Amended design to that refused under C16/0705/41/LL to convert the
outbuilding to an affordable 4 bedroom dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Lloyd Evans
Minutes:
An amended design to the
one refused under C16/0705/41/LL to convert an outbuilding into a four bedroom
affordable house.
Some members of the Committee had visited the site
before the meeting.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations
that had been received
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that this was a resubmission of a previous application which had been
refused under delegated rights. It was highlighted that this was a full
planning application to convert existing outbuildings from agricultural/storage
use to residential use. It was also noted that the application had been
postponed until November 2016 because the applicant wanted to weigh up the
situation following the publication of the report.
The application had been amended
since its original submission and the plans now show an intention to convert
part of the buildings into a house which would comprise three bedrooms,
kitchen/dining room, lounge and bathroom. The proposal originally indicated
that part of the existing building would be demolished and reconstructed
leaving a space between the dwelling and the outbuilding. This had now been
changed to include a garage and new storage area attached to the house.
The
application was submitted to the Planning Committee at the Local Member’s
request as he was of the opinion that the building was suitable for conversion
to an affordable house for a young local family and that there was a shortage
of such housing in the area.
Reference was made
to the relevant policies (specifically C4 and CH12) and also to the responses
received during the consultation period. It was explained that Policy C4 of the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan approved plans to adapt buildings for re-use
subject to compliance with criteria, which included ensuring that the building
was of permanent construction and was structurally sound and that it could be
converted without major reconstruction work. It was noted that walls on the
site had been built at different times; and that a structural survey was
submitted with the application. It was highlighted that the report confirmed
the need to demolish some buildings entirely as they were in poor condition and
that other buildings needed local demolition and reconstruction work as well as
some smartening.
As a result, it
was considered that the proposal neither complied with the requirements of
policy C4 in the form it had been submitted nor did it comply with the
requirements of the SPG 'Conversion of buildings in open countryside and rural
villages' as none of the buildings that were included in the application were
suitable to be converted.
In terms of establishing
the principle, it was also required that the proposal be considered in
accordance with policy CH12 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan. The key
part of the policy stated:
"in rural villages and in the countryside
conversions of buildings for residential use will not be permitted unless it is
proven first that a suitable economic use cannot be secured for the
building..."
Only if there is
compliance with the first part of the policy could the associated four criteria
be considered. Attention was drawn to
the opening sentence, which had been confirmed at a relatively recent appeal
with an application in Glasinfryn, of 'ensuring economic use'. Evidence submitted by the agent and the
applicant on the failure to ensure a suitable economic use for the building
which was the subject of the application was insufficient, despite the advice
given prior to submitting the application for the need to secure this. The information submitted with the application
including additional information submitted by the applicant was very general
with no evidence of any real attempt made to market the buildings for suitable
economic use. It was noted that the
applicant/agent had stated that the buildings were not suitable or safe for
renting or for modern agricultural requirements.
Referring to the
consideration given to the site for holiday use, the applicant highlighted that
there was a substantial number of holiday accommodation nearby, and a letter
was also sent by the owner of a nearby site referring to the lack of benefit
from letting holiday homes in this specific area. The applicant was thus of the opinion that
this was sufficient research and evidence. It was highlighted that the
buildings had not been advertised as being for sale or to let, and no reference
was made to prices and marketing period. As a result, it was considered that
firm evidence did not exist to demonstrate that it was not possible to ensure
suitable economic use of the buildings.
It was noted that
the council, prior to submitting the previous application had presented it to
the agent; and that, furthermore, had clearly stated through letter and
verbally the need to prove that suitable economic use could not be ensured for
the buildings before considering their use as a residential unit. The agent was
given clear direction and guidance about the need to comply with the
requirements of this relevant policy. This was not to say that the proposal was
impossible, only that relevant evidence was required to show that real effort
had been made to market the building for economic purposes.
It was highlighted
that this was an application for an affordable house and that Tai Teg had
confirmed that the applicant had proved the need for an affordable house. It
was confirmed that Tai Teg would not be assessing any other element of the
proposal. If the proposal were
acceptable in every other respect, there would be a requirement to bind the
development to a 106 Agreement 'community local need for an affordable
house'. As the proposal was contrary to
several policies, the agent/applicant was not requested to confirm this aspect.
With the concerns
having been brought to the agent's attention and that this advice had been
consistent, the recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:
·
That the building
stuck out 2.4m only, more than what was acceptable
·
Only 10% of the site
needed to be rebuilt - this had been noted in the report
·
The storage area was
not part of the plans
·
The proposal was not
a service / community resource and, therefore, does not require marketing as a
farm building would not lead to a loss of Service / resource
·
Had looked into
economic ideas, but that this would have led to expenditure - too expensive to
go down this route.
·
The only possible use
was residential
·
Reference was made to
a similar application that was granted without marketing. Why, therefore, was
there no consistency?
c)
The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee), supported the application and he made the following main
points:
·
Members were reminded that they had recently adopted the
Rural Gwynedd Development Project as part of the Council's Plan (2017-2018) and
would, therefore, need to look beyond planning policies
·
It was highlighted that the Community Council was
supportive and had expressed disappointment that local people were not being
allowed to use buildings on their own land
·
That the applicant qualified for an affordable house
·
That nearby
residents supported the application
·
That rebuilding 10% of the site was neither substantial
nor entire
·
That he disagreed with the material planning
considerations
·
In the context of marketing, a letter had been submitted
expressing the lack of economic / agricultural value to the buildings
·
That the marketing argument was unreasonable - this did
not involve a shop / public house / surgery and the 'loss of a community
resource' was, therefore, irrelevant
·
That the site was
vacant
·
Their intention was
to run an agricultural business
·
A request for the Members to consider whether the
proposal was logical
(ch) In response
to the above observations, the Planning Manager noted that it was an
application for an affordable house that had been submitted, rather than an
application for a farmhouse / rural enterprise and the proposal had, therefore,
been considered under those material policies. Usually, in such circumstances,
the site would need to be marketed for a period of approximately 12 months. In
response to an observation to rebuild 10% of the site, it was noted that this
had been included in the agent's late observations. It was explained that
officers had looked at the size of the development in its entirety, which also
included a storage area and garage, not only residential accommodation. This
was, therefore, the equivalent of approximately one third of the development
being newly built.
d)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application.
(dd) During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted by members:
·
That members had visited the site and had, therefore,
been given the opportunity to see the condition of the structures
·
Building control was likely to encourage the
demolition of the buildings
·
An improved plan was required that would comply with the
policies
·
Sad to see derelict buildings remaining
derelict because of policies - but these policies must be adhered to
·
How would it be possible to convert the buildings for
economic benefit? It was a remote site and, therefore, much doubt existed as to
its suitability as a holiday unit.
·
That access to the site was narrow and, thus, unsuitable
for heavy lorries, should it need to be run as an agricultural business -
narrowness of the lanes was possible evidence that it was unsuitable for
business use
·
Converting it into a residential unit with a 106
agreement would possibly be an economic element - keeping a young family in the
locality
·
What would the other optional economic use be? Likely
that the most obvious option would be farming.
·
The application was a good one and should not be
disregarded
·
The building had not been used for 40 years -
evidence, therefore, that it had not had much economic use
·
That the property had been owned by the family and was
suitable to be converted into a house - an ideal location for a young family
·
The derelict buildings were an eye sore
·
The people of Gwynedd must be put at the centre of
decisions and, therefore, this family needed the opportunity to have a home and
the opportunity to run a business of their own
·
It would be foolish to propose a period of marketing in
order to give others the opportunity
e) In
response to the above observations the Senior Manager noted that no evidence of
testing the market / possible economic use had been submitted, despite the
advice given to the applicant's agent on several occasions. Unfortunately, as
the application had not responded to this advice, the recommendation was to
refuse. It was suggested that it would be possible to consider setting a 12
month period for it to be appropriately marketed. Although much talk had been
about ideas and the intention to run a business, no information / evidence had
been submitted in support of this.
RESOLVED to defer
the application so that the applicant can submit evidence of marketing over an
appropriate period
Supporting documents: