Application to demolish existing
dwelling and erection of new dwelling in it's place
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eric M Jones
Link
to relevant background information
Minutes:
Application
to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling in its place
The Members had visited the site.
Attention was drawn to the
additional observations submitted.
(a)
The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted
that this was an application to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a
new dwelling in its place, erect a garage/storage shed on the existing site
along with changes to the existing vehicular access to the site and extending
the property's existing curtilage.
It was
noted that there had been informal prior discussions about the proposal to
demolish and rebuild the house; and, although the discussions were informal,
and the policies of the Unitary Development Plan were no longer relevant, clear
guidance had been given on how to overcome the oppressive impact and impact on
the amenities of the nearby property and the basic planning principles were
equally relevant here in considering the application in the context of the
policies of the Joint Local Development Plan. It was therefore considered that
the proposal was contrary to the following criteria of policy TAI 13:
Attention was drawn to
Criterion
number 4: Outside development boundaries, it is impossible to retain the
existing building through renovating it or extending it and/or it is possible
to demonstrate that repairing the existing building is not economically
practical - that priority was given to renovating buildings before constructing
new houses; but, the Local Planning Authority accepted that there were
occasions where that was not possible. To this end, this application did not
contain any evidence that it was not possible to repair the existing building
practically in economic terms.
Criterion
6: Outside the Coastal Change Management Area, a house to be built must be
located on the same footprint as the existing building unless relocating within
the curtilage can be shown to reduce its visual impact and its impact on local
amenities - Although the proposed house had been set back in order to reduce its
impact on the property that stands directly in front of it; contrary to the pre
application advice given, the proposed house has been rotated so that the rear
(with large openings and main rooms e.g. large living room, kitchen and
bedrooms) fac the adjacent building below, and the front of the proposed house
contains the secondary rooms (e.g. bathrooms, office and changing room) and
face open agricultural land. It was therefore considered that neither the
location nor the setting of the proposed house attempted to mitigate its impact
on local amenities, specifically the existing amenities of the nearby property.
It is
considered that the height of the eaves were excessive and therefore created a
disproportionate design in terms of the surface area of the wall in relation to
the roof. This meant that this design created a design structure that would not
be in keeping with its setting on a hill in open landscape, and would lead to a
substantially greater visual impact than the existing building. It was noted
that the rear of the proposed house included windows for the main rooms, along
with bi-folding doors which overlooked the rear of the nearby property and a
private yard located directly to the front of the property that was the subject
of this application - thus creating unacceptable overlooking.
It was
highlighted that the pre application advice offered suggested that the front
and rear of the house should be rotated so that the main openings such as the
large glass-fronted living room and patio door faced the south instead of the
north in order to make the most of the light and natural heat. At present, it
was the secondary rooms that would be south facing, namely the utility room,
porch, office, bathroom and one of the dining room windows. These changes would
also ensure greater privacy for the adjacent house and the new property and
would also improve the appearance when approaching the house from the public
road. It was noted that this could slightly change the internal arrangements,
but this was considered to be entirely possible without reducing the area. In
addition, it was suggested in previous advice that slightly reducing the height
of the eaves and, as proposed by the agent at the time, would be more
acceptable than the higher eaves submitted. It was confirmed that there was no
objection to the proposal in principle on these grounds, but that the plan
could be improved through carrying out the suggestions that officers had
already proposed. Based on what had been submitted, therefore, the proposal was
considered to be unacceptable and contrary to the policies listed in the
report.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points:
·
His intention was to renovate the house
·
Although informal discussions had been held with
the Planning Service, he did not understand the reasons for refusing
·
The ceiling was low and therefore needed to be
adapted
·
He worked locally and wanted to live in rural
Gwynedd
(c)
The Local Member expressed his support to the
application and noted the following main points:
·
Accepted that the original plans were unacceptable
but amended plans had been submitted
·
Too much emphasis on 'overlooking'
·
No objections had been submitted - the local
community were supportive
·
A letter had been received by neighbours stating
that they did not have any objection as long as the house would be moved back.
·
Welcomed improvement
·
Made no sense to refuse the application
ch) It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application with conditions
(d)
During
the ensuing discussion, the following points were highlighted by individual
Members:
·
Welcomed
the fact that the property would not be used as a holiday home
·
Need to work together and
agree on a suitable design
·
Need
to consider the neighbours' letter
·
Supported
the application - the applicant worked locally
In
response to the observations, the Senior Manager noted that sound advice had
been offered to the agent and should the application be approved the
usual/appropriate conditions would need to be included.
Resolved: To
approve the application subject to the following conditions:
1.
Time
2.
In accordance with
plans
3.
Slate
4.
Materials
5.
Landscaping/planting
6.
Withdrawal of PD
7.
Removal of PD
windows
8.
Highway conditions
9.
Remove the slates from
the existing house by hand/fixed term
10. Not to demolish the existing sheds without permission
Notes relating to the entrance.
Supporting documents: