Construction of new beach hut without compliance with condition 2 of planning permission C15/0537/39/LL dated 3 July 2015
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W Roberts
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
The Planning Manager
elaborated on the application's background, and noted that this was an
application to retain the work of demolishing the original beach hut and
building a new beach hut that did not comply with the planning permission
granted on 3 July 2015 in its stead.
The hut stood amongst a row of other beach huts on
Borth Fawr beach in Abersoch on a coastal site within the Llŷn Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), near a Heritage Coast and within the Coastal
Change Management Area.
It
was noted that the application involved retaining a beach hut that was larger
than what was originally approved, and which was considerably larger than what
originally existed on the site. It was emphasised that timber decking extended
out 4.9 metres in front of the hut, and there was an enclosed storage space
beneath it. Whilst the hut that was originally approved extended to the same
height as the neighbouring huts, it was noted that the ridge of the hut
constructed on the site measured 0.9 metres higher than the huts on either side
of it. It was noted that a steel roller shutter door had been installed on the
front elevation, giving it an industrial appearance, and because of its size
and the combination of its design and external finish, far more resembled an
industrial building than a traditional beach hut.
As
the site was located within an AONB, policy AMG1 was considered. Since the
proposal would replace the existing hut and would be amongst a row of similar
huts, it was not considered that the proposal would be likely to have a
significant impact on the setting or on important views into the AONB.
Nevertheless, it was noted that the AONB Officer was concerned that the hut was
not in accordance with what was originally approved. The use of a roller shutter
door in itself was not reason enough to justify rejecting the existing
application, and a condition could be imposed to cover the platform with timber
if necessary. However, there was an
industrial feel to the current appearance and finish of the building, and it
was considered that the building in its current form was contrary to policy AMG
1 and the principles of PS 19 of the LDP.
It
was noted that discussions had been held between the applicant and the officers
and that he had no intention of compromising.
Having
assessed the proposal against the relevant policies and having considered all
the responses and observations submitted, it was considered that the beach hut
that had been constructed was unacceptable in size, bulk and design; was
inconsistent with the traditional character and appearance of beach huts with a
design more akin to an industrial building.
It was noted that if consistently bigger beach huts were allowed to be
developed, their impact would spoil the feel and character of the beach side
area of Abersoch and the AONB that was a designation of national
importance.
(b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:
·
The design had been
approved.
·
It was not detrimental
to the area; it added diversity and character to the row of beach huts.
·
The modifications were
not significant enough to justify changes
·
The main modification
was the depth of the hut that had a low visual impact
·
The AONB did not object
to the height and depth of the hut
·
The cladding was modern
and commonplace – the applicant was willing to change its colour
·
One week's notice for
the meeting was insufficient
·
Proposed that the
decision should be deferred to hold further discussions.
(c) It was
proposed and seconded to defer the application to hold further discussions
(ch) In response, the Planning Manager noted that
discussions had already taken place, and that the agent had confirmed that the
applicant had no intention to compromise
(d) The
motion was withdrawn and it was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application.
(dd) During the ensuing discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
Conditions had been set
for specific reasons
·
A positive and robust
response had to be made to a breach of conditions
·
Approval would be
likely to set a precedent for others to modify the height
(e) In response to a question about submitting an application to the
committee as more than three objections had been received, it was noted that
the application had been submitted prior to the adoption of the changes to the
Delegation Scheme.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
Reason: Size, height, bulk and
industrial design of the development have an unacceptable detrimental impact on
the visual amenities and character of the AONB, contrary to policies PCYFF 3,
PS 19 and AMG 1 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011 -
2026.
Supporting documents: