Variation of condition 1 of planning permission C14/0240/15/MG to allow an alternative design for the houses already permitted
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Kevin Morris Jones
Minutes:
Amend condition 1 of planning permission
C14/0240/15/MG to approve an alternative design for the approved housing
(a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the
background of the application, emphasising that the design of the 11 houses had
already been approved in addition to minor amendments to the formation within
the site in question. It was noted that the principle of the development had
already been accepted and planning permission had been approved and secured by
commencing the work within the necessary period.
It was noted that the proposal was to change the
design of the houses to a more modern design by dividing the houses' roofs,
creating two slopes on different levels and to remove the integrated garages
that were part of the original design, and to have carports for vehicles. It
was explained that it was intended to keep the housing within the same
previously agreed plots with all houses being two-storeys. The new houses would
have significant elements of glass in the front and rear elevations with the
use of stone, render and timber cladding on the external walls.
There had been some minor changes to the site's
internal layout, including the access arrangement from the Fron Goch road where
only one vehicular access would serve one of the new houses, rather than two
accesses which was previously agreed.
It was believed that the proposed new design was
more modern and less substantial, creating a more open atmosphere for the
estate.
Attention was drawn to
the additional observations that had been received.
The development was
acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:
·
If the Fron Goch residents would be
prevented from parking where they currently park, they would have no place to
park;
·
Hopefully, the developer had not felled
any protected trees, and the objector asked who was keeping an eye on the
trees;
·
The Council had noted in a letter that
they would work with residents in terms of a parking solution. When would this
happen?
(c) Taking advantage of the opportunity to speak, the applicant noted
the following points:-
·
That this was an application to change the design
only;
·
The original design of the housing was standard,
and consideration had not been given to the location. The design had been
amended by using materials that were in keeping with the local area;
·
The housing density had decreased, removing a
bedroom from above the garage;
·
Access to one of the houses had been changed to be
within the site rather than from Fron Goch, reducing the number of houses with
access from Fron Goch;
·
There were a number of objections that were
irrelevant matters to this application;
·
They hoped to create additional parking spaces
within the site application for local residents after completing the
development.
(ch) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee), objected, noting the
following main points:
·
The design was not in-keeping and was out of
character with the village;
·
Astonishment that work had already commenced on the
site, before receiving a decision on the application;
·
The developer did not give consideration to the
environment and that it appeared that the Council had not discussed breach of
conditions with the company;
·
The design was being changed to reduce the cost for
the developer;
·
Soil had recently gone into the river and the lake,
causing pollution. Natural Resources Wales had put measures in force;
·
Flood risks to nearby streets deriving from the
proposal;
·
That he assumed that the houses would be too
expensive for local people, therefore they were likely to become holiday homes.
There was a need for housing for local people in Llanberis.
(d) In
response to the above observations, the Planning Manager noted that a planning
permission was in place and that this permission was currently being
implemented. She emphasised that this application was for a change in design
and to change the access to protect tree roots. She noted that officers were
monitoring activities on the site but that these matters were not relevant to
this application.
A
proposal to undertake a site visit was made and seconded.
A
member asked the officers to include comparative information in terms of the
original application in the follow-up report to the Committee.
RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: