Full application for
the construction of 4 two storey dwellings to replace 4 previously approved
bungalows
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aeron Maldwyn Jones
Minutes:
Full application for the construction of four new
two-storey dwellings to replace four previously approved bungalows
The members had visited the site.
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
(a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the
application, and noted that the application was deferred in the committee
meeting on 14 May 2018 due to difficulties in relation to registering to speak
and a suggestion that a site visit should be held.
It was noted that the application
was a vacant plot within a larger residential estate that was partly developed.
It was explained that the land was located within the development boundary of
Rhostryfan village and within a built up area, which consisted of residential
dwellings in the form of individual, terraced and semi-detached houses, the
design and size of nearby houses varied and included single and two-storey
dwellings. It was reiterated that the existing access to the site was off the
nearby public road with a standard estate road leading to the housing
estate. It was noted that the land rose
from the access road towards the highest part of the estate itself. It was
stated that formal discussions had been held regarding this proposal through
the service's pre-application procedure. It was also noted that there was
extensive planning history related to the site in the form of historical
applications for residential development in addition to recent applications
relating to individual houses that had already been constructed within the
estate.
Reference was made to the
observations received from neighbours of the site expressing concerns about the
impact of the development on amenities and the impact on the area in general.
Consideration was given to all the material planning matters, the local and
national policies and guidance, the site's planning history and the 'live'
permission that existed to erect four bungalows on the site together with the
observations received as part of the public consultation. Consequently, the
proposal to construct four two-storey houses with ancillary facilities was
acceptable.
a) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following
main points:
·
An application for
two-storey houses had been refused in the past
·
The photographs
displayed were misleading. They did not reflect the difference in the gradient
of the site.
·
Two-storey houses would
result in the loss of natural sunlight to nearby houses
·
Plot number 4
overlooked existing housing - this was unacceptable
·
Houses were larger in
size than bungalows and, consequently, would have a detrimental impact on
nearby amenities
·
There were no
objections to bungalows
b) The following main points were made by the local member (not a member of
this Planning Committee):
·
He had no objection to
bungalows
·
The number of bedrooms
were the same - more profit to be made from building a house than a bungalow
·
There was more demand
for bungalows
·
The Council needed to
ensure that it met local needs
·
There was a need for an
appropriate mixture of housing on the site
·
The road to the site
was narrow and would not be able to cope with additional traffic
·
The road had not been
adopted by the Council
·
There were problems
with water flow on the site
·
Three houses on the
site remained unsold, therefore what was the reason for building four more
houses
ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application, contrary to the recommendation, on the grounds of over-development
on residential amenities.
c) During the ensuing discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
The gradient was
significant within the site and therefore, some of the houses were higher than
nearby houses which therefore created an intrusive impact
·
There was more demand
for bungalows in the area
·
The Community Council
had refused the application
·
The site was small and
therefore it was required to consider the development to be an overdevelopment
·
Windows that would
cause overlooking on two existing houses that already existed must not be
installed
·
Road safety concerns
had to be considered
·
Local people's wishes
had to be listened to
·
There was more profit
in constructing houses than bungalows
dd) In response to a question regarding what had been
noted in the Local Development Plan as a mixture of suitable housing for the
site, it was emphasised that the application had been extant since 2000 and the
policy involving mixture did not exist at that time. In response to a further
observation that the bungalows were therefore part of a larger plan and that
the mixture had previously been considered, it was noted that the application
had to be considered on its own merits.
In response to the observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that evidence was required to substantiate the
concerns. Transportation concerns would be no different with the construction
of four houses or four bungalows. In terms of the need, it would be difficult
to evidence between the need for housing or bungalows as the Council’s
Strategic Housing Unit noted that there was greater demand for two-storey
housing in the area, although there was also sufficient demand for
single-storey housing.
The Monitoring Officer reported that appropriate
reasons had been reported, but that evidence was required to support the rules
for refusal.
RESOLVED to refuse the application due to its
impact on nearby amenities on the grounds that it would be an intrusive
development and it would create an unacceptable element of overlooking into a
parallel house
Supporting documents: