Venue: Meeting Room, Frondeg, Pwllheli, LL53 5RE.. View directions
Contact: Bethan Adams 01286 679020
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillor Endaf Cooke, Simon Glyn, Dyfrig Wynn Jones, and John Pughe Roberts. |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: (a) The
following members declared a personal interest for the reasons noted: ·
Councillor Gwen Griffith, in item 5.3 on
the agenda, (planning application
number C15/1081/11/LL) as she was member of the Traeth
Lafan Local Nature Reserve Management Committee; and in item 5.10 on
the agenda, (planning application
number C16/0901/16/LL) as she was the applicant. ·
Councillor June Marshall in item 5.3 on
the agenda, (planning application
number C15/0181/11/LL) as she knew some
of the objectors; ·
Councillor Gethin Glyn Williams, in item 5.8 on
the agenda, (planning application
number C16/0848/00/LL) as he was a member of Ysgol y Traeth's governing body. Members were
of the opinion that they were prejudicial
interests and they left the Chamber
during the discussion on the applications noted above. (b) The
following members declared that they were local members in relation to the
items noted: ·
Councillor Lesley Day, (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.3 on the agenda (planning appplication number C15/1081/11/LL); ·
Councillor Angela
Russell, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in item 5.4 on
the agenda, (planning application
number C16/0537/38/LL); ·
Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes, (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.5 on the agenda (planning application number C16/0590/42/AM); ·
Councillor June Marshall, (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application
C16/0669/11/LL); ·
Councillor John Wyn Jones, (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.7 on the agenda (planning application number C16/0781/11/LL); ·
Councillor Gethin Glyn Williams, (not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.8 on
the programme, (planning application number
C16/0848/00/LL); ·
Councillor Trevor
Edwards, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in item 5.9 on
the agenda, (planning application
number C16/0886/15/LL); ·
Councillors John Wyn Williams and R. Hefin Williams, (not a member
of this Planning Committee), in item 5.9 on the agenda, (planning application number C16/0886/15/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 previous meeting of this committee, held on, 5 September 2016, be signed as a true record. Minutes: The Chair signed
the minutes of the previous
meeting of this committee, held on 4 April 2016, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. 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. |
|
Application No. C14/0832/11/LL - Castle Hill Arcade, 196, High Street, Bangor PDF 839 KB Change of use of part of the existing shop, install a new shop front and construct a two storey extension on top of the existing rear extension to provide 2 shops and accommodation for 65 students. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwynfor Edwards Link to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of part of the existing shop, installing a new shop front
and construction of a two-storey extension on top of the existing rear
extension to create two shops and accommodation for 64 students. (a) The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application, and noted that the site was located on the High Street within
Bangor City centre and close to the cathedral. It was noted that the building was
grade II registered and was also located within the Bangor Conservation Area. It
was explained that even though the proposed extension was to the rear of the site and was relatively concealed from nearby public spaces,
this did not justify an extension of this scale, bulk,
form and design as it
was considered that it would have
a substantial impact on the appearance and character of the listed building. It was noted that
the Bangor Conservation Area was vast and included several grade I listed
buildings and the topography of Bangor meant that parts of the city were
visible from a distance, e.g. views from the main University building (which is
a grade I listed building) across the city.
It was considered that the flat-roof aspect would appear as an incongruous
feature from views across the city and was neither respectful of the listed
building located in front of it, nor of the street development patterns of the
surrounding area. It
was noted that objections had been received based on overlooking from windows
and gardens. It was noted that the
proposal was considered to be contrary to policy B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan (GUDP) as the development would have a detrimental impact on
the residential amenities of nearby units and houses and that the development
would not ensure a sufficient standard of living for the occupants of the
development. (b) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application. During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted: ·
In relation to language assessment of applications,
it is the cumulative effect rather than the individual application that should
be assessed. ·
Would it be possible to receive information about
the numbers of student units allowed last year and for the two year period? ·
That the recommendation to refuse was strong, the
proposed extension would dominate the listed building and would ruin the views
in the City; ·
That the site needed to be developed but the rear
extension would have a detrimental impact on the listed building; ·
Concern with imposing a condition that prevented
students from bringing a vehicle within three miles of the development and
requesting that a transport plan be put in place before the development was
occupied, rather than providing parking spaces for the development as it would
not be possible to police it. (c) In response to the above observations, the officers noted:- · As noted in the report, this proposal would not result in any change to the City’s population as a student population already ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Application No. C14/0831/11/CR - Castle Hill Arcade, 196, High Street, Bangor PDF 788 KB Change of use of part of the existing shop, install a new shop front and construct a two storey extension on top of the existing rear extension to provide 2 shops and accommodation for 65 students. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwynfor Edwards Link to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of part of the existing shop, installing a new shop front
and construction of a two-storey extension on top of the existing rear
extension to create two shops and accommodation for 64 students. (a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that it was a listed building application and that it was conservation
issues that would be assessed, meaning the impact on the appearance and
historic and architectural character of the listed building. It was noted that the proposal in its existing form, due to its scale,
bulk, form and design meant that it would dominate the listed building and have
a substantial detrimental impact on its historic character. RESOLVED to refuse the application. Reason:
The proposal due to its size, bulk, form and design would have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance and setting of the Grade II listed building and, therefore, it is contrary to policies B2, B3 and B4 of the GUDP and the requirements of the Welsh Office Circular 61/69. |
|
Application No. C15/1081/11/LL - Former Dickies Boatyard, Beach Road, Bangor PDF 1 MB Re-submission of a previous application to import inert materials in order to raise existing ground levels. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Lesley Day Additional documents: Minutes: Re-submission of a previous application to import
inert material in order to raise existing ground levels. (a) The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 4 July,
2016 in order to undertake a site visit. It was noted that
Natural Resources Wales
(NRW) and the Council's Public Protection Service had been re-consulted on the Construction Environment Management Plan and the scheduled mitigating environmental factors submitted to support the application. NRW and the Council's Public Protection Service were satisfied with that which was submitted. It
was emphasised that the application had been submitted for undertaking
engineering work and raise the level
of the land in order to provide a site for further
development. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations
that had been received. It was reported that a late objection had been received today
by Friends of the Earth. It was noted
that the issues raised had been assessed in the report. The development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the
report. (b)
The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) noted the following main points:- ·
That part
of the application was retrospective
as the land levels had already been raised; ·
That there
were no record of the materials used on the site so
its structure could not be confirmed; ·
That the land
surveys had been superficial; ·
That the site
was open to erosion and that she
was concerned about the stability of the land; ·
That the design
of the sea-wall was insufficient
and that it would not protect
the site from the sea; ·
That there
had been cases where the Local Authority had been successfully prosecuted when things had gone awry on
unstable and contaminated land where planning permission had been granted; ·
That sufficient
geo-environmental assessments
could ensure the safety of the site; ·
That the proposal
was contrary to policies
B28 and B30 of the GUDP and
to the Welsh Government's Technical
Advice Note 15; ·
That the land
was contaminated albeit not
listed on the contaminated land register and if
houses were developed on the site in future,
it would pose a substantial risk to human health; ·
That there
was risk that the contaminated material could seep into
the Menai Strait. Are the recommended conditions sufficient to ensure that pollution would not escape from the site? (c) In response to the observations of the local member, the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted:- ·
That any application for development in the future
would be decided on its own merits and that the proposal was to provide a site
for development; ·
That the land had been allocated in the GUDP as a
redevelopment site; ·
Confirmation had been received that neither NRW nor
the Public Protection Service had objected the application; ·
There was no evidence to justify refusing based on
pollution; · That the detailed technical reports submitted as ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
Application No. C16/0537/38/LL - Bryniau Caravan Park, Lôn Pîn, Llanbedrog PDF 701 KB Retrospective application to retain touring caravan site for 10 touring caravans, retain associated services and winter caravan storage. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Angela Russell Additional documents: Minutes: A
retrospective application to retain a caravan site for 10 touring caravans,
retain ancillary services and store caravans over winter. (a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background to the application and noted that the site was located in the countryside, within a Landscape Conservation Area and a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. It was reported that the Transportation Unit had no
objections to the proposal as long as a condition was imposed to ensure that
there was sufficient visibility to the entrance. It was noted that the site in its current form was
fairly hidden with a landscape plan in place to reinforce the screening. It was
not considered, therefore, that the proposal would cause significant long term
harm to the visual quality of the landscape. The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee)
supported the application and noted that the site was hidden and that she was
pleased to support a young local family and enable them to live in Pen Llŷn. (c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application. A
member noted that there were high hedgerows on the site and the site could
hardly be seen from other places. A member drew attention to the fact that the
Community Council was supportive of the application. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1. In
accordance with submitted plans; 2. The number of units on the site
at any one time to be restricted to 10 and at the pitches shown on the plan submitted; 3. Conditions
on the timeframe for siting caravans
/ holiday period / moving the caravans when not in use; 4. Storing on the land to the right of the site outlined on the submitted plan in yellow and between
1 November of one year and 28 February
the following year; 5. Records
list; 6. Landscaping
within three months of the date of this permission; 7. Work to improve
the entrance to be completed
in accordance with the plan submitted and within three
months of the date of the permission to be maintained in this way
thereafter. 8. Reducing
the height of the 'clawdd' to the north
of the site, capping it permanently. Notes: 1. It
is suggested that alleviating measures be taken to protect and promote the Welsh language, such as a Welsh name for the site/ Welsh and/or bilingual
signage and opportunities to provide information about the history and culture of the area. It is suggested that the Site Manager
contact the Local Language Initiative (Hunaniaith) to have a discussion regarding other measures which could add
value to the business. 2. A caravan
site licence is required. |
|
Application No. C16/0590/42/AM - Land by 10 Penrhos, Morfa Nefyn PDF 512 KB Construction of dwelling and creation of parking space. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes Additional documents: Minutes: Construction of a dwelling and creation of parking
spaces. (a) The
Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee
meeting held on 5 September 2016 in order to assess the amended details and
responses to the re-consultation. Members of the Committee had visited the site
prior to the meeting. It
was reported that this was an outline application to erect a residential
dwelling on a plot of land that forms part of the garden of 10 Penrhos, Morfa Nefyn. As this was an outline application, the only matter
that required consideration was the principle of developing the site. Attention
was drawn to the fact that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal
if appropriate conditions were imposed to ensure that the hedge / wall to the
north of the entrance was lowered and maintained at a height no greater than 1
metre in order to safeguard the necessary visibility splay of the entrance. It
was noted that in dealing with the application, it became apparent that some
issues arose in terms of the ownership of the private track which leads from
the county road to the site. It was emphasised that land ownership issues
associated with the track were civil matters to be resolved between the
applicant and the alternative landowner. Due
to the residential nature of the area, the development was not considered to be
out of character or detrimental to the area’s visual or residential amenities. The development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the
report. (b) The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) objected
to the application and the following main points were made:- ·
The proposal
would mean losing greenery in the area impacting
biodiversity and the privacy of nearby houses; ·
Questioning whether
there was a need for a house considering
that there were approximately 30 houses for sale
in the village; ·
It would not be an affordable house; ·
Concern about
the effect on the community and Welsh language as the existing housing stock was not affordable; ·
That a number
of houses in the village were holiday
homes and empty at times; ·
Concern regarding
access to the site and road safety
in an area
where accidents occured; ·
That the proposal
was an over-development that would not blend in with its
location. (c) In response to the observations
by the local member, the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted that it was an
application for a house within the development boundary that was before the Committee. (ch)
It was proposed and seconded
to approve the application. During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted: ·
Concern about visibility where the track meets the
road. Should a request to widen be made to improve the situation? ·
Considering the size of the house, would it abut the boundary on both sides? · Concern that it would set a precedent in the area if ... view the full minutes text for item 5.5 |
|
Application No. C16/0669/11/LL - 17, College Road, Bangor PDF 722 KB Change of use of 7 bedroom dwelling to a 7 bedroom house in multiple occupancy. LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors
June Marshall and Mair Rowlands Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of existing seven bedroom house
to a seven bedroom house in multiple occupation. (a) The Development
Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the site was located within the development boundary of the city of Bangor and within a residential
area known for its high
percentage of student accommodation. It
was noted that it was not considered that approving one additional multiple occupation unit in an area
where the majority of houses were already
multiple occupancy houses would have
a further significant detrimental impact on the social character
of the local area. The development complied with the
GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) The local member (a member of this Planning
Committee) made the following main points:- ·
There was an
over-provision of houses in multiple occupation
on College Road with 90% as multiple
occupancy; ·
The Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan, subject to an ongoing
Public Inquiry, recommended restricting the number of houses in multiple occupation
within an area to 25% and those numbers should
be restricted now; ·
There were
already parking problems in the area; ·
That there
would be more noise and disturbance for residents if
the application were approved; ·
The proposal
was contrary to policy CH14
of the GUDP as the development
would have a negative impact on the social and
environmental character of
the area. (c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application. During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted: ·
Though in agreement with the observations of the
local member, there were no valid planning reasons for refusing the
application; ·
That Bangor was turning into a city for students only
with houses for local people disappearing; ·
That the number of students was in decline; ·
Would it be possible to receive clarification on
the statistics noted in the report and the statistics noted by the local
member? ·
Concern about the cumulative effect of such
developments on the area; ·
When would it be possible to give consideration to
that which is noted in the Joint Local Development Plan? ·
That the area was not a place for families. (ch)
In response to the above observations, the officers noted:- ·
There was already a cumulative effect of houses in
multiple occupancy in the area and such applications were allowed thus keeping
these areas residential; ·
That the statistics associated with houses in
multiple occupation in the report referred to the ward whilst the local member
was providing figures related to this specific street; ·
Evidence gathered was used in creating the Joint
Local Development Plan now but, as the plan was the subject of an ongoing
inspection, it would be premature to consider the policies. The situation would
be reassessed in terms of the weight that could be placed on the policy
following the inspection. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1. 5 years 2. In accordance with the plans |
|
Application No. C16/0781/11/LL - Former Railway Institute, Euston Road, Bangor PDF 787 KB Variation of condition 2 (in accordance with approved plans) of permission APP/Q6810/A/16/314218 to amend the internal layout of the second floor to provide 8, 1 bed units and 2, 4 bed units in lieu of 8, 1 bed units. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Wynn Jones Additional documents: Minutes: Change
condition number 2 (in accordance with the approved plans) of planning
permission number APP/Q6810/A/16/314218 to modify the internal layout of the
second floor to provide 8 one bedroom units and 2 four bedroom units instead of
8 one bedroom units. (a) The
Development Control Manager expanded upon the background to the application
noting that it was an application to amend condition number 2 of a previous
planning permission in order to provide two additional units within the
development (namely, a total of 29 units instead of the 27 that were previously
approved). It was noted that the plan did not entail any changes to the
external appearance of the building nor the setting of windows from what had
already been approved on appeal. It
was noted that the previous application had been approved on appeal and that
the planning inspector was of the opinion that the number of units was fairly
moderate and would not be an over-development of the site or be likely to lead
to any substantial damage to the amenities of existing residents in terms of
noise or disturbance because of the layout and design of the building, control
of the use and the presence of businesses in the adjacent neighbourhood. In
addition, it was emphasised that there had been no change to the policy
position since the previous plan was approved and, therefore, the principle
continued to be acceptable as the use had already been approved and that this
proposal was a minor amendment to that planning permission. The need could not,
therefore, be questioned. It
was noted that significant consideration and weight had to be given to the
clear lead given at the recent appeal decision. The development complied with
the GUDP and national policies for the reasons noted in the report. (a)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:- ·
The only thing in question was the internal layout; ·
Layout was changed as there was no demand for the
types of units designed; ·
That the proposal would provide quality self contained units for students; ·
The inspector had noted in deciding the appeal
that: "Contrary to the Council's opinion, I consider that the number of
units being proposed is fairly moderate." (b)
The local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee) objected to the application and he made the following main points: ·
That he
had not been aware of the appeal until after
the decision; ·
His disappointment
that allowing the application was being considered as there
was no demand for this kind
of provision; ·
That the flats
would be empty as the size of the rooms would be too small; ·
That he was angry that a
historic building had been lost. (ch) In response to the observations by the local member,
the Senior Planning Service Manager
noted :- · That he had discussed the issue of receiving notice of the appeal with the local member and it had become clear that there had been ... view the full minutes text for item 5.7 |
|
Application No. C16/0848/00/LL - Barmouth wc, Marine Parade, Barmouth PDF 635 KB Application to convert former public conveniences to dwelling to include raising roof height and external alterations. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gethin Glyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: Application to convert unused public
conveniences into a dwelling house, to include raising the height of the
existing roof and external alterations. (a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application,
and noted that the site was located in the centre of the coastal town of Barmouth and that Ysgol y Traeth was located to the east of the site and the playing
field lay to the rear and northern boundary of the application site. It
was reported that a number of objections from the public had been received
including considerations such as the proximity of the building to the school
playing field, lack of amenity land surrounding the building, the building
unsuitable for conversion and that the standard of the design was unacceptable.
There was correspondence also which welcomed the development as an improvement
to the current untidy condition of the site. It was emphasised that this was an application to
convert an existing building into a dwelling within the development boundary of
a local centre as defined by the GUDP. It was noted that restoring and reusing
the building would present an opportunity to tidy it and prevent its further
deterioration, thus, safeguarding and improving the quality and condition of
the site and protect the general amenities of the area. Attention was drawn to the additional observations
received by the applicant in response
to objections, with a number of the observations referring to a legal covenant on the building but these
were not material planning considerations. The development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the
report. (b) The local member (who was not a member of this committee) began
by addressing the Committee. The local member was advised by the Senior
Solicitor that he should a declare personal interest
and leave the chamber as he was a Governor of Ysgol y
Traeth. The
local member declared that it was a prejudicial interest and he withdrew from
the chamber. (c) It was proposed that the application be deferred to enable another member to operate as local member.
The proposal was seconded. RESOLVED to defer the application. |
|
Application No. C16/0886/15/LL - Glyn Rhonwy Pumped Storage, Glyn Rhonwy, Llanberis PDF 841 KB Application for the installation of underground 132KV grid connection cables between the Glyn Rhonwy Storage Facility and the Pentir Substation. LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors Trevor Edwards, Brian Jones, Elfed Wyn
Williams, John Wyn Williams and R. Hefin Williams. Additional documents: Minutes: An
application to install an underground 132KV grid connection between the Glyn Rhonwy pumped storage site and Pentir
substation. (a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the principle of creating a pumped storage facility at Glyn Rhonwy had already been accepted and approved by the
Council. It
was believed that the principle was acceptable and that this element was a
necessary step to ensure that a connection existed between the site where the
electricity was generated and the site which distributed it. It was noted, for
information, that an application was being considered for a Development Consent
Order for a 99.9MW pumped storage scheme in Glyn Rhonwy. It was explained that an application of this
size was considered to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, therefore, the final decision would be made by the
Secretary of State. It
was noted that it was recommended to impose an additional condition to what was
stated in the report, to agree on a way to cross the river before commencement
of any development. (b) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee), supported the
application. A request was made for an explanation of the status of the
original application for a pump storage should the
application that was currently being considered by the Secretary of State be
refused. In response, the Development Control manager noted that the original
application would still be live. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1. Time 2. Comply with plans 3. Need to submit and agree on a construction
environmental management plan 4. Natural Resources Wales conditions 5. Highways notes 6. Party Wall Act Note 7. Agree on a mode of crossing the river
before any development commences |
|
Application No. C16/0901/16/LL - 19, Llwybrmain, Mynydd Llandygai, Bangor PDF 507 KB Erection of a single storey rear extension. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwen Griffith Additional documents: Minutes: To
erect a single-storey rear extension (a) The
Development Control Officer expanded upon the background to the application
noting that, due to its size and location, an extension of this type would not
usually require planning permission, however, due to its location in the Mynydd Llandegai Conservation
Area permission would be necessary for the change of material from a natural
slate roof to a metal roof. It
was explained that, due to the location of the extension, the roof pitch of the
extension would face away from any public viewpoints and therefore it was not
considered that there would be any visual harm to the property. It was
confirmed that there was no overlooking from the site and there would be no
impact on the amenities of neighbours. Attention
was drawn to the fact that correspondence had been received from Llandegai Community Council stating its support of the
application. The development complied with the GUDP for the
reasons noted in the report. (b) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application. A
member noted that he was dissatisfied that slate would not be used on the roof
considering that the property was in a conservation area and that this would
set a precedent. A member asked whether it would be possible to impose a
condition that the colour of the roof be in keeping
with the colour of slate. In response, the Development Control manager noted
that it would be possible to impose a condition to this end. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1. Time - five years, 2. The
wall materials should be in keeping with
the house. 3. Development to conform with the approved plans 4. Colour of the roof
to be in keeping with the colour of slate |