Fury as holiday home built with 'enormous' window without permission

A converted outbuilding in Gwynedd has caused a stir for flouting planning rules, leading to accusations of "disrespect" for the process. Cyngor Gwynedd's planning committee recently rejected retrospective planning permission for the contentious development at Penisarwaun near Caernarfon.

The building, which features a "massive" and "horrendous" window, had sparked a wave of objections, despite planning officers recommending its approval as holiday accommodation. Councillors voiced their frustration, concerned that granting approval would send the "wrong message". Join our WhatsApp news community here for the latest breaking news. You will receive updates from us daily.

The local community council and residents objected due to the development's "harmful effect on a small, quiet area of rural Wales", citing issues such as intrusion on neighbours, loss of privacy, and damage to the character of the area, along with worries about access, traffic, litter, and noise. However, planning officer Keira Sweenie argued that the holiday let was not excessively large and did not result in the loss of permanent housing, stating it met policy requirements and that completing work before obtaining permission "was not a valid reason to refuse".

The issue was initially addressed by planners in January, where the applicant had "been given an opportunity" to minimise overlooking. They were also repeatedly requested to provide documents detailing the operating rules of the holiday unit to alleviate neighbour concerns - "but no information was submitted".

Despite local worries that there had been no alterations to the proposal, it was still recommended for approval, according to the report. Local councillor Elwyn Jones highlighted that the development had proceeded "without any kind of planning application and affected several nearby properties", reports North Wales Live.

He commented: "The message here is, if you are uncertain, then do it anyway, don't respond, and everything will go through in the end. That is what I see from this.

"I saw the original building, and this is certainly not at the original height - there is no way to prove that now because the development has been completed. I can't imagine, should a usual application have come in with this, due to its location and the building, I'm almost certain it would have been refused."

Cllr Gruff Williams, proposing refusal, remarked: "When it came up last time, we didn't ask for a pair of curtains, we asked for them to block off windows to avoid overlooking - the developer does not care about our decisions."

Cllr Louise Hughes expressed her dissatisfaction, noting that the developer "just went ahead anyway disregarding the planning process".

She remarked: "He also ignored concerns of local people living next door. I was at the site visit and quite frankly that window is absolutely enormous, and out of character. What sort of message does this send out? 'Don't worry because the planning committee will pass it anyway'."

"Yes, OK, I suppose it is within planning policy but it's the integrity of this decision, he's not made any movement to sort out the problems. I am not happy, it is a lack of respect for planning process and the planning committee."

Cllr Gareth Jones concurred, stating: "I visited the site. That large window is horrendous. I don't know how it can be approved. It is massive. It does have a significant impact on amenities, it is obtrusive."

Cllr Delyth Lloyd Griffiths expressed her concern about the road being "narrow" and that the large window did "not fit in" and caused "overlooking". Cllr Hughes added: "It might be within the rules but is it morally right? ".

"He has shown a lack of respect for every aspect of the planning application. It sends a message out there [to] do what you want, stake your claim, build what you like, let's have a drive-in McDonald's while you are at it."

Cllr Gruff Williams moved for refusal, citing overlooking and impact on residents' amenities, with Cllr Louise Hughes seconding. The committee voted with five in favour of refusal and four against.