New two bedroom dwelling and associated works.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor R. H. Wyn
Williams
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
New two bedroomed house with associated work.
(a) The
Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee
meeting held on 16 January, 2017 in order to undertake a site visit. Some members
had visited the site prior
to the meeting.
It
was noted that the site was located within the development boundary of the
village of Abersoch and also within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
It
was reported that a previous application for the development of a house on this
site had been refused, and furthermore, an appeal against that decision had
been refused on the grounds that the plan would be overbearing on the Carrog house (next door) and that it would be an
over-development of the site, and consequently it would not safeguard the
character of the AONB. It was highlighted that the Inspector in his decision
had recognised that the principle of developing the site for residential
purposes was acceptable in respect of the broader urban character of the
landscape. It was noted that the proposed plan was substantially smaller than
the previous proposal.
Although
the site was within the AONB, it was added that it was also an infill site
within the development boundary of the village of Abersoch
and that it was surrounded with other residential developments. It was noted
that there were many differently designed houses in the area and there was no
typical building pattern. Although modern, the design was of a scale that would
be in keeping with the site, along with its materials. The intention was to
protect a substantial part of the existing vegetation, and ensure that more
trees and shrubs were planted. Attention was drawn to the fact that the AONB
Unit was of the opinion that the development would not have an unacceptable
impact on the AONB.
Reference
was made to concerns raised in terms of impact on the amenities of the
residents of the Carrog house, it was considered that
there was a reduction to the bulk of the building compared with the previous
plan, along with the fact that the building was further away from the boundary
which meant that the new building would not be obtrusive.
It
was noted that the plan submitted responded to the Inspector's concerns
regarding the previous application and resolved them and, therefore, the
proposal was acceptable.
(b) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee)
objected to the application and he made the following main points:-
·
The previous
application had lost an appeal and
the situation had not changed;
·
Concern about
road safety - that there would
be no space for cars to turn in the curtilage thus forcing drivers to reverse into the busy road. The Council had refused a similar application in Cysgod y Graig, and it had been refused
on appeal, on highway grounds
in terms of reversing into the road;
·
His concern
that the Planning Service
was being seriously challenged by applicants
bearing in mind that the application
next door had been refused as
the cliff was relevant;
·
This would
be the only house that could be seen
above the wall, therefore,
the view in part of the Llŷn Coastal Path would be lost;
·
A strict
covenant, on land next door
to the site which had been bestowed to Abersoch by the family, prohibited construction on the land;
·
The Inspector
had noted "On this basis, I'm concerned that the
restricted space surrounding the dwelling would lead to a confined development,
that it would not reflect the general pattern of the development on the eastern
side of Lôn Pont Morgan."
·
There would
be significant harm to the landscape including views into and
out of the landscape;
·
The Community
Council was willing to submit evidence should there be an appeal to a refusal;
·
Reference was made
to a By-law in St Ives, consideration should be given to establishing the same type of system given that 60% of houses in Abersoch were holiday houses;
·
14 paragraphs
in the Inspector's appeal decision noted that the application was unacceptable.
In
response to the observations
of the local member, the
Senior Solicitor noted:
·
Planning officers
submitted a recommendation impartially and in accordance with
their professional opinion. It was a matter for the Committee to determine whether or not they would agree;
·
A covenant
on private land was not a planning matter, therefore, it should be disregarded
by members.
The Senior Development
Control Officer noted that the Inspector had noted in his decision
"Although
I deem the principle of developing the site for residential purposes acceptable
in terms of the broader urban character of this landscape, I conclude that the
size of the proposed property would constitute an over-development of the site
and, as a consequence, it would fail to safeguard, maintain and enhance the
character of the AONB...". The plan submitted was a substantial reduction and determining
whether or not it was acceptable was a matter for the Committee. It was noted that the house would be in accordance with
the existing pattern of housing and set back in line
with the adjacent house, therefore, it would not intrude
more into the coast than
Carrog house next door.
The Senior Development
Control Officer - Transport referred to a plan on page 41 of the agenda which
showed two parked vehicles and the road that provided vehicle turning space.
(c) It was proposed to refuse the application contrary
to the officers' recommendation due to over-development, design, road safety
and impact on the AONB.
The
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the Inspector did not refer to road
safety in his appeal decision and that refusing the application on these
grounds would be difficult to defend in an appeal. Attention was drawn to the
fact that the floor area of the house had been reduced to 94m2,
compared with 166m2,
therefore, it would be difficult to justify refusing based on over-development.
It was noted that design and impact on the AONB was a matter for the Committee,
but it was emphasised that the AONB Unit had no objection to the proposal.
The
proposal was seconded. The seconder noted that the proposal was contrary to
policy B23 of the GUDP in respect of visual amenities as it would be possible
to see the pitch of the roof from the pavement. In response, the Planning
Manager noted that the impact would not be worse than the current situation as
there was a relatively high fence between the boundary and the pavement already
and that one could not see the AONB above it. It was proposed to set the house
back further and lower than the existing fence, therefore, there would be more
chance of seeing the view than there was currently.
The seconder noted that
it was inappropriate for officers to disagree with reasons for refusing offered
by members, they should note instead whether or not reasons were valid.
(ch) During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted:
·
Concern regarding the cumulative impact on the AONB
when approving such designs that intruded into the traditional ones. There was
a duty to protect the AONB in its entirety for our current purposes and for
future generations;
·
It was useful to receive the response of officers
to reasons for refusing due to the risk of wasting public money. Sympathised
with the Local Member but there was no point in wasting money and resources on
an appeal that would be lost;
·
The proposal corresponded with national guidelines
in respect of a vehicle turning space within the curtilage of a house;
·
The appeal had established that there was space to
construct a house on the site and bearing the neighbouring houses in mind, it
deemed that there was no problem with its size;
·
Would it be possible to impose a strict condition
that there would be no further development on the site?
·
There was a presumption to approve if specific
conditions were imposed to make the proposal acceptable;
·
The appeal decision provided guidance in terms of
acceptable development;
·
It was difficult to note an unacceptable impact on
the AONB bearing in mind the observations of the AONB Unit;
·
The proposal was an over-development and that impact
on the AONB was a matter of opinion.
In response to the observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager emphasised that the appeal decision noted that the
principle of constructing a house on the application site was acceptable and it
was considered that the submitted plan overcame the reasons for refusing and
that the recommendation to approve with conditions was firm. He strongly
suggested to limit reasons for refusing to matters involving the AONB and the
design, costs against the Council would be likely on appeal should the
application be refused due to parking as there was no supporting evidence. The
same was noted in terms of over-developing.
(d) A vote was taken on the
proposal to refuse the application and it fell.
It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
RESOLVED to approve
the application.
Conditions:
1. Five years
2. Work in accordance with
the plans
3. Agree on materials
4. Highways / parking
5. Opaque glass windows only
on the north-eastern elevation
7. Landscaping / trees
8. Water
9. Removal of general permitted rights
Supporting documents: