people.
·
That
the application complied with criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5 of policy CH13 of the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan and although it did not comply with criterion
3 (namely that the new unit was located on the site of the original unit or as close
as practically possible), evidence and an explanation had been received from
the applicant regarding why the house needed to be relocated to the site of the
agricultural shed and that it was not intrusive on this site.
·
That
the footprint of the existing house was narrow and that it would not be
practical to build a family home on it.
(d) The following points were
noted against approving the application:
·
There
was insufficient information before the committee as to why the proposed house
should not be built on the foundations of the existing house.
·
That
the value of the house on the open market would be higher and that the
sustainability of the house in future should be protected.
·
As
the proposal did not comply with policy CH13, the house proposed on another
site would be considered as a new house and that new houses in the countryside
should be affordable.
(dd) A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the
application; and this proposal carried.
Resolved:To approve the application in accordance with the conditions outlined in (ch) above and subject to relevant planning conditions
determined by the Senior Planning Service Manager.
Supporting documents: