Construction of a two storey dwelling
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Angela Russell
Minutes:
Construction of two-storey house
a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that it was a full application for the
construction of a two-storey house finished in render and with a slate roof. It
was highlighted that the applicant needed a house to maintain and promote his
business. The site was within the Landscape Conservation Area designation and
the village's development boundary was located on the northern boundary of the
nearby terrace and church. This meant that the majority of the surface area of
the proposed house was outside the village's boundary and that this was
tantamount to erecting a new house outside the development boundary.
Attention
was drawn to the relevant policies in the report along with the responses to
the consultation.
It was
highlighted that the applicant disagreed with the officers' views regarding the
location of the boundaries; therefore, a plan had been submitted with the
agenda showing the development's layout in relation to the village's
development boundary. The development had not been submitted as a proposal for
an affordable home, and the size and scale of the proposal strongly suggested
there was no intention for the house to be affordable. No details or evidence
was submitted to show that the applicant was in need of an affordable house.
The applicant stated that the land should have been
included within the development boundary in the GUDP as it had been included
within the draft inset maps and the land had been deleted from the boundary
following the Inspector's decision to tighten village development boundaries in
general. It had been understood from the applicant that he has submitted a
request to the Policy Unit for the entire site to be included within the
village development boundary of the LDP. It was confirmed that there currently
was no change to the LDP development boundary in relation to this site.
Despite
the applicant's arguments, the Council had not been convinced, on the grounds
of the submitted information, that valid planning reasons had been submitted to
deviate from the Council's current policies. The principle of erecting a
dwelling on the site did not comply with the requirements of the Council’s
housing policies, namely C1, CH7 and CH9 of the GUDP and Supplementary Planning
Guidance: Affordable Housing (2009).
The proposed two-storey house was of a modern design
and was located within close proximity of the boundary of the rear gardens of
nearby houses and curtilage of the chapel and chapel house. The plans submitted
with the application showed that although the house would not be higher than
the adjacent chapel, it would be substantially higher than the nearby
two-storey houses, and therefore there were concerns regarding its location,
size and scale in relation to those houses. In terms of its size and scale, it
was not considered that the proposal respected the site and it vicinity and
that it would cause significant harm to the privacy of the garden and curtilage
of the chapel house and the property to the south-west of the site.
The
observations of the Transportation Unit had been received confirming that it
had no objection to the proposal. However, having visited the site it had to be
stated that the transportation officers had concerns regarding the access
especially in terms of visibility when exiting to the nearby class 2 road.
However, given the observations of the Transportation Unit, it would be
difficult to refuse the application on grounds of road safety.
Having considered all the relevant
matters, including local and national policies and guidance, as well as the
observations received, it was deemed that this development was not acceptable.
No justification had been submitted for developing the site as a rural
exception site (policy CH7), and therefore, it was considered that the
development was tantamount to a proposal to erect a new house in the
countryside, contrary to policies C1, CH7 and CH9 of the GUDP.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant noted the following main points:
·
There was no reference to his own
personal report in the officers’ report
·
That he had evidence that the
information in the report was incomplete
·
That officers had made a mistake with
the boundaries in 2008 and that evidence of this was available
·
That he needed to live in Llanbedrog to care for his parents
·
That he was a successful businessman
and employed over 20 people
·
That he had received many awards for
his contribution to Gwynedd's economy
·
He was unable to understand why
Planning officers objected to his application considering that he did his part
for the people of Gwynedd.
(c) It was proposed and seconded to defer the application in
order to receive full information about the boundaries.
RESOLVED to defer the decision in order to receive full information about the boundaries.
Supporting documents: