Agenda item

11.1 – FPL/2025/9 – Marian, Llanddeusant 

FPL/2025/9 

 The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the applicant is a relevant Officer as defined in the Council’s Constitution.  The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and adjoining structures together with the erection of a new dwelling and the installation of a new sewage treatment plant.  As the application is for a replacement dwelling planning policy TAI 13 in relevant in this instance; consideration should also be given to the information in the ‘Replacement dwellings and conversions in the Countryside’ Supplementary Planning Guidance (September 2019).  The application site is outside the development boundary and in open countryside.  The current dwelling has a lawful residential use, is not a Listed Building and has no architectural, historical or visual value that should be protected and as a result, it is considered that it complies with criterion 1 to 3 of planning policy TAI 13.  The fourth criterion confirms that proposals outside development boundaries are permitted if it is not possible to preserve the existing building by renovating or extending it and/or if it can be shown that repairing the existing building is not economically feasible; this is highlighted in the Supplementary Planning Guidance which states that a structural report should be submitted with each application, which indicates the suitability of the building for reuse (i.e. so that the proposal can be assessed against criterion 4).  Any Structural Report should be supported by a Cost Comparison Report which details the cost of carrying out restoration or modification of the building compared to the costs associated with demolition and rebuilding. A house in need of modernization is not eligible to be considered for demolition and rebuilding. Any cost comparison should include the costs associated with repairing the identified problem and the costs of repairing the building should not include work that is part of the applicant's aspiration. 

A Structural Survey Report was received with the application which had been prepared by a Chartered Structural Engineer together with a Cost Comparison Report.  An External Chartered Consultant appointed by the Council has scrutinized the information and is satisfied with the information presented.  The cost of renovating the existing building is much higher than the cost of building a new dwelling and therefore it is deemed more economically viable to demolish the building and build a new building in its place. The proposal therefore complies with the fourth criterion of the policy.

The fifth criterion does not apply to this application. The sixth criterion states that a house to be rebuilt should be located within the same footprint as the existing building unless it can be shown that relocating within the curtilage reduces its visual impact and its impact on local amenities.  The new dwelling is not on the same footprint as the existing building; however, it is approximately 5m from the footprint of the existing building and is located on part of the footprint of the stone farm hut which will also be demolished. It is considered that relocating the dwelling approximately 5m towards the northwest will have no greater visual or amenity effect than the current building and as a result it is considered to comply with criterion 6. 

Criterion seven states that the layout and design of the new development should be of a similar size and scale and should not create a visual impact that is significantly larger than the existing building, so that it can blend or integrate sufficiently into the landscape. The policy also states that a larger dwelling of good design could be supported if it does not lead to a significantly greater visual impact than the existing building.  As stated in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, when justification has been received which would mean that the floor area needs to be larger than the original building, it is considered that this addition should not exceed 20% of the floor area of ​​the original unit.  The current dwelling is a two-storey cottage with low ceilings on the first floor. The site includes the current dwelling and a row of single-storey stone farm buildings.  The current dwelling measures 190 square metres. This includes part of the farm buildings which was used as part of the original house.  The proposed dwelling has a floor area of ​​approximately 251 square metres. This is an increase of around 60 square metres. The materials include a slate roof and a mixture of local stone and cladding as well as aluminium doors and windows as well as a balcony built out of wood.

The Planning Development Manager further said that the proposal is a moderate increase of approximately 30% compared to the existing dwelling, however, the new dwelling will integrate into the landscape due to its design and high quality. The scale and design of the property will have no greater visual impact than the existing dwelling; and it complies with criterion seven in Policy TAI 13. The other criteria do not apply.  The Highways Authority has not raised any concerns neither has other statutory consultees. The recommendation was of approval of the application.

Councillor Kenneth P Hughes, and a Local Member said that he supported the application and proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor Jackie Lewis seconded the proposal of approval.

It was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the planning conditions contained within the report.