Demolition and rebuild of dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths
Minutes:
Demolish and
rebuild a house.
(a) The Planning
Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the existing property was located within the Borth-y-Gest development boundary, however, the rest of the site towards the coast was situated outside the boundary. It was highlighted that the site was within a Special Landscape Area.
It was noted
that the floor area of the existing dwelling was approximately 173m2,
and the proposed house would include
three floors with a floor area
of approximately 465m2.
It was highlighted
that it had been suggested to the applicant that the plan submitted in order to receive
pre-application advice was
not acceptable, due to its location outside
the development boundary and its size
and scale. The plans submitted as part of the application originally continued to site the majority of the proposed dwelling outside the development boundary, and despite
further advice when dealing with
the planning application, a
proportion of the proposed dwelling continued to be outside the development boundary, and its
size and scale was substantially larger than the existing property. It was noted that clear advice
had also been given on how
to overcome the oppressive impact and the impact on the amenities
of nearby properties.
It was explained
that it was considered that a house located
within the development boundary and sensitively
designed to respect its surrounding area would be acceptable;
however, in this case, it was considered that the size, bulk and
setting of the proposed house would be unacceptable and this meant that
the design created a structure that was incongruous with the prominent sloped side, and which
lead to a substantially greater visual impact than the existing building.
It was noted
that the proposed development would cause a substantially greater visual impact than the existing house, and would
cause a detrimental impact on the amenities
of nearby residents, and to this end,
it was considered that the proposal was unacceptable and contrary to the policies noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the
following main points:-
·
That he
was a neighbour and the proposal would have an adverse
impact on his privacy, he had requested that the proposed house be moved back to be on the same line
as his house;
·
That the proposed
house was substantially outside the development boundary, especially on the southern side of the site;
·
Concern regarding
the visual impact of the development;
·
His concern
regarding the associated engineering work with the proposal and the impact on the foundations of his own house;
·
The submission
of a geotechnical survey should be a requirement as the site was on a cliff
edge;
·
Approving the application
would set a precedent that would be harmful
to the area and the whole of Gwynedd.
(c) The local
member (not a member of this Planning Committee)
noted the following main points:-
·
The planning
officers were thanked for their
work and discussions with the applicant;
·
He was not against
modern developments and he would not object
a proposal to demolish the existing house if it proposed a better house;
·
That it was an
over-development of the site
with a section of the house outside the development boundary;
·
Concern regarding
the proposal to erect an 8 metre high
wall at the side of the proposed
house and its impact on
the residents of Sŵn y Môr;
·
That the applicant
had received advice from officers, however, this had been ignored;
·
To request
that the Committee refuse the application in accordance with
the recommendation.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.
A member noted his concern regarding the consistency of recommendations, bearing in mind that
officers had recommended to
approve a similar application in Abersoch. However, in this
case it was considered that the house in question would
impair on the Cob and Portmeirion although they were some
distance from the site, with engineering
work associated with the application situated in Abersoch as well, and it was also an over-development of that site.
In response to the above comment, a member noted that The Shanty, Abersoch application had been approved recently
on appeal. A member noted that
the application before them was different to that application, as a proportion of the proposed house was situated outside the development boundary.
Another member noted that
she agreed with the recommendation and it was peculiar that the applicant had not listened to the advice given by officers.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
Reasons:
1. A proportion of the proposed house is to be located outside the footprint of the existing house and the development
boundary of the village, and as a result of the size and bulk
of the proposal in this location, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to criteria
6 and 7 of policy TAI 13 of
the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint
Local Development Plan which ensures that
proposals to demolish and rebuild a house
that extends beyond the footprint of the existing house and the development boundary will have
a substantially greater visual impact than the existing house.
2. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to criterion 13 of policy
PS5 and criteria 1 and 2 of
policy PCYFF 3 and 1, 2, 3 and 4 of policy PCYFF 4 and policy AMG 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan in terms of size,
scale, standard of design and impact
on the landscape as the proposal does not add to or enhance the character and appearance of the site, the building or the area in terms
of the setting, appearance and elevation treatments
and it is not of a high quality of design that makes a positive
contribution to the local area and accessible
areas or adds to the conservation, enhancement or restoration of the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area.
3. It is also considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of criterion 7 of policy PS5, criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 and criterion 10 of policy PCYFF 3 as the development would have a substantial detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of local property and the nearby area, including light pollution, and because it will not help to create a healthy and viable environment or considers the health and well-being of future users.
Supporting documents: