Larger dormer bungalow at Awatea Bungalow Ffordd Yr Orsaf, Rhewl, Ruthin

What was proposed

The applicant sought to change the approved dwelling’s design and layout, including a larger dormer bungalow with four bedrooms and a higher roof.

“Summary of proposals 1.1.1 A variation of condition 2 on planning permission ref. 24/2024/1221 is sought in order to vary the layout, design and materials of the proposed new dwelling at land adjacent to Awatea Bungalow, Rhewl. The original approved dormer bungalow scheme had a height of 6.15m and comprised a ground floor Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 74.2sqm including two bedrooms, bathroom, living room and open plan kitchen/dining room.”

“The proposed ground floor would comprise a central entrance hall with an open plan lounge, kitchen and dining area to one side and utility, WC and snug to the other. The first floor would contain 4 bedrooms, including one master with en suite and a separate family bathroom.”

Officer report

Site and planning history

The site forms part of a residential garden within Rhewl’s development boundary, where earlier permissions included a four-bedroom bungalow.

“It forms part of the garden of a dwelling known as ‘Awatea Bungalow’ which is a spacious plot with gardens surrounding which has since been divided by a timber fence. The original planning permission on the site was for two bungalows, and only one was ever submitted for reserved matters and built forming an extended garden area to Awatea Bungalow.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Community Council and residents objected over overlooking, privacy, daylight, overshadowing, parking, highway safety, scale and tree removal.

“Recommendation to grant / approve – Town / Community Council objection 1. Amended design of approved bungalow to a two-storey dwelling with front gable. CONSULTATION RESPONSES: LLANYNYS COMMUNITY COUNCIL- Object - the Communty Council strongly support the objections raised by local residents on the grounds of loss of light, overlooking, loss of privacy, parking and highways safety concerns.”

“Loss of privacy of children in garden Overshadowing due to loss of light due to height and proximity Overlooking into rear bedrooms of Y Winllan from first floor Loss of light to lounge windows of adjacent bungalow, Awatea Highways Visibility from the exit very poor Insufficient off-street parking for 4 bed house- only 2 spaces provided Highways safety concerns from additional parking on the road Visual amenity Cramped form of development not in keeping with the surrounding…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A public speaker representing neighbouring residents opposed the increase in the building’s size, height and proximity to nearby homes.

Members debated the changes

Members discussed the site visit, the increased scale, removed screening trees, daylight, privacy, landscaping and the relationship with neighbouring properties.

“Councillor Merfyn Parry (Local Member) thanked officers for arranging the site visit and advised that it had been essential in enabling Members to fully appreciate the proposal in terms of its increased scale and height, and its relationship to neighbouring properties. Having viewed the site, he confirmed that he remained concerned that the revised proposal would have a greater visual and physical impact than the previously approved scheme.”

“He noted that, although officers had described the increase in footprint as modest, the gross internal floor area had increased by approximately 25%, largely due to the expanded roof space. He also expressed concern that the removal of screening trees had materially changed the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties. He emphasised that replacement planting would take time to establish and restore adequate screening.”

Minutes

The committee voted

A proposal to refuse the application against the officer recommendation was seconded and received 15 votes, with one against and one abstention.

“Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be refused country to officer recommendation SECONDED by Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee refused the application because the revised dwelling’s increased scale, height and roof mass would be overbearing and harm outlook and natural light.

“Councillor Merfyn Parry PROPOSED that the application be refused for the following reasons: that the revised dwelling, due to its increased scale, height, and roof mass in comparison with the previously approved scheme, would result in an overbearing and visually dominant impact on neighbouring properties.”

Minutes