Outline application to construct an affordable dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J. Davies
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Outline application for the erection of an affordable house.
(a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the
Committee meeting held on 3 April 2017 in order to hold a site visit. Some members had visited the site prior to
the meeting.
Attention
was drawn to the fact that a letter had been received from the owner of an
adjacent house expressing strong concern about the impact of the proposal on an
adjacent property since publishing the agenda.
Substantial
concern was expressed regarding the development, it was considered that the
proposal was an over-development of the narrow site and it was not considered
that the proposal was acceptable in respect of Policy B23 of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan (GUDP), because it would cause significant harm to the
amenities of the local neighbourhood, would be an over-development of a narrow
site and would reduce the amenity space of the two existing houses by using the
garden as a plot for the proposed house.
It was emphasised that that the applicant owned two of the nearby houses
did not overcome the concerns relating to the over-development of a small site.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the previous application for the
same development had been refused under delegated rights. It was noted that the current proposal did
not mitigate substantial planning concerns regarding the proposal and it was
recommended to refuse the application.
(b) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:-
·
That the site was within the development boundary
of the village;
·
The development would enable a local young person
to remain in their home area;
·
That the neighbours were in favour of the
development;
·
That planning applications for housing in gardens
of a similar size had been approved;
·
That the applicant was prepared to discuss the size
and height of the house with the Planning Service.
In response to the local member’s observations, the
Planning Manager explained that although it was an outline application, the
applicant had to note a maximum and minimum in terms of measurements and it was
not possible to negotiate the measurements after outline permission was
granted.
(c) It was proposed and
seconded to refuse the application.
During the ensuing discussion, the
following main observations were noted by members:
·
That the proposal would lead to an
oppressive and harmful intrusion to the amenities of the residents of nearby
private properties.
·
Only one individual had objected to the
proposal;
·
The proposal should be welcomed,
housing was needed for local people with young people leaving the area;
·
That the applicant was prepared to
discuss the size and height of the house with the Planning Service. The application should be approved and then a
discussion held.
(ch) An
amendment was proposed to defer the application in order to hold a further
discussion with the applicant in terms of the size and height of the house.
The Planning Manager noted that
reducing the size of the house would not overcome the concerns in relation to
over-development, because as a result of reducing the size, it was likely that
the height of the house would have to increase thus making the house more
oppressive.
The amendment was seconded.
The Senior Planning Service Manager
emphasised that although the site was within the development boundary, the
location restricted what could be developed on the site. It was noted that reducing the size would not
overcome the refusal reasons.
A member noted that although she
sympathised with the Local Member, she could not support the application as it
would be an over-development and there would be more of a parking area than a
recreational area on the site. It had to be kept in mind that the development
would be on the site forever, not just in order to respond to the needs of the
current owner.
A vote was taken on the amendment to
defer, and the amendment fell.
(d) In
response to a member's observation, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted
that minor amendments would not overcome concerns.
A member noted that the
site was too small for a reasonably sized house, and although she wanted to
support local people, they deserved a quality house. She added that the
proposal would be harmful to the living standards of the neighbours and the
applicant.
(dd)
In accordance with the Procedural Rules,
the following vote to refuse the application was recorded:
In favour of the proposal to refuse the application
(6): Councillors Gwen Griffith, Anne Lloyd Jones,
June Marshall, Michael Sol Owen, W. Tudor Owen and John Wyn
Williams.
Against
the proposal to refuse the application (5):
Councillors Simon Glyn, Eric M. Jones, John Pughe Roberts, Eirwyn Williams and Owain
Williams.
Abstaining, (0)
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
Reason:
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 is therefore contrary to Policies B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan and undermines policy PCYFF 1 LDP.
Supporting documents: