APPLICATION NO. 02/2021/1179/ PF - LAND AT (PART GARDEN OF) LLYS GWYN, BRYN GOODMAN, RUTHIN, LL15 1EL
an application for the erection of 2 no. detached dwellings and associated
works at land (part garden of) Llys Gwyn Bryn Goodman,
Ruthin, LL15 1EL (copy attached).
An application for
the erection of 2 no. detached dwellings and associated works at land at (part
garden of) Llys Gwyn, Bryn Goodman, Ruthin.
Robert Jones (Agent) (FOR), informed the committee he was a qualified
architect registered with the ARB and a member of the RIBA with over 16 years’
experience in the industry. He confirmed he had led the design development of
the application. He stated in 2021 an application was submitted to the LPA for
the erection of 2 residential properties to the rear of Llys Gwyn, Bryn Goodman
following a positive pre-application in2019. The proposal followed the approval
of two residential properties to the rear of Pennant in January 2020. He stated
this proposal which had also included a subsequent application for an
extension, was almost identical to the previous applications in respect of the
siting, layout, scale, design, character, materials and aspect. The application
presented had been prepared in line with the local planning policy and
supplementary guidance. The application had been supported by the LPA with the
recommendation to grant. It was stressed interfacing distances to neighbouring
properties had been exceeded to not affect the visual amenities of local
residents. Properties directly West to the site would be in excess of 32 metres,
significantly exceeding the minimum requirement identified in the SPG. This
condition was typical for 12 out of the 14 properties adjoining the trunk road
to the West of the site. At each of the locations the eastern most properties
would be elevated above the western following the local typography of the area.
The speaker noted officers were of the opinion that the scheme was acceptable
and would not result in unacceptable overlooking or overbearing impact of the
neighbouring properties. It was also noted that no objections had been received
from the internal consultation process.
General Debate – Councillor Christine Marston informed
members that at the site visit, members reviewed the geography and topography
of the site, the impact on the surrounding neighbours and the access on to Bryn
Goodman. Attendees explored the site and were allowed access to a neighbour’s
property to ascertain any visual impact. Councillor Marston felt the site visit
was very beneficial to those in attendance. Councillor Peter Scott was also in
attendance at the site visit and concurred with Councillor Marston’s views.
Wynne (Local Member) confirmed he was also at the site visit. He stated he felt
it was important for members to view the site. He informed members that one
question that arose at the visit had been in regard to the status of the
supporting wall at the rear of the land.
Councillor Wynne made reference to the planning permission granted to
the neighbouring property stating a main difference being that development did
not overlook into any neighbouring properties. Members at the site visit asked
for confirmation on the accuracy of the property levels within the report. He
informed members that a number of trees had already been removed from the area,
prior to the application being presented to members. He confirmed the proposed
new builds would be higher than existing properties and certainly would impact
visually the neighbours. A number of windows would overlook nearby properties
and affect the privacy of the neighbours. He raised concern that the skyline
would be changed from trees to housing and would be less visually attractive.
Councillor Wynne requested if members were in favour of the application that a
condition be imposed to include fencing to ascertain a certain level of
privacy. Councillor Emrys Wynne proposed to refuse the application against
officer recommendations on privacy and overlooking grounds. Councillor Gwyneth
Kensler seconded the proposal for refusal.
Councillor Bobby Feeley, stated she supported Councillor Wynne in is his
objection against the application. She informed members that the plots in the
area had large houses on large plots approval of the application would mean 3
houses on 1 plot. In her opinion it was illogical for the proposed properties
to overlook neighbouring houses and gardens. Councillor Feeley also raised
concern on the standard of the road as it was in extremely poor condition.
Access to the property had been made by splitting the existing driveway, with
unattractive fencing. It was stressed further development of sites in this area
would change the character of the area.
Hilditch-Roberts (Local Member) highlighted the map of the proposed housing, he
stated the one house on one plot was bigger than the two houses proposed put
together illustrating the close proximity of the proposed houses. In his
opinion the two proposed houses where too big for the plot and did not offer
enough space for green space.
Officer (PO) thanked members for attending the site visit and started by
offering further information at the concerns raised at the visit. He informed
the committee the site levels of the site had not been surveyed, the
information contained in the report was broadly considered sufficiently
accurate to enable members to make a decision. The diagrams within the report
provided members an illustration of the elevated height of the properties. The
trees in the diagram were greyed out to demonstrate the trees being set back on
The status of any
supporting wall was a legal requirement on the developer to ensure no damage to
third party land was caused during construction. The wall sat outside the
planning application boundary. The guidance states to have a distance of 21
meters, this application was more than that minimum. In officer’s opinion it
would be difficult to sustain a refusal on a loss of privacy due to the
distances involved and the level changes. The PO directed members to the
suggested conditions in the report which included a landscaping plan.
It was highlighted
the proposed properties would lie next to Bryn Goodman and former Council
properties and would continue the line of dwellings along Haulfryn. It was
stated that contractors would have to show consideration to not damage the
suggests that sites should be developed at 35 dwellings per hectare unless the
character of the area suggested differently. The proposal would be less
dwellings per hectare if agreed. There were similar sized buildings in the near
Councillor Bobby Feeley stressed the importance of preventing trees and
hedgerow being removed before planning applications were presented to
committee. Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts urged members to refuse this
application it was his opinion that the properties would not be keeping with
the character of the area and would be overbearing.
Ellis asked officers for further information regarding parking spaces allocated
on the land. She stated her understanding standards say each house should have
space for 3 cars and additional visitors with turning space at the site. In response the PO confirmed no objections
had been received from the highway officer in terms of turning space and
parking. In the report it showed spaces at the front of the dwellings were
parking would be. Officers were confident that there was sufficient parking and
turning space at the site.
Wynne stated the houses would be facing west towards lovely views. It was a
great concern that the proposed properties would impact the privacy of the
Control Manager thanked the local members for their perspective and
acknowledged the concerns and opinions of local members. He stated if members
felt the application would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity
by way of overlooking or privacy. That would be an acceptable material planning
reason to refuse.
With regard to
members general concerns about the removal of trees or hedgerows prior to
development taking place Officers emphasised that they can only use the
controls available in terms of Preservation Orders and hedgerow regulations. It
was also confirmed that the site was not in a Conservation Area.
Proposal – Councillor Emrys
Wynne proposed, seconded by Councillor Gwyneth Kensler that the application be
refused against officer recommendation as the development would have an
unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of nearby residential properties
by reason of siting, design and potential loss of privacy.
FOR – 6
AGAINST – 9
ABSTAIN – 2
RESOLVED that permission be
REFUSED against officer recommendation for the reasons stated in the