Issue - meetings

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of amenity and privacy.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The application proposed amendments to the position and detailing of the dwelling proposed on plot 3 of the development at Bryn Llwyd Yard, Caerwys that was previously permitted under planning permission 052760 on 5^th June 2015.  Amended plans had been received during progression of the application on which further consultation and publicity had been undertaken.

            Mr P. Roberts spoke against the application on the grounds of: the conditions of the original development being breached; the gap between the development and his property was now 7.5 meters and not 10 meters which was not an acceptable margin of error.

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded by Councillor Bithell. Councillor Thomas said he did not accept how an error on such a scale could have been made and said the application should be refused for the reasons of impact on amenity and privacy.  At the site visit the dwellings were still at ground level so could be reverted back to being at a distance of 10 metres from the neighbouring property.

            Councillor Bithell concurred and said conditions had been put in place on approval of the original application which had not been complied with.  The discrepancy between the distances was of a considerable amount.

            Councillor Steele-Mortimer, as acting local Member for the Caerwys ward, spoke against the application.  He concurred with the comments of Mr Roberts on the distance between the development and his property. He felt this was caused by the developer trying to squeeze a fifth house on the site which was only suitable for four dwellings.  He did support the first recommendation in the report on the high level windows.

            Councillor Peers commented on a similar situation within his ward where the Planning Authority had ordered demolition of a property that had not complied with conditions on distance and that a precedent had been set.  He also felt that there was a recognised problem with the development on overlooking based on the alternative for high level fixed windows being recommended by officers, and suggested this could be a mitigation to overcome the concerns raised.

            Councillor Richard Jones asked what advice was given to the developer during the pre-application process.

            Councillor Roberts concurred with other Members in that the margin on distance was too significant.  Councillor Lloyd asked what the distance was between the windows of both properties.

            The officer explained that work on the development had ceased when it became apparent the distance between the properties was different to the conditions outlined in the approval.  On the original plans in June 2015, the property had clear glazed windows at first floor level which is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118