Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of
replacement 3 storey dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Demolition of house to be replaced with a
three-storey house
(a) The Planning
Manager expanded on the background of the application, noting that the application was deferred at the Committee meeting that took
place on 3 July 2017, in order
to conduct a site visit. Some members had visited the site prior to the
meeting and it was explained that the site had also been viewed from the
direction of Lôn Pont Morgan.
It was noted
the site was on the
Abersoch headland, outside
the village development boundary and within
the Llŷn Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB). Objections had
been received in relation to the house design and the impact on the AONB. The
concerns of the objectors were acknowledged, however, it was felt that this in
itself did not mean that the proposal would have a detrimental
impact on the area's character. It was understood that the design made extensive use of terraces and substantial windows, however, it was noted from the images submitted with the application that other houses
near the site also shared such
architectural features. It was felt that
the images, submitted as part of the application, indicated that the building
would not create an intrusive development in the landscape and although the
appearance of the house was different, it was not considered that it would have
a significant harmful impact on the AONB's landscape and coastline. It was
considered that the proposal was suitable for its location and context and that
it would not have a detrimental effect on the AONB. Also, due to the location
against the built background of Abersoch, it was not
considered that the proposal would significantly harm the views in and out of
the AONB.
Attention was
drawn to the additional observations received from the Llŷn
AONB Joint Advisory Committee.
It was confirmed that the parking provision was
acceptable and that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal.
It was noted that a Public Footpath was located near the site and that it
needed to be protected during, and at the completion of the development and
this could be achieved by means of a condition on the planning permission.
The development
was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national
policies for the reasons noted in
the report.
(b) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:-
·
Concern regarding the impact on the public path;
·
That the development was huge and was similar to a
hotel;
·
It would be visible from the sea and the
development would impair on the view from the Coastal Path;
·
Concern in terms of the impact of large
developments on the Welsh language;
·
Concern in terms of the principle of demolishing
and erecting a house;
·
That the development was contrary to policy TAI 5
Local Market Housing in the JLDP;
·
That the application was submitted prior to the
adoption of the JLDP.
In response to the observations of the local
member, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the decisions on
planning applications since 31 July 2017 were in accordance with the JLDP. It
was noted that the report considered the application in the context of the
policies of the JLDP. It was explained that policy TAI 5 related to new housing
where no house already existed on the site.
(c) It was proposed to refuse the application contrary to the
officers’ recommendation as the proposal would be an over-development of a
prominent site with a substantially larger footprint than the existing house
and would create an intrusive development that would have a detrimental impact
on views in, out and across the AONB.
The
proposal was seconded.
In
response to an enquiry by a Member, regarding the observations of the AONB Unit
and the comments of the Llŷn AONB Joint Advisory
Committee, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the AONB Unit had no
objection to the proposal but the Joint Advisory Committee had submitted
observations opposing the application. He explained that the membership of the
Joint Advisory Committee included Gwynedd Councillors and stakeholders. He
emphasised that there were no policies prohibiting contemporary developments in
the AONB. He noted that if the members felt strongly that the proposal would
have a significant impact on the AONB, then if the application was refused
members or an individual member would be required to assist the Council if a
planning appeal was received.
(ch) During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
Concern regarding demolishing and erecting a huge
house on the site;
·
That young people had been priced out of the local
housing market;
·
Concern about the effect of the development on Pen Bennar;
·
That the size of the proposed house was over 50%
bigger than the existing dwelling. Had
an assessment in terms of this increase been undertaken?
·
Would the parking provision be sufficient for the
development?
·
The proposed house would not be in keeping with the
location;
·
That the existing house had seen better days and
therefore it would be better to replace it.
·
That the design of the proposed house was different
and the area had no standard design style;
·
The proposal was welcomed and it would be an
improvement for the site;
·
The house was hardly visible from Lôn Pont Morgan;
·
The development would not affect the Coastal Path,
however, if there was concern regarding installing a fence that would impair on
the view then a condition should be attached to deal with this;
·
If the application was refused then the Council
would lose a planning appeal.
A member noted the need for specific guidance to
deal with the situation with planning applications for housing and holiday
homes as house prices were beyond the reach of local people. It was added that
officers should refuse this type of application and he was uncomfortable about
the pattern in the context of demolishing older buildings and then their
development.
In response to a member’s observation, the Senior
Planning Manager explained that policy TAI 5 was not relevant to the
application before them, as a house already existed on the site and, therefore
it was policy TAI 13 of the JLDP that was relevant.
The Senior Planning Service Manager noted that he
appreciated members' concerns and acknowledged that Abersoch
was unique in terms of housing and that policy TAI 5 sought to get to grips
with the situation, but policy TAI 5 was not material to the application in
question. He explained that policy TAI
13 supported the principle in terms of the demolition of the existing house and
to construct a new house in its place, subject to meeting the relevant criteria,
and that the principle of re-building on the site in question was
acceptable. He noted that it was a
matter for the members to assess if the proposal would have a detrimental
impact on the AONB, and if the application was refused members would be required
to support their decision if the application went to appeal. He emphasised that the application had been
assessed in accordance with the current planning policies, and the proposal
offered a modern, sustainable building using natural materials and the policies
did not prohibit such developments in the AONB.
In response to a member's observation regarding any
costs that may emanate from an appeal, the Senior Planning Service Manager
noted that refusing this application would not create a signficant
risk to the Council and therefore it would not be referred to a cooling-off
period. He noted that there was a lower risk in terms of receiving costs
against the Council if the application was refused and if the appeal was lost,
however, there were costs attached to providing for an appeal.
The proposer noted that there was a difference of
opinion in terms of interpreting the impact of the development on the AONB,
however, he was of the opinion that the development would impair on its setting
and the views in and out. He added that he agreed with the comments of the Llŷn AONB Joint Advisory Committee who were experts in
the field and that he was willing to defend any appeal.
In response to the proposer's observations, the
Senior Solicitor noted that members needed to consider the contents of the
report together with the observations of the consultees. He stated that it was
not appropriate to note that one consultee was an expert and they had to be
careful that not too much emphasis was placed on the comments of one consultee
over another. He stressed that all the information submitted had to be
considered and weighed up in accordance with legislation.
RESOLVED to refuse the
application.
Reason:
The proposal would be an over-development of a prominent site with a substantially larger footprint than the existing house and would create an intrusive development that would have a detrimental impact on views into, out and across the AONB.
Supporting documents: