Outline application to construct an
affordable dwelling
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Anwen J Davies
Minutes:
Outline application for the erection of an affordable house.
(a) The Development
Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that it
was an outline application for an affordable two-storey
house within the gardens of two existing properties. It was noted that
Policy CH4 was relevant and stated that,
in principle, proposals for the construction of new dwellings on unallocated
sites within village development boundaries would be approved provided they conformed to all the relevant policies of the Plan and the three criteria which form part
of the Policy.
It
was highlighted that Policy B23 of the GUDP considered
the impact of the proposal on nearby residential
amenities. Although no details had been submitted with the application to show the location of the first floor rooms
and windows, it was stated that
the house's location, its height, and
the likelihood of installing
windows to the northern elevation (rear) as part of the interior layout of the proposed house, gave rise to substantial
concerns about the impact of the proposal on the privacy and amenities of the residents of the house to the rear and to the north of the site.
Grave
concerns were expressed about the development. The proposal was considered to be an over-development of a small site and considered
to be unacceptable in relation to Policy B23 as it would
cause significant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood, it would be an
over-development of a small
site, and would reduce the amenity space of both existing houses
through use of the garden as a plot for the proposed house. It was emphasised that the fact that
it was the applicant who owned both
nearby houses did not overcome the concerns relating to the over-development
of a small site.
Attention was drawn to the fact that a previous
application for the same development had been rejected under
delegated rights on 18 January 2017 on the basis that:
"The dwelling, by virtue
of its size and location would
lead to an oppressive intrusion that would be harmful
to the amenities of residents
of neighbouring private property, especially because of its dominating effect and the overlooking that would result.
The application was
therefore contrary
to Policies B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan and undermines policy PCYFF 1
LDP."
It was noted that the current proposal did not mitigate the substantial planning concerns related to the proposal and it was recommended
that the application be rejected on the same grounds.
(b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main
points:-
·
That his family was one of the oldest families in Efailnewydd;
·
The house was meant to be built for his son;
·
That he understood that officers appreciated full details with
regards to size, but that changing
the size would be a minor issue on submission
of a full planning application;
·
The Planning Service had received seven letters in support
of the application;
·
That the Community
Council was supportive;
·
That the proposal was acceptable from a road safety standpoint.
(c) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
The proposal would mean improving
the existing entrance;
·
The proposal would increase parking spaces, providing spaces for four cars;
thus satisfying the requirements
under Policy CH35 of the
GUDP for off road parking spaces;
·
The proposal was in accordance with
Policy C1 of the GUDP as it was within the village development boundary;
·
That a new housing estate had been developed in the vicinity and that this
had already led to a loss
of privacy;
·
That there were no objections
from the community or from the owners
of the nearby house;
·
That the applicant was
willing to cooperate with Welsh Water;
·
That is was important
to support local people and allow
developments that could enable young
people to stay in the area;
·
The applicant’s wish that the vote
be recorded.
The Chair noted that
it was a matter for the Committee to determine whether a recorded vote should
be held.
In response to the applicant's observations and those of the local member, the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted that the recommendation to refuse the application was robust and that
the Committee should consider a site visit before deciding
on the application because of matters relating to amenities.
(ch) A proposal to undertake
a site visit was made and seconded.
RESOLVED to undertake
a site visit.
Supporting documents: