Venue: Siambr y Cyngor, Council Offices, Cae Penarlâg, Dolgellau, LL40 2YB. View directions
Contact: Glynda O'Brien (01341) 424301
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillors June Marshall, Owain Williams and Dilwyn Lloyd (Substitute). |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: (a)
Councillor Gruffydd
Williams declared a personal interest in Item 5 on the agenda in the following
applications for the reasons noted: ·
Planning Application Number C15/0485/46/LL
because he was friends with the individual who was building the glamping
provision. ·
Planning Application Number C15/0495/43/LL
because he was the applicant’s son. The Member was of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests, and
he withdrew from the Chamber during the discussion on the applications noted. (b)
The following members declared that they were
local members in relation to the items noted: ·
Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee) in
relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application number C13/0611/18/AM); ·
Councillor Siân Gwenllïan (who was not a member of this Planning Committee)
in relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application number
C15/0416/20/AM) ·
Councillor Eirwyn
Williams (a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5 on the agenda
(planning application number C15/0429/35/LL) The members withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the
discussions on the applications in question and did not vote on these matters. |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. |
|
The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the last meeting of this committee, held on, 6 July 2015, be signed as a true record. (copy enclosed) Minutes: The Chair
signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 6 July,
2015, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. (copy enclosed) Minutes: The Committee considered the following
applications for development. Details of the applications were expanded upon and questions were
answered in relation to the plans and aspects of the policies. RESOLVED |
|
Application No. C13/0611/18/AM - Rhiwgoch, Clwt-y-Bont, Caernarfon PDF 673 KB Residential Development of 17 houses (including two affordable units) together with a new access Local Member: Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: An outline
application for a residential development of 17 houses (including two affordable
units), along with a new access. (a)
The Committee was reminded by the Senior
Planning Service Manager that this application had been submitted to the
Planning Committee on 02.03.15 and it was the Committee’s intention to refuse
the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation on the basis of two
reasons, namely, over-development and lack of a play area provision. In
the opinion of the Senior Planning Service Manager, since there was a
significant risk to the Council in respect of the decision to refuse the
application contrary to officers’ recommendation, the matter was referred to a
cooling off period in accordance with the Committee’s standing orders. The purpose of reporting back to the
Committee was to highlight the planning policy issues, the possible risks and
the possible options for the Committee before it reached a final decision on
the application. The background of the application was expanded upon and it was noted that
this was an outline application to construct 17 two-storey houses including two
affordable houses on a site to the south-west of Deiniolen/Clwt-y-bont on a plot of
brownfield land included within the development boundary of the village. The proposal also involved
constructing a vehicular access to the adjoining class III county road.
Previously, the International Safety Components factory was located on the
site, but by now, the site had been cleared of the former climbing goods
production factory's structure. At
present, the front of the site was used as an informal parking space. A previous application for 17 houses (including two affordable houses)
was approved in July, 2010 with a Section 106 agreement to bind two of the 17
houses as affordable houses. However, no reserved details application was
submitted within the statutory period and the permission had now lapsed. Attention was drawn to the concerns highlighted by the Committee regarding refusing the application based on over-development, the provision of a play area and affordable houses. It was further explained that from the perspective of over-development, there was no increase in the number of houses proposed in this latest application compared with the application approved in 2010. It was explained that the relevant policy expressed that developments of up to 30 houses per hectare of land could be approved and the application before the committee sought 17 houses with a density of 24 houses per hectare. Therefore, it was noted that the density was less than stipulated in the planning policy. To respond to the concern regarding the danger for children walking to nearby playing fields because of the lack of a pavement along the road, the applicant had amended the site plan to include a provision of a play area in the north-eastern corner of the application site to create a safe play area for the children. The estimated sale/market values of the houses had been submitted and it was considered that the prices were affordable compared with the average ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Application No. C15/0377/22/LL - Bryn Llys, Nebo, Caernarfon PDF 714 KB Application to retain work to extend a dwelling without compliance with approval No. C13/944/22/LL dated 07/01/2014 Local Member: Councillor Craig ab Iago Additional documents: Minutes: A full application to retain work to
extend a dwelling without compliance with permission No. C13/0944/22/LL. (a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on
the background to the application and noted that the current application showed
an extension of a similar design to the plan approved in 2014, and the external
design reflected the position of the door and window openings similar to the
previous permission but the extension was higher by approximately 1.0m and the
length of the extension (including the lean-to extension), was approximately 2m
longer than the extension approved previously. It was noted that the proposed
external walls of the extension were covered with substantial field stones and
that this added to the finished size of the extension. This application, as
with the previous approval, included demolishing the two-storey section of the
existing cottage and building a single-storey extension in the southern corner
of the cottage. Reference was made to the relevant policies
together with public consultations. It was emphasised that the principle of
constructing an extension to the cottage had been established because the
planning application approved in 2014 was extant until 2019. Although the size
of the extension which was the subject of the current application was larger
than the originally approved extension, it was not considered that the
difference was sufficient to justify refusing the application. Attention was given to additional observations
received and it was noted that a building had been constructed on the land but
following a discussion with the owner it was understood that it was only
temporary to facilitate work on the house. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
objector noted the following main points: ·
As the owner of a property adjacent to the
development, he was concerned about the height of the proposed building because
it was much higher than what was seen in the surrounding area. ·
It contradicted the
Council’s Design Guidelines in terms of the section on extending and
adaptations which stated that an extension should not exceed the original
building. In general,
it was better that they were of a smaller size with lower ridge lines and that
any type of extension was complementary to the original building and similarly
equal to the pitch and height of the roof.
·
A section of the
development field had been included in the register of fields with landscapes
of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales. · The development which had not been approved was basically different to the plan approved and therefore there was doubt whether the unauthorised development had been the subject of ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Application No. C15/0416/20/AM - Land at Beach Road, Felinheli PDF 817 KB Outline application with some reserved matters for constructing 14 dwellings together with the construction of an access and estate road, provision of allotments and associated access and parking. Local Member: Councillor Sian Gwenllian Additional documents: Minutes: An outline application with some reserved matters for constructing 14 dwellings together with the construction of an access and estate road, provision of allotments and associated access and parking. (a)
The Development Control Senior Officer
elaborated on the background of the application and noted that this was an
outline application to construct 14 houses, create a vehicular access and
estate road along with provision of allotments and associated access and
parking with some reserved matters to be included within a detailed application
(should this outline application be approved). The only matter that formed part
of this outline application was the proposed access and the reserved matters
relating to landscaping, elevations, layout and scale. The main elements of the application were noted,
namely: ·
The provision of houses to include eight
bungalows, four dormer houses and two two-storey houses and with a
semi-detached layout with four of the houses proposed as affordable houses ·
Creating five allotments and associated parking
spaces on the lower part of the site ·
Creating a new access – to serve the houses
there would be a need to create a new access from the unclassified county road
(Beach Road). To be able to create
the access and secure standard visibility and create a new footpath, the clawdd that
separated the site from the county road would have to be demolished along the
site’s northern boundary. The relevant policies were elaborated upon and considering the context of
the local policies and guidelines, it was clear that the proposal was not
acceptable in principle and it was contrary to local policies and guidelines
along with the advice included in the Welsh Government’s documents relating to
location, visual amenities, and impact on sites of archaeological importance,
biodiversity and wildlife. Considering all the assessments, it was the planning officers’
recommendation to refuse the application because it was unacceptable on the
grounds of the principle of developing houses in the location in question,
impact on the listed ancient monument, impact on visual amenities, impact on
road safety and loss of a ‘clawdd’ and a hedge. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s Agent noted the following main points: ·
An appeal was made to the Committee to defer
making a determination on the application ·
The application site was adjacent to the
development boundary of Felinheli as outlined in the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan. ·
The application proposed 14 houses, four of
which were affordable which equated to 30% of the total ·
There was a wide range of facilities and
services in Felinheli and it was considered that
these were sufficient to support the growth in the population that would be
derived from the proposed development ·
64.3% of
the population of the Felinheli Ward spoke Welsh
compared with 65.4% in Gwynedd. ·
The variety of houses that were proposed was
likely to attract single people, older families and families with children and
the development could have a positive effect on the local primary school by
increasing the number of pupils · The number ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
Application No. C15/429/35/LL - Llwyn Madyn, Muriau, Criccieth PDF 657 KB First Floor extension including raising of roof level, creation of balcony and changes to fenestration (re-submission following the refusal of planning permission C14/1152/35/LL Local Member: Councillor Eirwyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: A full application for a first floor
extension including raising the roof level, creating a balcony and changes to
fenestration (re-submission following the refusal of planning permission
C14/1152/35/LL). (a)
The Planning Control Officer elaborated on the
background to the application and stated that it was a re-submission of a
previous application which had been refused in January of this year on the
ground of delegated rights. The proposal involved extending an existing dormer
bungalow to create a substantial two-storey dwelling in its place. The roof level of the main house would be
raised from 6m to 8m whilst the roof level of the existing single-storey
extension would be raised from 4.2m to 6.7m.
The building would have slate pitched roofs and painted rendered walls. Whilst there was no objection to the
standard of the design or the materials, it was important to consider the
location of the proposal as it was located in a housing estate with consistent
designs, namely, either single-storey or one and a
half-storey dormer bungalows. The building after extending it would be a
substantial building which would be completely different to surrounding
properties and it would be considered an incompatible feature in the townscape
and in this part of Cricieth. The policies of the
Development Plan noted that new developments had to respect their site and
locality in terms of scale, size and form of the development and in this case,
it was not considered that the proposal complied with this. The house was located in a
substantial curtilage and it was agreed that it would be completely possible to
construct an extension to the house within the curtilage without substantial
harm to the character and visual amenities of the area. However, it was not
agreed that the design proposed was appropriate for the site. Therefore, it was
considered that the design was completely unsuitable for this site and contrary
to relevant planning policies. Approving this proposal could mean setting a
precedent which could change the character of the estate completely. Having
considered all the considerations, it was recommended that the Committee refuse
the application for the reasons listed in the planning officers’ report. It was noted further that a late
application had been submitted by the applicant to show pictures of sections of
the estate but it was noted that what had been submitted in the form of slides
by the Planning Department clearly reflected the context of the site to the
Committee. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points: ·
He was unhappy that he had not been allowed to
submit pictures to the Committee as the pictures of the Planning Department did
not show that there were two houses already on the estate ·
Two houses on the estate had been built in the
50s and they were two-storeys with four bedrooms ·
The extension meant raising the level by only 2m
·
No objections had been received from neighbours · In terms of consistency, there were all ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|
Application No. C15/0460/15/LL - Bryn Padarn, 19 Rallt Goch, Llanberis PDF 880 KB Full application for the erection of a new dwelling in the form of a three bedroom dormer bungalow, creation of a new vehicular access and associated works Local Member: Councillor Trevor Edwards Additional documents: Minutes: Full application
for the erection of a new dwelling in the form of a three bedroom dormer
bungalow, creation of a new vehicular access and associated works. (a)
The Senior Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background to the application and noted that the site was
located within the development boundaries of the village of Llanberis
and was part of the curtilage of an existing domestic property and it was on
land which projected quite a considerable distance to the front of this
property and on a higher level that the adjoining public highway and there were
rocky outcrops in places. It was acknowledged that the design of this
building was contemporary within this local area compared with other buildings.
Despite this, it was not believed that there was one definite pattern to the
built form of the area. Forming an opinion about what makes a good design is a
subjective matter and, in this case, it was not believed that it would have an
unacceptable effect on any existing definite form. Therefore, it was believed that the proposal in
terms of its design and finish is acceptable in this case and that, based on
these matters; it would not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities
of the local area to an unacceptable level. It was therefore considered that
the proposal complied with the requirements of policies B22 and B25 of the UDP. In terms of general and residential amenities, it was noted that the site
was higher than adjacent roads and therefore constructing a building on this
land looking from the direction of these roads, would be prominent within the
local landscape. Despite this, the built-up pattern of the local area included
houses on elevated sites and therefore it would not be unique in that sense. It was noted that the design of the property had
considered the effect of overlooking on neighbouring residents. The most
prominent glass element was at the front of the building looking over an
existing fairly open space and therefore it was not believed that there would
be obvious over-looking caused by these elevations. The dense built-up form of
the existing area meant that over-looking would be unavoidable to some degree,
but it was seen in this case that a genuine attempt had been made to avoid
excessive over-looking as a result of erecting this building in the proposed
form. Concerns were raised regarding the proposal in terms of its detrimental
impact on the local roads network and its users. It was noted that there was an existing
vehicular access to the site which provided parking spaces for the existing
property. This access would be modified to ensure a suitable access and the
parking provision for the existing property would be moved to another part of
their curtilage. The Transportation Unit did not have any objection to the proposal, and suggested including standard conditions with the development. Consequently, it was not believed that the proposal would be unacceptable in terms of highway ... view the full minutes text for item 10. |
|
Application No. C15/0485/46/LL - Land near Ty Bwlcyn, Dinas, Pwllheli PDF 664 KB Installing 5 glamping pods and construction of kitchen/toilet facilities block along with a car park and change of use of lake from agricultural to tourism Local Member: Councillor Simon Glyn Additional documents: Minutes: A full application to install 5
glamping pods and construction of kitchen/toilet facilities block along with a
car park and change of use of lake from agricultural to tourism. (a)
The Senior Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background to the application, noting that it involved
installing five ‘glamping’ pods and a compost toilet along with the
construction of a kitchen/toilets facilities block and a parking provision on
land in Tŷ Bwlcyn, Dinas. It was also requested to change the use
of the existing agricultural lake to tourist use so that visitors to the site
could use it for fishing and leisure. The pods would be of timber construction
and installed on a field to the north-east of the lake and located around the
wooded boundaries of the field. The building and the car park would be
located at the bottom of a slope in close proximity to holiday cottages in the
ownership of Tŷ Bwlcyn
and it was proposed to improve the existing footpath to link the parking with
the field where the pods were located. It was proposed to connect to the
existing septic tank which was on the site. The site was situated in open countryside and within an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. It was
proposed to re-establish the existing unused access to the unclassified road as
an entrance to the development and it would be widened and the visibility would
be improved. In terms of the principle of the development, it was noted that Policy
D19 permitted proposals to develop new touring caravan sites and camping sites
and new touring units provided they conformed to all of the noted criteria. Amongst them was the need that the design,
lay-out and appearance of the development should be of a high standard and that
it was located in an unobtrusive location. Applications for pods were considered under the touring caravans policy as they were mobile/camping units to all
intents and purposes. They would be mobile units and it would be possible to
move them comparatively easily around the field. It was believed that the
field in question would be suitable for such a development as there was higher
ground to the rear and a thick layer of vegetation around the boundaries which
meant that they would be concealed and out of sight of the public and the
nearest houses. It was not foreseen that there would be a substantial increase
in traffic as a consequence of the application, considering the small scale of
the proposal and it was likely that the traffic would be restricted to cars and
bicycles, rather than towing vehicles as would be usual for touring caravan
sites. As the aim was to re-establish the existing access to an unclassified
road, planning permission was not required and it could be improved without
causing significant harm to landscape features. It was considered that the
proposal complied with criterion 2 of policy D19 of the GUDP. It was proposed to locate the pods in ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
Application No. C15/0495/43/LL - Gwynus Caravan Park and Golf Course, Pistyll, Pwllheli PDF 698 KB Upgrade 10 existing static caravans and relocate 5 to filed 471 and the other 5 to field 470, extend the caravan site to part of field 470, reduce the number of touring caravans from 55 to 52, relocate touring caravans from field 471 to field 472 increase the area for storing 40 touring caravans on field 472 over the winter months. Erect a new reception on the site of the pigsties in accordance with the extant permission. Local Member: Councillor Llywarch Bowen Jones Additional documents: Minutes: A full application to upgrade 10
existing static caravans and relocate five to field 471 and the other five to
field 470. Extend the caravan site to part of field 470, reduce the number of
touring caravans from 55 to 52, relocate touring caravans from field 471 to
field 472, increase the storage area for 40 touring caravans over the winter
months on field 472. Erect a new reception on the site of the pig-sties in
accordance with the extant permission. (a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application
noting that there had been discussions with the applicant’s agent regarding the
proposal. As part of the upgrading, the number of touring caravans on the site
as a whole would be reduced from 55 to 52. The proposal would also be a means
of regulating the siting of nine touring caravans on field 4942. There was currently permission
to site a total of 10 static and 55 touring caravans on the site. Permission
also existed for the storage of 40 touring caravans on the northern section of
field 472 during the winter months. At
present, there was planning permission to use field 470 as a golf course and
the site was located in the countryside and within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. In terms of the principle of
the development, it was noted that Policy D17 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan approved proposals for upgrading existing static caravan
sites, including minor extensions to the land area, relocating units or for a
minor increase in numbers and exchanging touring spaces for static holiday
caravan units provided it complied with the three relevant criteria. It was also explained that the
application included a proposal to extend the touring caravan winter storage
area to field 472 entirely. It was not proposed to increase the number of
touring caravans that would be stored. A section of field 472 into which it was
proposed to extend the storage site had vegetation growth surrounding it and it
was not considered that the site would be intrusive in the landscape. It was
considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of Policy D21 of the GUDP. It was noted also that the AONB Unit had stated that the development would be visible from the road between Pistyll and Pentreuchaf. Although it was agreed that a glimpse of the site could be seen from parts of this road, as a result of the planting that had been undertaken over the years, and the location of the site which would be extended to the north of the boundary of the existing caravan site, it was not considered that the proposal would be seen clearly from the road between Pistyll and Pentreuchaf or from other roads in the locality. As a consequence of the above, the current situation and what the application proposed, it was not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the AONB; hence, it was acceptable in terms ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |