Demolition of the existing warehouse and erection of 2 storey dwellings.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sion Wyn Jones
Minutes:
To demolish the existing warehouse and erect a two-storey house.
(a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application,
noting that the application site was located in a residential area that was
relatively consistent in terms of the nature of the dwellings' design, as they
were generally two-storey detached or semi-detached houses (with a few
bungalows) in relatively substantial gardens. It was noted in comparison with
the remainder of the area that the proposed houses was of a completely alien
design to the location, with a metal, mono-pitch roof, that would not be in
keeping at all with any other houses in the locality. In addition, the
development would be out of character with the density of the local development
pattern with only one small strip of land measuring 10m2 for the
amenities of residents in the back and a parking space in the front.
It was emphasised that the parking provision associated with
the development did not meet the Wales Parking Guidance (2008).
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points:-
·
That the proposal coincided with the local area and
kept to the current building;
·
That a bespoke parking area would be provided for
every house;
·
There would be less traffic in comparison with the
previous use as a warehouse;
·
That neighbours were supportive of the proposal and
of the opinion that it would improve the site;
·
That the site was within the development boundary
of the village.
(c) The
application was supported by the local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee) and he made the following main points:
·
That the building was in a poor condition and the
proposal would be an improvement;
·
In terms of the lack of parking spaces, there was a
parking space on the highway opposite the site with space for six cars;
·
That the site was within the development boundary
of the village;
·
That letters of support from local neighbours noted
that there were no traffic problems or a lack of parking space.
(ch) In response to the above observations, the
officers noted:
·
That developing the site was acceptable in
principle but that possibly there was only space for one house on the site;
·
That the current design did not justify a similar
design;
·
That the design could be amended to satisfy the
road safety element, likely that the footprint would need to be changed;
·
That the parking spaces had to be specific to the
site and not on the street.
(d) It was proposed
and seconded to refuse the application.
The seconder noted that for consistency with a
decision on a previous application where the design was similar to a shed, the
application should be approved. The
Senior Solicitor explained that a proposal should not be seconded in order to
open a discussion; a proposal should only be seconded when a member shared that
view. A member noted that it was
difficult to propose or second before a discussion had commenced if a member
was uncertain. In response, the Senior
Solicitor noted in accordance with procedural rules that a proposal had to be
made and seconded before a discussion was held, and if a member was uncertain
then he/she should not make or second a proposal.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That the design attempted to reflect what was on
the site currently but that the design should be improved;
·
Supported the proposal but there was room to
improve the design;
·
That the design needed to reflect the surrounding
houses - a metal roof would not be in keeping;
·
The applicant should reconsider the parking
provision.
A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse and it
carried on the Chair's casting vote.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
Reasons:
1. The
development, due to its design, materials and density would not be in keeping
with its urban context and would be harmful to the visual amenities of the
residential area. The application is
therefore contrary to policies B22, B23 and B25 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan along with the advice included in the Gwynedd Design
Guidelines which state that every development should respect the spatial
quality of its surroundings.
2. The
parking provision proposed does not satisfy the Wales Parking Standards 2008
and the arrangement as shown would create a hazard for the users of the nearby
highway.The application is therefore contrary to Policies CH33 and CH36 of the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
Supporting documents: