Application for the erection of an open market two storey
dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Lloyd Evans
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
The Vice-chair chaired the above application as the Chair had declared a
personal interest and had left the Chamber.
An
application to erect an open market two-storey dwelling.
(a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
it had not been possible to discuss this application at the Committee meeting
on 27 November 2017 due to the lack of quorum.
She reminded members that the application had been deferred at the
Committee meeting held on 6 November 2017 in order to carry out a site visit.
Some members had visited the site on 27 November 2017.
It
was noted that the proposal involved the erection of a new house on land within
the development boundary and within a residential area in the village of Chwilog. It was
considered that the proposal complied in principle with the policy requirements
and it was not considered that the proposal caused harm to the amenities of the
local neighbourhood.
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:
·
That he had made enquiries with CCG a few years ago
in relation to providing parking spaces for the residents of Bro Sion Wyn, but
that they had said no. Parking issues
existed on the estate and the development would not help the situation;
·
That the report noted that the proposal satisfied
the requirements of Policy TRA2 and TRA4 of the LDP which related to parking
and transportation. Drew attention to
the fact that reference was only made here to the application site and not to
the parking problems in the nearby area;
·
The house would be a mask and would affect the
amenities of nearby residents. The house
would only be located 17 metres away from the adjacent houses;
·
Referred to policy ISA4 of the LDP, noting that it
would be a shame to lose an open space;
·
That paragraph 5.10 of the report disregarded
objections in relation to amenities but that he asked the Committee to consider
them and refuse the application.
(c) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application. The
proposer noted that the application should be refused as the proposal would
result in the loss of green space/allotments, over-looking, no need for another
house as so many were available in Chwilog and that
it would be an over-development of the site.
In response to the
above observations, the officers noted:
·
That it would be very difficult to
defend a refusal on appeal on the grounds that there was no need for housing in
the area;
·
That concerns regarding the impact on
residential amenities was a reason that could be used to refuse the
application; however, the recommendation submitted was sound;
·
The green space was not protected in
any way or protected for use as allotments;
·
In terms of over-looking, the distance
from window to window guidance was approximately 22 metres, there were
approximately 17 metres between the house and the adjacent houses but there was
no window on the relevant elevation of the proposed house;
·
That the report responded to concerns
in terms of over-development, it was emphasised that only one house was under
consideration.
A member noted that she could not
understand why CCG was applying for an open market house, rather than applying
for an affordable house. She added that
two smaller two-storeys or single-storey houses would make better use of the
site as the proposed houses would look out of place considering the houses in the
vicinity.
In response, the Senior Solicitor noted
that he understood the concern; however, it was irrelevant to the application
before the committee. He explained that
no applicant would be required to provide an affordable house, this was an
application for one house within the development boundary. He emphasised that matters in connection with
CCG should be discussed at another forum.
The Planning Manager noted that the
application site was a relatively large plot and that this needed to be taken
into account when considering whether the proposal was an over-development of
the site. She drew attention to the fact
that the design complemented the houses on the road leading towards Pandy Garage and that the proposed house would suit its
location and that it was of a good quality of design.
Resolved:
to refuse the application:
Reason:
An
over-development of the site thus affecting the amenities of nearby residents
Supporting documents: