Transcript

Good morning. Welcome to the Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, the 4th of June. I'm Councillor Tessy Levens, chair of the Camardinshire County Council's Planning Committee. This is a multi-location meeting with an option to meet in person in the chamber or remotely. Before proceeding today, I have to remind everyone present that the proceedings of today's meeting are being filmed live and may be kept on the Council's internet site as an archive record of the meeting, and the images and sound recording may also be used for training purposes within the Council. Members of the public watching the meeting via the English language webcast will receive Welsh to English simultaneous interpretation automatically. Members and guests who have joined through Zoom who wish to receive simultaneous interpretation from Welsh to English should click on the interpreter symbol at the bottom of the screen and then choose English. Apologies for those listening to the interpretation. [Speaking in Irish] [Speaking in English] If those who are joining remotely lose connection, then please make every attempt to reconnect. However, the meeting will continue so long as it is recorded. There is no expected fire alarm today, but if the alarm does sound, this will not be a test, and the appropriate fire exit signs should be followed if attending physically. We will now move on to the agenda before us today, and the first item, apologies for absence. Five Councillors have sent their apologies, John James, Michelle Donoghue, Peter Cooper, Edward Skinner and Terry Davis. The second item, Declaration of Personal Interest, and I will now ask our Solicitor Roger Burt Edgecombe to read this for us, please. Thank you. Under the Code of Conduct, to verbally declare any personal interests that you may have in relation to any item appearing on the agenda today, please ensure that you clearly indicate which agenda item you have a personal interest in and the specific nature of the interest to be disclosed and whether or not you will be withdrawing from the meeting during consideration of that item. If your interest is prejudicial, you will have to leave the meeting. For remote attendees, the Democratic Services Officer will place you in the virtual lobby and invite you back to the meeting once the debate has concluded. You should not use the Rejoin Meeting button. If an interest has not been declared at the start but becomes known during discussions, it will need to be declared when that interest becomes apparent. You will need to repeat your Declaration of Personal Interest at the beginning of the relevant item on the agenda, as well as indicating whether or not you will be leaving the meeting during consideration of that item. You will also need to indicate whether you have been granted a dispensation by the Standards Committee or the Monitoring Officer to speak or vote or both in respect of any item on the agenda. Thank you, Rob. Would any members like to declare an interest, please? If not, we will move on to the agenda item 3 and the local member wishes to -- yes, thank you. Good morning, Chair, and thank you for having an opportunity to speak. We were supposed to have an opportunity to see the site this morning, but unfortunately we were unable to have access, and that happened because there was a misunderstanding that happened between myself and one of the opponents in terms of the time. So can I kindly ask to defer this meeting until we have a further opportunity to visit the site? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Can I ask our solicitor, then, please, to give us an update on the situation? The site visit did take place, which was in accordance with what members asked for. Obviously that wasn't present, so be guided by those who were in attendance. Looking at the protocol in relation to site visits, it makes it quite clear when a site visit should take place and makes it clear the circuit standards for a site visit is not really appropriate. As I understand it, Chair, members have, from the site visit this morning, all the information they would need in order to make a proper and valid decision today. I can't see any valid legal basis for a further site visit. Ultimately it is a matter for the committee. However, my advice would be a further site visit would not be appropriate. Thank you, Rob. It's a pity that that misunderstanding happened, and it's a pity that the door hadn't been left open. So do we have a proposal from anyone one way or another? Councillor Elwin Williams? Do we have a seconder? Yes, thank you. Are you all in agreement that we proceed with this application? Is there anyone against? Anyone in favour? So we'll move on to Item 3. And it reads as further, PL06309, variation of Condition 2, to amend plans. And it's 02132. Thank you, Chair. So this application, as you have noticed this morning, is situated about 2 kilometres north of Camarvan Town. So this is the slide showing the location of the site relevant to Camarvan itself. So we're currently sat here in County Hall, and the application site is located here. So within the settlement or hamlet of van Anderen, which has settlement boundary, as defined in the local development plan, and the application site is this area here, outlined in red, and then the neighbouring residential settlement, which is Trevorn, is located on an upper level to the west of the actual hamlet itself. This is a slide of the extent of the hamlet of van Anderen and where the application site sits within that hamlet. So you've got the red line application site area located here. That's an indication, that's an OS-based plan. So this is, I couldn't say that this is wholly accurate in terms of the location of it, but that gives you the idea of where the dwelling is, as you saw it this morning. And as I mentioned on site, it adjoins a number of properties within the settlement, and you will have seen in the report before you that we have received a number of objections to this application, which was the reason principally that the application came before you back in March when it was decided to go out on site. So here is a view of the site itself in terms of the wider surroundings, again the residential area of van Anderen, principally located along that road that travels through the village, but then this access lane that provides access up towards Trevorn to the west is the location of where the application site is, as you saw this morning. So it's important really to set up the background, I know we briefly discussed this on site. So we are looking at an application today to vary a previous planning permission. So planning permission was granted back in 1998 for a bungalow with a garage, basement and workshop underneath, and as a result of that planning permission, and then subsequent amendments that were also approved at that time through various exchange of letters, which was the process of undertaking that amendment at that time, we ended up with a approved position for a new dwelling and development then subsequently commenced on the site around about in year 2000. So what you've got before you now is what the approved position of the planning permission is. So this is the approved plan as originally approved, but also as amended in those minor amendments that we've mentioned. In the report it suggests the amendments that were approved included reciting of the dwelling itself within the site to move it back because of land stability issues, and also increasing the height of the basement floor level, but I'll point that out to you now. So this is what was approved, and this is what we call the fallback position, so this is effectively the status of the dwelling in terms of the approved position at the moment. Originally when originally granted, this height here would have been 3,000 mm or 3 meters in height, but there was an amendment that was approved shortly after planning permission was granted to increase that to 4 meters in height, and this is the elevation here that shows that increase in height, and you would have seen that on the site today when we visited the application site itself. Just to go back, I call this the side elevation, so this is the elevation that adjoins the neighbouring properties, so when planning permission was originally granted, there was a proposal to provide an access ramp leading up to the side access door, which leads into an area toward the front of the property here, which was intended to be like an annex type area, but it also provided access to the main dwelling itself. You'll have seen today in terms of the topography of the site that in order to gain level access, a ramp would have been required, and so that was effectively that original position that was granted. And then that's the rear elevation again that you saw, that's the conservatory that we stood behind, that projection, and then that's the rear elevation of the remaining dwelling, and that's the nearest boundary to the property known as number 3 for Nonderein. These were the floor plans that were approved as part of that planning permission, and again, this is what we call the fallback position, so there was the garage and workshop area on the ground or basement floor with the steps that we went up today to lead up to what I call the upper ground floor, which is where all the accommodation sits. So we travelled up, walked up this staircase today and popped up at this location here, and then we walked out towards the ramp area. So you can see on this drawing, initially when planning permission was granted, it was intended to have the ramp effectively going along the side here, and then returning and providing that level access into that doorway at that location. So that is the approved position, so that is where we effectively fall back to. So upon granting that planning permission, development commenced in around about 2000, you can see, well 1999-2000, when basement works commenced to create that basement ground floor area, so that's how the site appeared back in 1999 I believe there, and then again in 2006 so work was progressing slowly to create that basement floor area there. And then works did tend to stop in around about 2006 I believe, and in effect the ground area or the basement floor had been completed to the extent of the floor level of the upper ground floor, if you get me. I'll show you some pictures of what it looked like. So back in 2011, I've taken this from Google Street View, so this is how the site remained in effect for a number of years. So the basement floor that you would have seen today, so this is the extent that was built up to the point in 2011. The other element is the earth mound that was created as a result of the works to build this basement floor, so the work, the soil that was taken from this area was then placed in this location here, and that's been in situ since these works have already commenced as well. So the planning, the site actually lay dormant for a number of years, but then subsequently in 2023 works commenced, so these are the Google images showing how the site lay dormant for a number of years. But as I said, in 2023 you can see works have then proceeded to build that upper ground floor area, and it was at this point that we received a number of queries from local residents about the scale of the development and question whether it was being built in accordance with what had been approved. Following enforcement investigations, it was determined that there were discrepancies between what's been approved and what was being built on the site, and those discrepancies are set out in the report before you, and it's these elements that are the only matters that we can consider today, because we've got the planning permission in place, so we can only consider the deviations from that original planning permission today in comparison to what's been built on site. So those deviations are an increase in the overall height of one metre of the roof, so that's as I explained on site. That's the difference in the roof apex, if you like, because the height of the roof structure has become steeper, the angle of the roof has become steeper, and as a result there is an increase in height of around about one metre. There's also an increase in depth of the actual property by a metre as well, so in terms of where the property is located in relation to the front elevation, which I call this area that fronts onto the main road, it has protruded a further metre in depth towards the rear. It's approximately 30 centimetres closer to the boundary along here, and then there is the proposal to change the access ramp to provide access to the side, that side door, and utilising the earth mound area to the front to create what I refer to as a meandering path, which complies with building regulations to create that link up to the ramp on the side, which you also visited this morning. So these are the plans now that we have before us today to consider today, and it effectively is an accurate drawing of the dwelling as it now currently sits on the site. This is the meandering path that I refer to utilising that earth mound to the front, and then the creation of that ramped area to provide that level access into the site itself. And again, these are the further additional plans showing the access ramp side of things. And then these are the proposed elevations. So in terms of what I mentioned in terms on site as the increase in the height of the property, it is only in relation to the pitch of the roof. In terms of the height up to the eaves, which is this height here and this height here, that is what we consider is the same as what was originally granted planning permission. And in addition, the ramp height as well is the same. So there isn't a change there that is being proposed. It is very much only the increase in the height here, this area here, the earth mound and the meandering path, and also, as I mentioned, the property being an additional one metre in depth further back. On the original planning permission that was granted, on the side windows or side elevation that face onto number three, four and rose cottage, the location where you stood this morning on the access ramp. When our planning permission was originally granted, the windows serving utility rooms and bedrooms were all proposed to be, well, there was no requirement for them to be obscure glazed. The applicant has, as you will have seen this morning, installed obscure glazing in all of the windows and doors, bar one, which is this window here that is serving a bedroom. But also, the applicant has agreed to install a privacy screen as part of this application along that access ramp. And there was some mesh material that was placed on the steel girders that were there this morning to give an indication of that. But it would be 1.8 metres in height, so it would be slightly lower than what you saw today. And the intention on the plans is for it to be a high-screen fence made of bamboo or willow sort of a screening fence. So that is also proposed in addition as part of this application. And primarily to seek to address some of the concerns that have been raised by local members of the public and neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and the impact of the development on neighbouring properties. So this is a trip down memory lane now for you because this, it was a nicer day when I went on site at this time, but these are the photographs that I took back in March this year of the site. So there will be a difference, you will have noticed there is quite a difference in vegetation in comparison to what it is today. But these are the images that we saw from the site visit this morning, so this is the application site. Evidently the house has progressed in terms of development and has now been rendered, so there is a change in its appearance in comparison to what's in the photographs. These are the views that we saw again this morning, sort of going up towards the application site, relevant to the existing residential properties in Fonondráin and then the access road leading up to Trivone and the actual application site itself. And here we are really on the front of the proposal and the dwelling here in the foreground here and the earth mound where that meandering path is to be located. You can see the steel girders. I know this was quite vegetated today, so this gives you an indication of how it looks like in more winter months. And then a view then looking back down towards the village of Fonondráin here with the dwelling located here. So as I've mentioned, this is what we're looking at today in terms of creating the meandering path along here, and you can see linking into that access ramp there, and the increase in the pitch of the roof which has resulted in the increase in the height of the roof pitch itself, as well as what I've just mentioned in terms of the depth of the dwelling. This is the view in relation to the neighbouring property at Hollybrook and a further view of the dwelling itself. This is a view taken from the top road, so we didn't view it from that location today, but this is a photograph taken from. It's an agricultural access from the top road from Trivone Road looking down into Fonondráin itself, so you've got the dwelling located here. You can see the residential properties of Fonondráin there and the neighbouring property Hollybrook there. So this is again some further photos which were taken back in January this year, so again during winter months to give you an idea of what it appears. Evidently it has changed since these were taken because of the rendering that's taken place. But again, some of the photographs of that access ramp that's been installed from the earth mound and linking into this ramp here, and then views looking up towards Trivone from that top of the earth mound and then down looking towards Fonondráin and that's where we parked our vehicles near the chapel there. And then further pictures of the building as built. Then I know some of you, well all of you, went on to the access ramp this morning to look at the view from the access ramp downs onto neighbouring properties. Today there was that hairless fencing with that mesh on that side, but this gives you a further different view when that mesh wasn't in place. So in effect this is what was approved originally because the access ramp level has not changed from what was approved. So in the event that the applicant wouldn't have submitted an application and we were just relying on the original planning permission, this would be the view. We wouldn't have any control on installing a privacy screen at this location. So this is what the view would have been from that approved position. So again, looking into the rear gardens of Rose Cottage and number four, Fonondráin. And then a view internally again, you all had a view from this location just indicating the fact that the windows along this elevation have been obscure glazed with the exception of a bedroom window. So as we've heard unfortunately we're unable to gain access to the rear garden of number four Fonondráin this morning, but nevertheless I did visit the rear gardens back in November and these are the photographs that I took from that visit. And what I've tried to do here is to give you an understanding. It is an approximate level because it's difficult to accurately measure from visuals, but having regard to the location of Velix windows and other sort of proportional dimensions, it's suggested that this is the additional height that has resulted, that has been resulted as the pitch of the roof has been altered. So the one metre additional, because it is quite difficult to show you accurately, but this gives you an indication of roughly where the approved position is and the current position which we are being asked to look at today in terms of a planning application to regularise what's been built. This is another view from that rear garden and this is the boundary then between number four and Rose Cottage which is the property just on the corner. And then this is a view within the garden area again of number four Fonondráin just to the rear where there is a summer house on the boundary and then this is the access ramp that I've referred to and where you stood this morning along there looking into the neighbouring properties. Then this is a view from within the applicant's dwelling itself, so this is from the ground floor kitchen area looking out towards the application site and then a view from the first floor window as well of the objectors property looking to the application site itself. So I also visited number three Fonondráin and these are the photographs I took on that occasion again on the same day in November last year. So this is a view from the rear elevation of number three Fonondráin looking down towards the application site here, that's the boundary with number four, so number four is just the other side and then this is looking directly to the rear garden area of number three and you can see the dwelling in question to the rear there. And then a further picture at the rear of the garden area of number three Fonondráin and again the dwelling in situ there, you can see the access ramp metal railings there and you can see some of the windows that have been installed as was the original planning permission as approved. Again these further views just literally on that boundary wall between number three and the actual property itself. And then a further view then from the garden of Rawes Cottage looking up to the dwelling and then a further view from that garden area and then this is a view that can be seen from the public highway, the difference really between where the dwelling is located relevant to the rear elevations of dwellings and which are within the hamlet of Fonondráin itself. Then this is a view of the earth mound where it joins the boundary with Rawes Cottage. So I appreciate we visited the site this morning and the additional photographs that I've provided to you, I appreciate that we weren't able to visit the property of number four but there are a number of photographs that I have provided. So in terms of assessing this application again we've only been able to assess what the approved position is and what's been built and it's the difference between the approved position and what's been built that we can assess today. We have considered the main sort of considerations that we've taken into account based on a number of the objections that have been received, the impact upon residential amenity. These are matters that we have taken into account and as I've mentioned looking at this view, this is in effect the approved position in that there were proposed to be windows on this elevation but there wasn't any control at that time for them to be obscure glazed either nor was there any control for a privacy screen. The level of the property as far as we are aware and as far as we have assessed, sorry, is in line with what was approved. So the difference that we're looking at in terms of height is this additional height difference here. So the location, the position of the access ramp is as was approved. So in terms of impact upon privacy, the applicants as I've mentioned have now agreed to install obscure glazing and a privacy screen and we are able to secure that as part of any planning permission to be granted and there are intended planning conditions which are set out in your report to seek to ensure that those privacy elements are undertaken. So condition two in particular requires a 1.8 metre privacy screen to be installed within two months of the date of the permission or prior to the first beneficial occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the soonest. So if they weren't to occupy that property, which is probably likely to be the case, there's probably more than two months work there, but there would be a privacy screen that would be required to be imposed by two months. We can also, if members wish, to install a condition that requires that obscure glazing to be held in perpetuity. It is on the proposed plans, which are a suite of plans that are to be approved, but in order to safeguard to ensure that those windows are obscure glazed in perpetuity, additional conditions could be imposed to that effect. So this planning permission gives that opportunity, therefore, to improve upon the privacy aspects in comparison to the original planning permission. We therefore consider that in terms of the increase in height, that the increase in height in the roof apex does not have a detrimentally different impact to that which was originally granted in terms of the original planning permission. But we do consider that this planning application gives opportunities to improve upon that original permission in terms of privacy screens. There are also concerns about the impact of the scale of the dwelling on the character and appearance of the area, and in particular, the earth mound and the ramp area towards the front of the property. So it's this area here and the scale of the property. It is a large dwelling, but it has got planning permission in place. The changes that we're looking at today in terms of this additional scale is that additional 1 metre in height and that additional 1 metre in depth. So we consider that that additional increase in height and depth does not detrimentally create a different impact in terms of the character and appearance of the area in comparison to that original planning permission situation. In addition, in terms of the earth mound, that wasn't proposed as part of the original planning permission, but this now is also being sought to be retained. It has been there for a number of years in any event, but it is being retained by default as part of this application to provide that meandering path. And to a degree, it does screen the basement area from the front elevation or the public highway, so you don't necessarily see that full extent of the front elevation and basement ground area as a result of the earth mound. So again, we've come to the conclusion that what is being asked of us in terms of the changes between what was approved and what's been now built does not have a detrimentally or different impact to the character and appearance of the area in comparison to the previous position. So on balance, we've come to the conclusion that planning permission is to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, and as I just mentioned, the conditions regarding the privacy screen, but also conditions to ensure that permitted development rights, so the rights given to householders to extend their properties, are removed, and these include all of the permitted development rights for residential properties, so it includes things like attic conversions, additions of additional VELIX roof lights or any dormer windows to be installed on that roof. They are to be removed so that planning permission would be required for those elements should the applicants or future occupants wish to develop that property further, and that's a consideration, you know, given the scale of the development and its proximity to neighbouring properties, so we are also considering that condition as part of the proposal in front of you. Thank you. >> Thank you for that detailed report, Helen, on this application. We have two who are opposing this application and have expressed their wish to speak. Ms Bridget Manning and Mr Tom Bowen. So if I can ask Ms Manning to begin with you. I have up to five minutes to address the committee. Thank you.

Okay. When planning was applied for initially back in 1998, there was one objection which was questioning about the skylight which would it affect our privacy in our gardens. So after long consultations with planning and the Ombudsman, a letter stated from the Ombudsman that there would be no loss of privacy as the building would be 28 metres away. Please note the application was also for a one-storey bungalow to be built 28 metres away. A standard height of a bungalow is 2.4 to 3.7 metres and measured from the average height of the existing ground level. If this was the case, there wouldn't have been any loss of privacy. The application was amended over the years to which we didn't agree, or should I say, couldn't have agreed to, as I along with my neighbours of 28 years were not informed or consulted of the changes. And if we were, we personally would have strongly objected if we had been given the opportunity to do so. Due to the changes, we now have lost all privacy to our once private gardens. I have not only lost privacy only to my garden, but rear windows to my kitchen, utility room and my teenage daughter's bedroom, which can now all be viewed down, on and by whoever whenever. This includes deliverymen, postmen or any caller to the property and the occupants themselves, either by the elevated walkway around the building, or by the two doors and five windows that now peer down on our homes. Also, Rose Cottage has also lost their privacy, not only in their garden, but in their bedroom too. And number three has also lost privacy in her garden. The last two semesters since the development has increased in size has now been ruined, and there's been workmen walking along the ramp looking straight into our gardens. Loss of privacy. The bungalow is perched on top of the garage, which is taller than you would expect a garage to be. One metre extra was requested, but now is actually 1.4 metres. Also, it's been built on elevated ground, not to mention some 4.5 metres east and two metres north, which is now closer to the boundary than stipulated on the plan. I accept the garage is not a living space, but due to all the above, the bungalow has elevated drastically and is now completely overbearing and not in keeping with the character Hamlet of Finland Rhine, one of Wales' last Hamlets. I am not alone in my opinions, I've spoken to all the neighbours and they also agree it's far too imposing for its location. Now that you've actually seen the property, you can see how intrusive it actually is, and the detrimental impact it's had, having and going to still have on the little time I have off from what is quite a stressful job, and others who have worked tirelessly are now trying to enjoy retirement. If the original plans and spec'd were to adhere to, then there would be no loss of privacy to our properties. There has been endless people commenting on how big the development is and how out of character it looks, and querying how are they getting away with it. Therefore the height of the new build to the raid of our properties is very much questionable. Can I draw your attention to the fact that when I applied for planning for my end of the property to have an extension back in 2003, the planning officer came out and insisted I drop the roof height by a foot because it wasn't in keeping with the Hamlet's character. This I adhere to. I know the difference of the height of the building has been shown in the diagram, but as I hope you can actually see for yourselves and have a clear insight of how intrusive it actually is. Lastly can I say if the building had been built to the original scale and location and not on elevated ground, we would have had no objection and the Ombudsman statement would have still been true, no loss of privacy. But due to the discretion of the planners officers, all of what the Ombudsman has said is now not a true reflection. Thank you. And we'll now turn to Mr Tom Bowen who is speaking on behalf of a member of the family and you also have up to five minutes. I am here today on behalf of my sister-in-law, Janet Evans, number three. Unfortunately, she's unable to attend today because of her poor health. Firstly, I would like to tell you the authority that I have been very critical of you recently because you've permitted such an enormous building to be built in this location. But today you've had the detail and I wish to apologise to you for criticising your forgiveness because you are not to blame, but of the house who is to blame. He is the one who has trespassed for not