Erection of a two storey four bedroom residential dwelling
in open countryside with the installation of a septic tank and creation of a
new vehicular access and access road.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Selwyn Griffiths
Link to relevant background
documents
Minutes:
Erection of a two-storey four bedroom residential dwelling in open
countryside with the installation of a septic tank and creation of a new
vehicular access and access road
(a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application and noted that
the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 13 March
2017 in order to give the applicant an opportunity to submit further
information about some specific aspects of the application.
It
was explained that the applicant was asked for information associated with the
rural enterprise in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Advice
Note on three occasions, namely in March, May and October 2017, but no
additional information was submitted for assessment.
Since
the application's submittal, it was noted that a clear change had occurred in
terms of the policy as a result of the adoption of the Gwynedd and Anglesey
Joint Local Development Plan which had superseded the previous development
plan.
Reference
was made to the late observations form which noted a request from the applicant
to defer discussing and making a decision on the application due to a lack of
time in order to obtain specialist advice and have an opportunity to submit new
evidence.
The
Planning Manager noted that the Department was not supportive of the request to
defer because it was considered that a year was an acceptable amount of time to
submit information.
It
was noted that the site was located outside the defined development boundary
for the Porthmadog area and, as such, it was
considered to be a site located in the countryside. It was noted that paragraph 4.3.1 of
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 'Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities'
noted that one of the few circumstances in which a new isolated residential
development in the open countryside could be justified was when accommodation
was required to enable agricultural or rural enterprise workers to live at, or
close to, their workplace. It was noted further that the essential nature of
this requirement would depend on the needs of the rural enterprise in question
in each specific case, and that it would not depend on the personal choice or
circumstances of any of the associated individuals. TAN 6 also noted that Local
Planning Authorities should carefully assess applications for planning
permission for new agricultural or rural enterprise dwellings to ensure that a
departure from the usual policy of restricting developments in the open
countryside could be fully justified by reference to robust supporting
evidence.
It
was highlighted that reference was made in the application, specifically within
the Design and Access Statement, together with letters of support, to the
current agricultural use of the land along with a proposed business plan to
change the use of this land to a new sustainable business as well as a local
mountain rescue service to use part of the land. It was noted that no
information had been submitted to the Planning Service to confirm the exact
type of business proposed. Attention was drawn to a concern about the size of
the dwelling (225m2) which was significantly larger than normal rural
enterprise houses which were usually quite similar to affordable houses.
Reference
was made to the full assessment noted in the report, and it was reiterated that
the main issue was that no further information had been received to support the
rural enterprise house, despite having made an application for it a year ago
and that this was essential in order to consider the application for a house in
the countryside. Having considered all relevant planning matters, the planning
officers were of the opinion that the proposal was unacceptable for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant made the following main points:
·
A request was made to defer because he had not
received sufficient warning that the application was to be brought before the
Committee on this day, namely four days ago, and only by accident and he had
not received direct correspondence
·
Whilst accepting that he had communicated with the
Planning Department since previously discussing the application, on every occasion,
he asked for a meeting with the officers and requests were made for direct
phone numbers to be able to discuss further
·
After meeting with the officers, he found that he
would be required to strengthen and possibly amend the plans / design of the
house in order to submit an improved application in line with other policies
·
The intention was to discuss ideas with the
officers to amend the application which would be acceptable for the Planning
Department and even to withdraw it rather than continue and have the
application refused
·
When the application was discussed at the previous
meeting, statements were made about a specific TAN6 policy, which encouraged
younger people to manage farm businesses and diversification
(c) It
was proposed and seconded to defer in line with the applicant's request.
(ch) During the ensuing discussion, the
following main observations were noted by members:
·
It was understood that a number of individuals were
unable to directly contact the planning officers but it was assumed that clear
guidance was available for applicants to discuss applications with officers.
However, although a year had gone by, it was understood that the planning
officers were not to blame for this.
However, it was felt that it would be beneficial to seek the opinion of
the Local Member
·
Should the application be refused, the applicant
could submit a new application
·
The application should be refused because it was
outside the development boundary
·
The site abutted an industrial estate
·
That the decision should be deferred because the
applicant had noted that he had not been given a fair chance due to a lack of
communication and, if it was deferred, at least it would give the applicant an
opportunity in accordance with his wishes
(ch) In response to these observations, the
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that:
·
the planning officers had done their
best to be reasonable in terms of the time and the Planning Committee had
requested additional information and no such response had been received
·
that the application was entirely
contrary to the planning policies and was a four bedroom open market house
·
that should the application be refused,
the applicant could submit a new application
(a)
The Chair noted that the Local Member had
apologised for his absence from the Committee but he supported the application,
as noted on the late observations form.
(dd) A vote was taken on the proposal to defer the
application; however, this proposal fell. A vote was taken on a proposal to
refuse the application for the reasons noted in the planning officers' report.
This proposal carried.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
Reasons:
1. This proposal for the
erection of a new house in the countryside is not justified and is therefore
considered to be unacceptable in principle and contrary to the requirements of
Policies PCYFF 1 and PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Local Development Plan
along with guidance in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Building New Houses in
the Countryside, Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural
Communities along with Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 9 on Housing.
2. The applicant has not
provided sufficient and appropriate evidence to prove the need for an
agricultural/rural enterprise dwelling on this site outside the development
boundaries of Porthmadog. It is therefore considered
that the proposal is contrary to that noted in paragraph 4.3.1 of Technical
Advice Note 6 and paragraph 9.3.6 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 9, 2016).
Supporting documents: