Agenda item

Resubmission with amendments of applications C15/1033/44/LL, C16/0144/44/LL and C16/0313/44/LL for the erection of a 3 bedroom dwelling.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Selwyn Griffiths

Link to relevant background documents

Re-submission with amendments of applications refused under C15/1033/44/LL, C16/0144/44/LL and C16/0313/44/LL to erect a three bedroom property.

(a)  The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted that this was a re-submission of a full application that had been previously refused to erect a detached property with an integrated garage and new vehicular access.    An amended application was submitted that included three bedrooms. The application was amended by reducing the overall size of the proposed building as well as removing some of the features.  It was noted that the current plan indicated that the width of the building was 10.7m compared to 11.6m and 12.3m as refused previously, and the height was also reduced to 6.7m from the previous 6.9m and 7.6m. 

It was noted that the principle of erecting the house was acceptable as the site was within the development boundary of the village of Borth-y-gest and outline permission had been approved in the past to erect a new house.

Attention was drawn to the fact that consistent amendments had been made as a result of the previous refusals in response to the planning authority's concerns.

It was recognised that concerns had been highlighted regarding this application that were consistent with the objections submitted with the previous applications.  Full consideration has been given to all the relevant planning matters submitted.

It was believed that the proposal was now acceptable based on the amendments made and the reduction in the size of the proposed building and the site had already been considered suitable for residential development by the approval of an earlier application.

It was recommended that the application should be approved with the conditions as noted in the report.

   (b) The Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following points:

·         That he objected the previous application due to the size of the house, however, because of the amendment to reduce its size, he was of the view that he could now not object

·         Whilst accepting that there were concerns locally regarding he quality of the land these concerns had been addressed in the report before them

·         The land behind the site was steep and prior to commencement of the development it had to be ensured that there would be no land slippage

·         It could not be refused as the development complied with the relevant policies

·         The member was glad to see that condition 9 (withdrawal of PD rights) had been included in the conditions to ensure that the site would not be extended having received planning permission

(c) Regarding safeguarding the land at the rear of the site, the Development Control Manager confirmed that it would be possible to impose a condition to draw the applicant's attention to the concern via building regulations 

         Resolved:          To approve in accordance with the following conditions:

            1.         Time

            2.         Compliance with plans

            3.         Materials / slate

            4.         To submit and agree on a Building Control Plan

            5.         Protecting trees

            6.         Highways

            7.         Opaque glass

            8.         Finished floor levels

            9.         Removal of PD rights

            10.       Note on Party Wall Act

Note: to draw the applicant's attention to the possibility of requiring a supporting wall at the back