following the rules more appropriately for planning permission. If you breach of the law, it will be penalised. And so this property is penalised. This is a man who has no respect for anyone apart from himself. He intervened with his view through the woods up the road you see today, but an enormous building that extends right like a New York skyscraper. The windows behind number three and other neighbouring houses have lost their privacy and totally lost their part of the building that was built on money that was collected by Captain Tom. That building has had to be this building is also in breach of this building also needs to be taken down to his foundations. No one should tell me that that's not possible. If it's possible to build such a building, then it's also possible to take that building down. The time may not permit, but if time does permit, I would like to ask you councillors individually for an honest answer and to ask how would you feel if something's behind your home. This is your opportunity to show the city, but more than anything else, your house right down to its foundations. And let that be a lesson to everyone who builds that you have to follow the regulations and rules. So council, please take this order forward because building is health. Every time she walks into her kitchen and seals this enormous building outside her home, she breaks down and cries. So please go on and take this order. Otherwise, some disaster will happen within number three. We as the family knows how things are happening inside number three. So thank you for this opportunity to speak today. Thank you. So have the developers agent who's joined Mr. Paul Richards and you also have minutes to address the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking in this situation. The planning permission, as you know, was a long standing approval and the problems of dealing with building a modern building with materials that are around nowadays were different from when the planning permission was applied for originally. The outside covering of the building is a SIPs panel, which are best used at 45 degrees. So the roof pitch was done as part of a structural requirement to make it a sensible structural calculation for the roof panels. The one meter extra does not affect the daylight going into the surrounding properties as the eaves level hasn't changed. Yes, there was a lower pitch before we completed these designs, but the angle of light is calculated at 45 degrees from anywhere in a garden. So the actual light changing coming into the garden has not been altered by the actual increase of one meter on the roof height. The one meter on the depth was created because we put the SIPs panels outside the construction of the oak frame, which means that the house hasn't changed. The owner has not grabbed extra meterage inside the property. We've simply altered the construction to put the insulation on the outside of the building, which has taken up the extra space because the walls now are much thicker than they would have been due to the insulation levels compared to the approved drawings in 1999 and 2000. So I would like to urge all of the committee to consider the main point on this, which is the fact that you're looking at my suggestion of regularizing the discrepancies with the Section 73 approval to amend the drawings to become the adopted set of approved drawings means that you only have to look at the differences. And it has been stressed by the planning officer that had we built the original, there would be no obscure glazing and no screening as part of this new application. So therefore, the overlooking situation would still exist and would not be countered by what we're now proposing. So I urge you to so consider that we are taking very seriously the situation of neighboring people worrying about overlooking and to comment about the builders looking down. That is no different from a house being built with scaffolding that everybody knows that there is temporary infringements of privacy when scaffolding goes up around a building. And it's unfortunate that it happens, but it's a short term issue while it's building. And there won't be deliveries on that back property, there won't be to and froing along the ramp with dozens of people going up there as inferred. The actual front of the property is where deliveries will take place. So it won't be a case of lots of people going up there. And even if they were, you won't see them because there's going to be a 1.8 meter screen. So I'd like to say that the council, hopefully the committee will actually appreciate what the planning officer has suggested, and that the outcome of this approval, if it's approved, will actually provide a better situation for the surrounding houses than the original approval. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Richards. I'll now open it up to the committee and we'll begin with the local member, Councillor Jean Lewis. Thank you, chair. Thank you for the opportunity to say a word about this application before us today. And thank you also for permitting a site visit this morning. And I'm sure that the images, as good as they are, do not always reflect the size, the lay of the land, nor the dwellings proximity and its effect on neighbours' privacy. We have read the objective statements and have heard this morning their concerns. They did not object to the application in 1998, and if the applicant had not deviated from those plans, we would not be in the chamber today discussing this application, as we heard. As noted in the report, the applicant submitted a series of amendments to the proposal in 1999-2000. These include a reciting of the dwelling due to the land conditions, increase in height of the basement level by one metre and adjustments to window positions. On paper, the change in dimensions may seem moderate, but due to the nature of the land, it has made a huge difference to the neighbours' privacy. It was permission for a bungalow. That's what they received. But so what is the definition of a bungalow? And I've been in the dictionary looking. A low house with only one storey or in some cases upper rooms set in the roof, typically with dormer windows. So do you as a committee, are you comfortable that this is a bungalow? That was permitted. As I mentioned, between the original and amended in what has been developed. I'm a little baffled by the description as original and amended. Around a month ago, we as a committee refused an application to a young couple in Pontoberem for development that was referred to as a tandem development. So according to the policies, we do not approve tandem developments. It's quite obvious that this is a tandem development before us today, as this development was passed back in 1998. And we can't do anything about that. I realise that, of course. But then, of course, the plan was changed on a number of occasions with no consideration with how this would affect neighbours. So how on earth can we justify giving permission to this ramp, which is linked to a development that would have been refused today and which goes against the principle in terms of how we implement our policies? So you tell me. Two wrongs do not make a right. If this is permitted today, then we are giving a signal to the public that they are able to change plans once they've been given permission, regardless of how that affects others. Is that what we want to convey to the residents of Camartinshire? I'll leave it there for now, Chair, and thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I'll now open it up to anyone else who would like to contribute. Councillor Ken Howell. Thank you, Chair. I don't want to make a lengthy contribution. But actually, I was reading this report last night. And I have more than one question to ask. But I know one question. And thank you to the officer for explaining it on site. And thank you also for the concerns me. I have a question of placing a bamboo screen. And so the owner's house is in front of them. But bamboo is grown in a very different country to this one. And they don't have the wind and the rain that happens in Fanondraen. So I'm asking for a condition that something more stable should be placed as a screen and not bamboo. But otherwise, I don't have any opposition in terms of the conditions that have been placed in this development. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Howells. Would anyone else like to comment? Councillor Russell Sparks. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Helen, for the report. Confirm, please, that you mentioned it in your summary at the end. You were considering putting restrictions on permitted development rights on the application. I think that for me that would seem sensible based on the fact that if you're looking at the site, it certainly seems to have been developed to its full. As objectives have made reference to the increase in size, a lot of which has happened outside of the control of this committee. But the result is that it is a large development. And normal permitted development rights in that case, I think, would be concerning for me in terms of any additions to that site, which would have further implications for the local residents. So if you could confirm that, please. Thank you, Councillor Sparks. Anyone else wishing to comment? Councillor Dorian Phillips. Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you to Helen for that report. A couple of things. I think there's a lot of background and context, and we can't go back to much of that. But unfortunately, lots of things have gone wrong, and lots of things have been permitted, such as increasing the garage an extra metre that's caused or means that the house is now far higher than it was first anticipated. Something that I couldn't understand, I think we all have to agree that the front of this house looks awful. That lump of earth, it's not visually pleasant, is it? So I'm sure that they could have looked at this in more detail and could have put the ramp on the other side, which wouldn't have affected. There's plenty of space behind, and they could have dealt with that under that steel structure. But there we are. We are where we are. The attic space. I don't agree with the agent at all in terms of the attic space and the calculations and the pitch of the roof. Why was there a need for that rock frame? When standard attic trusses could have been put in, or just under trusses, I think we have to be very careful when we put conditions in. We need to be very careful about this attic. We all know why that roof has been increased in order to make that room larger for people to be able to habit it. That's why there's a greater pitch to the roof. It hasn't got anything to do with the calculations. So I do think that we need to put a significant amount of conditions in here. And something else, I don't know whether we are able to do this, but is it possible to put a condition in that that ramp should only be used by disabled people? So that's the only time it should be used, is to be used by disabled. I don't know whether we can put that condition in, but that's a question I have. But I think they're trying to pull a fast one here in terms of increasing the roof. But in going forward, I don't know what to do because the house has already been built. But we shouldn't allow people to throw dust in our eyes. There's a reason why they've increased the pitch of the roof. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Garrett-Thomas. Thank you, Chair. The question I have for the Planning Officer in terms of when were they made to understand that things weren't as they should be? When were they told that the roof had been increased? The site visit, I think, was a good idea today so that we could see it for ourselves. But this building, they've carried on in building this, even though they knew something was wrong in the hope that they would say that, no, you can't do it. So I think that's wrong. So what I want to know, the date you found out that there were problems with this building, and then have they then continued and regardlessly and ignored you as officers? I think that's insulting. So what's the purpose of officers saying, right, you're wrong? And then they are hoping after building it that they won't be asked to pull it down? I think it's setting a precedence. And I think that the precedence has long been set. But they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it as easily with just making excuses and saying that the house is a metre width because of the insulation is now different than what it was 40 years ago. But insulation has become narrower and also better quality. So if it's following what has been mentioned and what is happening over recent years, it should have become narrower. So the question for the officer, when were you told that things were going wrong? And did you put a stop in it? And if you put a stop in it, why have they then gone ahead and continued? Thank you, Councillor Thomas. Councillor Michael Thomas? No. Okay. So we'll return to Helen to answer those questions that have been asked. If I go back to the beginning of the questions, I'll see, hopefully I've numbered them, but if I've missed any out, I'm sure you'll come back to me. So in terms of the contributions from Councillor Lewis regarding the original planning permission, the description was a bungalow with a basement garage workshop and there were plans submitted with that that indicated that it was, as you've seen today, effectively a split level dwelling bungalow. So whilst people expected a bungalow, the plans that had been approved were clearly a bungalow with a basement garage floor level underneath. Amendments that are previously being considered, now there is a standard process that we consider amendments to planning applications. Their class is what we call non-material amendments. Back when this decision was being looked at or the amendments were being looked at back towards 1999/2000, there wasn't a defined process, it was a process of submitting amendments and it was down to the planning officers involved whether those were considered acceptable or not. Some have suggested that the planning officer concerned at the time did not consider the impact upon residential amenity when those amendments were being looked at, but having assessed the file myself, there were further amendments that were being proposed in terms of windows, additional windows inserted on certain elevations which were actually rejected on grounds of impact upon privacy. So there were that planning officer that was dealing with the amendments back at the time nearly 24 years ago did take into account the impact on neighbouring residents. In terms of the screening, I take your point Councillor Howell, the information submitted on the plans at the moment is referring to a willow or a bamboo type screen. I've got an idea of what that sort of looks like, but there is potential for issues in terms of how the longevity of that type of screen. If members, it is sort of a suggestion on the plan, but if members want to have a condition that requires the full details of that screen to be provided first, then we could amend that condition to require the full details of the intended screen to be submitted to us for approval before it's installed to ensure it does have that longevity that's required, so that is something that we can adjust if members want to do that as part of the condition tool that we're suggesting. In terms of the condition about permitted development rights removals, in typical planning terms, the condition is condition 5 on the report that removes permitted development rights, but it is a standard condition that's applied, but it is quite a technical condition, but in effect it removes all permitted development rights under what they refer to here as classes A, B, C, D and E. I know that doesn't make sense to the lay person, but for us planners, part or class A covers all extensions. Class B covers things like additional dormers or additional windows in the roof. Class C covers any other alteration of the roof itself or within that roof space. Class D is covering things like porches in front of wind doors, so potentially avoiding the addition of a porch in front of side doors, and then class E is outbuildings such as sheds or any other garden buildings. So those are all the elements that that condition is in effect removing, so that if the applicants or any future occupants want to have any of those types of development, they would have to come to us for planning permission. There are no plans in terms of any attic space that have been submitted as part of this application, and nor I could see on the original approval either. So that permitted development rights condition would control how that attic space is used in the future. In terms of when the local planning authority found out that was Councillor Thomas' question, so there was activity that started again in summer 2023, that's when we received concerns from neighbouring residents about the scale of the development. So back, I can't tell you the exact date, but it was around spring 2023 when our enforcement team started investigations, and it did include site measurements to understand what was actually occurring on the site. And we, I believe it was in around about summer 2023 that we advised the applicant that there were discrepancies from what we considered were discrepancies between what was being erected on site and which had been granted planning permission. At that stage, works were fast progressing on site, and I believe the actual roof structure was in place at that point, because we measured it. So obviously, since then, works have progressed, but in terms of the roof element, it was in situ at the time that we advised. And there was no enforcement proceedings that took place, formal enforcement proceedings took place, because the applicant chose, as they have got the ability, to submit this planning application to regularise that planning application. So as a result of that, all enforcement investigations were held in abeyance pending consideration of this application. So that hopefully answers that question. And in terms of Councillor Phillips' questions, in terms of the conditions and the attic space, hopefully what I've just mentioned in terms of permitted development rights has addressed that, and we would not be able to impose a condition requiring that the access ramp can only be used by disabled people. It's simply unenforceable. So that would not be appropriate for us to do that. Hopefully I've answered everything, but if there is anything I've missed, please come back to me. Thank you. Thank you, Helen. Councillor Karyssa Jones? Thank you, Chair. I just want to sympathise with the opponents and what they are having to live with from day to day. There are some things that we cannot go back and change now, but it's not either right and correct to say that the agent and the applicant, whatever reasons for variation from the original conditions and planning permission, whatever the reasons, they still need permission for amending. Without seeking that permission is not acceptable either. And (inaudible) taking the two most obvious elements into consideration, I do believe that ensuring that the screening and that path and balcony should be more beneficial to you as residents than taking the height of the roof down. So for your benefit in terms of what we are looking at now, I think that is the best option for you. And that's the most that we can do currently in terms of the conditions that we are dealing with. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jones, and thank you for that explanation. Councillor Ken Harwell? Yes, thank you, Chair. Do I need to propose this officially that we put that condition in, that they should put a more stable screen in place? Yes, there we are. So I wish to do that. So do we have a seconder please? Thank you. Anyone else? The question I'd like to ask, and going on from what Helen just said there, if the enforcement had come out, they weren't stopped, they were just allowed to continue. Can you continue to build after, because you come in very, very quickly sometimes to stop things. So why did you allow them to continue and slate the roof? Why didn't you stop them immediately? That's my question. Members will be very aware how difficult enforcement is and the guidelines are not written in the favour of local planning authorities, unfortunately. But when you've got a situation such as this, where you find a breach of planning control, if that breach can be remedied by a planning application being submitted, we have to invite them to put that application in. And enforcement action then is held in abeyance while that application is being considered, because the remedy to the breach is before the local planning authority. So in that situation we wouldn't take action. What is normally the case is that we explain that situation to the alleged offender, and it is a matter for them whether they take the risk of continuing on the basis that the risk is entirely theirs, because if the planning permission is refused and enforcement action is subsequently taken, anything they've done and expenditure that they've committed is going to be worthless. So they're in the knowledge that they continue at entirely their own risk. But we can't stop that because the only way to stop something immediately is to serve an enforcement notice first. You have to serve an enforcement notice if you're going to use a stop notice. And to serve an enforcement notice when you've got a planning application in front of you opens up difficulties, because if you subsequently approve it and you've stopped them from working, you have had an impact on their living conditions and compensation would be payable. So you have to be very careful when you've got an application in front of you that it has to be completely unacceptable and you have to refuse it very quickly and then serve the enforcement notice. But it's not advisable to serve an enforcement notice when you have a regularization application before you. And if you can't serve an enforcement notice, you can't serve a stop notice. You can serve temporary stop notices, but they only last for 28 days. And again, there's a compensation issue potentially if you then subsequently approve the planning application, because you will be seen by the courts as having stopped them unnecessarily because you would have granted it anyway. I hope that helps. Thank you, Hugh. So Councillor Russell Sparks. >> Confirmed. Sorry, because that's very interesting then. So the applicant was made aware in the summer of '23 that if they continued any work they continued with after that date, they potentially do what they're doing so at their own risk in this case. Is that correct? I don't know the answer to that. So I made my comments on the basis of usually our enforcement officers would say that to applicants or potential applicants that any activity that they carry out after we flagged that there's an issue is entirely at their own risk. Now without speaking to the officer in this particular case, I can't tell you whether it happened, but it is our standard practice. >> Thank you, Hugh. So it's been proposed and seconded that we should accept the officer's recommendation. Councillor Jean Lewis. Sorry, chair. I didn't understand that it had been seconded that we accept the proposal. I thought it was in terms of the condition that was coming before us. So I think that there may be a misunderstanding here. I'm going to propose after all I've heard here this morning, I'm going to propose that we turn this down. I'm sorry to say this. Because I feel in terms of the GP1, it's not within the character of the area. It's not within the size and it also impairs on the privacy of the neighbours. So I propose that. Thank you. Hugh. >> Got a proposal for refusal against officer advice. The constitution says that we have to give you some advice in relation when we've got that type of proposal. This is a proposal that in our view we could not substantiate a refusal on the basis of the amendments because all we're looking at is the difference between what was approved and what is now before us. We could not substantiate a reason for refusal on that basis. And the proposer and the seconder, if there is a seconder, would have to defend the council's position should we go to appeal. Officers would not be able to do it because it would be contrary to their professional views and our code of conduct does not allow us to do that. >> Thank you, Hugh. So we have to accept the proposal. Do we have a seconder? Do we have an amendment? Well, I'm willing to second it. I know we've been given all of those warnings there about it going to appeal. But the applicant was also given warnings back at the beginning of that summer to tell them to stop. And they from you. So that's where I'm coming from. So do we have a proposal that's the opposite to what we've just heard? Councillor Karyce Jones. I've already said what I believe. I think that we should go with the officer's recommendation. Because that then assures that the neighbouring people are getting the best possible. So I do -- do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Michael Thomas. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thomas. So Councillor Gareth Thomas. If you are opposed, can I ask a question to the officer? If this came before you as an application, as a new application, would you have stated that the roof is too high? Would you have asked them to lower it? We look at every application that appears before us. Well, if you're going to go against the officer, we have to have the answers to know what these professional people would have told us. And I count these people as professional people and sensible people. Some of you, not all of you are sensible. But no, that's tongue in cheek. I think we can take your opinion. But it is a question if we're going to defend turning this down, we need to know if this was a brand new application, if they'd asked for such a high pitched roof, it does look high compared to what's around it. There's no doubt about that. If you look up or look across, that roof is high. If they came and said, right, can we have this high roof, would you have turned around and said, no, it's too high compared to what else is around, you have to bring it down in pitch. So before I can determine which way I vote, I'd like to have the official answer to that, please. Because we also need to know that before we are able to go against your experience. Who? I can't give you a definitive on a hypothetical situation, but were members to turn this application down today, the situation would be that we would have an enforcement investigation that would have to be restarted. As part of that enforcement investigation, we would have to consider all of the amendments over and above what has been approved. So we would have to consider is a one metre of such significance and has such an impact on the neighbours that it has to be subject of an enforcement notice. Is the depth by increasing the depth by a metre so significant we require that wall to be taken down and rebuilt a metre in a different place? Is the 300mm on one side that significant? Because we would have to justify as part of any enforcement action that we may be minded to take why the remedy, which is essentially to take it all down, is justified by the changes. Now members can make their own view on that, but if you're looking at heights of roofs, generally speaking, if you're adding a metre on the roof, if you didn't know it was there, it would be pretty imperceptible to your view, to be honest. And at that angle, the agent is right when we're looking at rights to light and the Planning Aid, the Planning Aid have got a good document on rights to light, you take a 45 degree angle from the middle of a window of a property, draw that 45 degree angle up and if the roof does not project into that 45 degree angle then there would be no impact in terms of loss of light. So if you look at the properties next door, draw an angle 45 degrees up, does a metre difference make any difference at all to light? I would say no in that situation. So these are the sort of things that we would have to consider were you to refuse permission and we can't prejudge whether we would take enforcement action or whether we wouldn't at this stage. It would just be that the investigation would have to continue and the considerations we would take into account are the ones that we're asking you to take into account. Extra metre on the height of the roof, extra metre on the depth, 300mm on the side and different access. That's all we could consider from the enforcement action because everything else is approved. You are Huw. Thank you Huw. Councillor Russell Sparks. Yes, I promised this would be the last time. Could you confirm if we were to vote against today that the applicant would have the right to appeal please? Yes, the applicant would have the right of appeal against a refusal. It wouldn't stop us from taking enforcement action if we were minded to do so because any enforcement notice we issued would also have a right of appeal and if they were both appealed they would be considered as conjoined appeals and they would go forward together. But that's not to prejudge in the enforcement action which we may or may not take. Thank you. So according to normal we take the amendment first. So it's being proposed and seconded that we should go with the officer's recommendation and accept this application. If you agree, could you please show now? Thank you. If you could please take your hands down. Anyone against? Two. Any abstaining? One. Thank you. By nine votes to two and one abstaining then the planning permission is given. Councillor Jean Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Can we please ensure that the conditions in relation to the permitted rights and that the screening should be there for impetuity, for effort, and that should be included and maintained and if it deteriorates or would another? That's part of the amendment. Could you please ensure that that's included? The planning committee is absolutely clear what we would be looking at in terms of conditions because we will go away and rewrite the conditions. We're looking at making sure that the permitted development rights condition covers everything and I think it does but we will re-look at it. We need to look at the obscure glazing impetuity if that's not already in there. We need to look at changing the condition in relation to the screening so it requires it to be submitted for our specific approval so that we can consider whether it is robust enough to maintain the privacy of the neighbours. That's what we were proposing if that's what the committee has in mind. Councillor Dorian Phillips. One other thing in terms of the attic, as we need to be secure on that, because as we saw on the site today, you see that open gallery already there in order for someone to go up in that room to go up there, so it's important that we keep an eye on that. In relation to the removal of permitted development rights, it would prevent habitable rooms being created in the roof space without a specific grant of planning permission and if that application came forward, we would consider the impact on neighbours at that time. It's something that needs to be considered. We can't say we wouldn't grant it ever but it would have to make sure that it didn't have an adverse impact on neighbours and we need to be in a position where we can control that adequately. So I agree that the condition on permitted development rights needs to reflect that fact. Thank you, Hugh. Thank you all for your attendance here today. Opponents, agents and the developer and also to you, two members of the planning committee, may I also thank the members of the DSU, our solicitor and Linwen for interpreting. And I now announce that the next meeting is on the 20th of June. And this meeting is now closed. Thank you.