Construction of three bedroom house with garage.
Local Member: Councillor John B. Hughes
Minutes:
Outline application to
construct a three bedroom house with a garage.
(a)
The Development
Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
this was an outline application to construct a two-storey house with an
integral garage. Although all matters
were reserved, plans had been submitted to give an indication of the type of
house that was proposed for the site
A pre-application
enquiry had been received for constructing the house on the site in question
and a clear and firm message had been given that the site lay a considerable
distance outside the development boundary and that it would not be possible to
support the application.
Reference was made to
the relevant local and national policies along with observations from the
public consultations.
It was considered that
the proposal would not be acceptable as the design was too large and bulky for
the location in question. It would be
likely to lead to overlooking and would be contrary to relevant policies.
The planning officers’ recommendation was to
refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the report before the
committee.
(b)
Taking advantage
of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:
·
That he and his
fiancée were from the area, were currently renting a house and there was not
much opportunity to buy a house in the area as they were out of their reach
financially.
·
As a couple they
worked locally and were eager to live near the village and after getting
married they hoped to bring up a family in the area.
·
He had been
renting for approximately six years and they had been offered the opportunity
to purchase the land in question and it was an excellent opportunity for them
to build their own house.
(c)
The Local Member
(who was not a member of this Planning Committee) supported the application and
made the following main points:
·
He listed a
number of houses that had been developed near the land in question and it was
not believed that the land was located in open countryside
·
No objections had
been received from the statutory bodies apart from the proposed materials
however there was a need to remember that this was a modern design
·
There were only
two locations in Llanengan that could be developed
·
One objection had
been received from the owner of the Minffordd property in relation to the
height of the garage, and should the applicant lower the height, the
objector would be satisfied
·
There was plenty
of parking space
·
It was not
possible for the couple to buy a house and they worked locally and were keeping
the Welsh language alive in the area
·
Llanengan was a
bustling village and it was believed that the proposed development addressed
the couple’s needs and they should be supported
.
(ch) In response to the abovementioned observations, the Senior Planning
Service Manager confirmed that the proposed development was located in the
countryside and was totally contrary to planning policies and there was no justification
to approve it. The members were reminded
that the Council’s policies restricted this type of development in terms of the
principle. He suggested that the
applicants could be assessed by Tai Teg to see whether they were eligible for
an affordable house and to see whether there were any suitable properties
available to meet their needs. It was
emphasised that should the Committee approve the application contrary to the
planning officers’ recommendation there would be no option but to refer it to a
cooling off period.
(d)
Proposed and seconded to approve the application due
to the local need, the shortage of housing and that the applicants worked
locally.
(dd) The following observations were noted in favour of the proposal to approve
the application:
·
That houses in
Abersoch were for sale for more than £250,000 and were out of local people’s
reach
·
There was a need
to fight to keep young couples living in the area
·
That the
Community Council supported the development
·
Whilst accepting
that planning policies existed, different options should be discussed in order
to help young people to live locally
·
It was asked
whether it would be possible to approve the application and include a 106
Agreement on the permission
(e)
In response to
the abovementioned observations, the following was explained:
·
No written
evidence had been submitted by Tai Teg to support the local need for an
affordable house
·
The development
had not been submitted as an affordable house and it was an application for a
house on the open market
·
That the
application was contrary to the planning policies
(f)
A vote was taken
on the proposal to approve the application but the proposal fell.
(ff) Proposed, seconded and voted in favour of refusing the application
and to further suggest, whilst the Committee sympathised with the young couple,
that they should submit an application to Tai Teg to be assessed to see whether
they were eligible for an affordable house. The vote to refuse the application in accordance with the planning
officers’ recommendation was carried.
Resolved: To refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is for building a new house in the
countryside without any justification for it and which is therefore
unacceptable in principle and contrary to the requirements of Policies C1 and
CH9 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan along with the guidance in the
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Building New Houses in the Countryside,
Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities along with
Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 9 on Housing.
2. The
submitted illustrative design is of a scale that is too large and bulky for the
site and includes a number of incongruous features with the surrounding area
and therefore it is not considered that the design of the house or the
combination of materials are suitable for the site which is located within an
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Conservation Area and is therefore
contrary to Policies B4, B8, B22 and B25 of the GUDP.
3. The proposal as shown on the illustrative plans submitted as part of the application is likely to lead to overlooking and loss of privacy for nearby houses. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to policy B23 of the GUDP.
Supporting documents: