Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of extensions and alterations to dwelling at Woodlea, Bishopswood Road, Prestatyn (copy attached).

 

 

An application was submitted for the erection of extensions and alterations to dwelling at Woodlea, Bishopswood Road, Prestatyn.

 

Public Speakers –

 

Mr Tony Connor (Against) – reminded that an identical application was refused by the planning committee on the 18 January 2019. The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring houses, it would also cause loss of privacy due to the size of the development. The residential development SPG, stated that where a proposed window which would face a neighbouring property would be required to be 21 meters from other buildings, however the proposed development would only be 18 meters. The elevation of the building would exacerbate the impact of the close proximity. The proposed hedge would not mitigate the extent of overlooking and loss of privacy which would be caused. The maintenance and the monitoring of the hedge caused concern.

 

Mr Ray Williams (For) – thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak, the applicant clarified that they had complied with the recommendations with screening from the town council. The screening option that was taken was a hedge, Western Red Cedar were planted which were quick growing, there were no regulations in place with the height of the hedge, the hedge would be at 2.5 meters, planning officers approved of the screening.

 

General Debate –

 

Councillor Tina Jones (Local Member) – reminded the committee of a tragedy which occurred twelve years age when a supporting wall had collapsed and killed a young girl. The property of the rear of Woodlea was situated below the property and required a supporting wall which was not in a good condition. The local members queried that the supporting wall could fall, however the members was informed that the wall was a building regulation matter, and not a planning issue. The privacy of the rear building would be impeded, to rectify the privacy hedges had been planted, the roots could also impair on the wall’s integrity. The growth of the hedge was queried and what monitoring would be carried out, as the hedges could quickly become an anti-social issue if they were not properly monitored and maintained.

 

Councillor Hugh Irving (Local Member) – commented as a local member who attended the site visit last week. The application was to develop a bungalow to a house. The local member had received seven objections to the proposed development, in which some indicate that the development did not meet the guidelines. The impact on the boundaries was raised, and that visibility would be affected, alongside major concern with the development and the potential strain on the boundary walls. The wall was a building regulation matter, the hedge would also be a civil matter between both residents. The local member reminded the committee that the application had been refused previously, and raised to members whether enough work has been carried out since the previous refusal to grant the application.

 

Officers responded to local members. The geography of Prestatyn cause issues especially in regards to privacy. All concerns were considered by planning officers whilst reviewing the application. In terms to the boundary, the wall was situated within the land of the lower property and would be their responsibility.

 

Members were informed that if the applicant at Woddlea had planted a hedge, they could have done so without any planning permission, which is the reason it would be a civil matter. The committee needed to decide whether the hedge had a mitigating effect on the planning application. Planning officers felt with the assessing of the proposed developed and the screening proposed that application was sound. However the screening could be monitored, and neighbours would be likely to notify the planning department if the hedge caused any concerns. There was another condition that on the application that a detailed ground survey be carried out.

 

Members discussed whether a wall or fence would be better as a screen rather than a hedge. Members were concerned maintenance as enforcement was strained and policing would be difficult. Maintenance was raised, that it would be difficult for residents on the lower side of property to maintain the hedge.

 

The officers responded that they could not change what was proposed, and for member to determine a choice with what was shown in front of them. The maintenance was reliant for the applicant to comply with a planning condition, however if the conditions were not met then neighbouring residents would let the planning team know and the matter would be dealt with accordingly.

Proposal – Councillor Tina Jones proposed that the application be refused, unless a complete structural review of the retaining wall be carried out, as the current retaining wall would not be able to support the proposed development seconded by Councillor Ann Davies.

The officers responded that the retaining wall was not on the applicant’s land, if the wall was unsafe it was the place of the owner of the wall to rectify the issues. The planning team could control the ground control on the applicant’s side of the wall, which was the condition 6 on the blue sheets.

Councillor Hugh Irving (Local Member) queried the retaining wall, whether it was just for the owner of the retaining wall could have a cost implication on maintenance of the wall.

The Planning team, would require a full review of the ground condition is carried out prior to any work being carried out. It was also advised that it was not the planning team’s place to come into disagreements between neighbours.

Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts highlighted that the wall could be an issue regardless of the proposed development, Councillor Rhys Thomas commented that he believed that the concerns of the committee were all addressed within the conditions which had been presented by the planning officers.

Proposal - Councillor Alan James proposed the officer recommendation to grant the application, seconded by Councillor Merfyn Parry.

Planning officers stated that the reason for refusal, was dealt with condition 6 within the blue sheets, and that a clear reason for refusal would be required.

Councillor Andrew Thomas suggested that a condition be included notwithstanding the boundary condition that currently exists between the properties to the rear of the site, further details of a screen wall or fence should be submitted and approved in writing to the local planning authority.

Officers notified the committee that a vote would need to be taken whether to include the condition as requested by Councillor Andrew Thomas.

 

VOTE:

GRANT – 4

REFUSE – 9

ABSTAIN – 1

 

The additional condition to the application was not carried forward.

 

VOTE:

GRANT – 9

REFUSE – 4

ABSTAIN – 1

 

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report.