Agenda and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Councillors Sian Wyn Hughes (a.m.), Berwyn Parry Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd along with Councillors Elin Walker Jones and John Brynmor Hughes (Local Members).

To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters.

(a)       The following members declared a personal interest in the following items for the reasons noted:

·            Councillor Eirwyn Williams in item 5.1 on the agenda (C16/0564/35/LL), as his daughter lived in Arvonia Gardens. 

·            Councillor Stephen Churchman in items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 on the agenda (planning application numbers C16/0564/35/LL, C17/1118/11/LL and C17/1269/25/LL), as he was a member of the Board of Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd, and also in item 5.10 (planning application number C17/1094/36/LL), as he was the applicant's neighbour and friend.

·            Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones in items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 on the agenda (planning application numbers C16/0564/35/LL, C17/1118/11/LL and C17/1269/25/LL), as she was a member of the Board of Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd.

·            Councillor Gruffydd Williams in item 5.12 on the agenda (planning application number C17/1175/42/LL), as his father owned a Caravan Park located less than six miles from the site of this application.

·            Councillor Owain Williams in item 5.12 on the agenda, (planning application number C17/1175/42/LL), as he was the owner of a Caravan Park located less than six miles from the site of this application.

Members were of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests, and they withdrew from the Chamber during the discussions on the items noted.

(b)       The Planning Manager declared a personal interest in item 5.3 on the agenda (planning application number C17/1269/25/LL) as her aunt lived near the site (adjoined the site) and had objected to the application. 

          The officer was of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest and she left the Chamber during the discussion on the applications. 

(c)     The following members stated that they were local members in relation to the following items noted:

·        Councillor Menna Baines (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 5.2 and 5.3 on the agenda, (planning application numbers C17/1118/11/LL and C17/1269/25/LL);

·        Councillor Elwyn Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 5.5 and 5.14 on the agenda, (planning application numbers C17/0846/18/LL and C17/1211/18/LL);

·        Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 5.9, 5.11 and 5.16 on the agenda (planning application numbers C17/1056/39/LL, C17/1161/39/LL and C17/1225/39/LL);

·        Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes, (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.12 on the agenda (planning application number C17/1175/42/LL);

·        Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths (not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.15 on the agenda (planning application number C17/1218/44/LL);

·        Councillor Dafydd Owen (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.17 on the agenda (planning application number C17/1266/16/LL)

The Members withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the discussion on the applications in question and did not vote on these matters.

(ch)   Members noted that they had been lobbied by an individual in relation to item 5.17 (planning application number C17/1266/16/LL) on the agenda.

To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chair for consideration.

The Chair shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 5 February 2018, be signed as a true record.

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 5 February 2018, as a true record.

To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department.

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 policy aspects.

RESOLVED

Application for the erection of 10 affordable units.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Eirwyn Williams

Link to relevant background documents

         The Vice-chair chaired the committee for the application above as the Chair had declared a personal interest and had left the Chamber.

          Application to erect 10 affordable units.

(a)      The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that it had been submitted by Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd on land that was in its ownership, located within the Cricieth development boundary and it had been designated as a play area. The decision on this application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 27 November 2017 because there had been no quorum and since then it was noted that the application had been amended to provide a pavement and a crossing on the B4411 and an open space within the site. Reference was made to the late observations form which noted that the Town Council did not object to the application. It was noted that the principle of the development was acceptable and complied with relevant policies as the site plan had been revised to provide a 261 square metre open space/play area within the site. The open space would be used and would offer better benefits to the community than the vacant land which currently existed. It was noted that the Transportation Unit was supportive of the proposal and that the original concerns of Natural Resources Wales regarding flooding had been resolved by means of relevant conditions. The planning officers’ recommendation was to approve the application with suitable conditions along with a permitted development condition and an affordable housing condition.

(b)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:

·         the proposed development was located on land designated as open space but it was emphasised that the land was dormant and had overgrown for over 15 years.

·         the landscape was poor and a substantial amount of money needed to be spent to re-develop it as a playing field and financial sources for this type of provision were unavailable and that there was no intention to create a play area on the land.

·         however, it was noted that there was an opportunity to develop the site for affordable housing by means of the Welsh Government's social housing grant.

·         following consultation with the Planning Department, the provision of a play area was indicated on the plans and attention was drawn to the fact that there was a play area approximately 500 metres from the proposed site and it was committed to provide a crossing for children to be able to cross the road which would benefit new tenants and also the residents and children of Waun Helyg estate.

·         Over 130 individuals had registered on the waiting list of the Gwynedd Housing Options Team which included affordable housing with 2/3 bedrooms in Cricieth.

·         the application would be a way of developing modern and sustainable housing and address the local need. 

(c)           It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

(ch)      A Member noted that while he was supportive of the application in principle,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new two storey building to provide 8 flats and provision of parking spaces.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elin Walker Jones

Link to revleant background documents

         The Vice-chair chaired the committee for the application above as the Chair had declared a personal interest and had left the Chamber.

Demolition of existing building and erection of new two-storey building to provide eight flats and parking spaces. 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the proposal involved demolishing a shop and two existing flats and erecting a new two-storey building in its place for flats and creation of parking provision. The site was located within the development boundary of Bangor and had not been allocated or protected for any use in the Local Development Plan. Reference was made to the relevant policies and public consultations within the report. It was noted that Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd was the applicant and that all units were being offered as affordable dwellings to be socially rented, and the application included an Affordable Housing Statement. There was clear evidence that there was a need for such flats for individuals and families on social rent in the ward, and the Council's Strategic Unit noted that information in terms of need was consistent with need in the area. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable in respect of design and appearance. It could be seen from paragraphs 5.8 to 5.14 of the report that there was no objection to the matters noted in those sections. The planning officers' recommendation was that the proposal was acceptable to be approved with relevant conditions.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:

·         Historically, the old shops in Trem Elidir had been difficult to let and had now been empty for some time.

·         The flats were very small and not of suitable standard.

·         It was proposed to demolish them and construct new flats with the intention of letting them for social rent and not for students or different units.

·         Housing needs were high for one and two bedroom units across Bangor wards with over 800 on the waiting list for a one bedroom unit and over 1000 for 2 bedroom units, and therefore, it was clear that there would be a number of applications for the eight proposed flats.

·         Prospective tenants would be selected from the waiting list administrated by Gwynedd Council's Housing Options Team which was a register based on a points system and awarded additional points for individuals with local connections.

·         Gwynedd Council's Strategic Housing Unit was supportive of the proposal.

·         An appeal was made for the Planning Committee to approve the application.

(c)       A Member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), who was acting on behalf of the Local Member, noted the following main points:

·         She was supportive of the planning application.

·         According to the plans, the ground floor flats were accessible and suitable for older people, people with disabilities and wheelchair users, and had parking spaces as part of the plan.

·         Closing the shop had been a loss for the community and the building had become dilapidated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 8 affordable dwellings together with the creation of an access and parking spaces.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Menna Baines

Link to relevant background documents

         The Vice-chair chaired the committee for the application above as the Chair had declared a personal interest and had left the Chamber.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of eight affordable dwellings and creation of parking spaces.

(a)     The Senior Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the developer intended to transfer the properties to a registered social landlord, namely Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd.

          In response to the above observation, the Senior Solicitor noted that it was not possible to transfer the properties to a specific company, namely CCG in this case, and that the recommendation of planning officers would have to be amended to reflect this.

          The Planning Committee was guided through the contents of the report and reference was made to the relevant policies and public consultations. Objections had been received based on the need for more affordable housing; detrimental impacts on road safety; impact on the amenities of local residents; over-development; insufficient parking spaces; anti-social problems; character of the houses was not in-keeping with the area. It was noted that the principle of the development was acceptable and it was not considered that the proposed houses would create dominating or incompatible structures based on their form, layout and designs.

          Attention was drawn to general and residential matters, educational matters and transport and access matters. Having considered all relevant matters, along with all objections and observations received, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable. 

(b)     The Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee), noted that she supported the application and that Pentir Community Council was also supportive.  She highlighted the following main points:

·            The development offered eight units and not eight houses as it was a small plot of land.

·            There was a waiting list for housing in Bangor with 40 individuals requiring a one bedroom flat and 68 requiring a three bedroom house, and given that there were 23 social rented units in Penrhosgarnedd, the application was to be welcomed.

·            The development offered affordable housing.

·            The site was convenient for units within reach of the centre of Bangor, within

        convenient reach of Ysbyty Gwynedd, a local shop and a regular bus service.

·            The ground floor flats would be for people with mobility problems.

·            Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd had confirmed that demand for this type of

        units was very high.

·            It was trusted that consideration would be given to local people.

·            It was understood that houses could not be restricted to the Pentir ward only and that the need for housing was high in neighbouring wards, namely Glyder and Dewi.

·            Safety and traffic - whilst accepting that traffic was heavy during weekdays,

        it was understood that the development would not contribute towards more traffic and indeed, it could help the cause as the access would be extended, as well as the lay by.  

·            It was understood that the public footpath would not affect the development and make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

·            It was accepted that the appearance would be in-keeping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

A full planning application for the erection of 5 social rented bungalows and 12 social rented houses and the adaption of the current access and internal access road.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Rheinallt Puw

Link to relevant background documents

Full planning application for the construction of five bungalows for social letting and twelve houses for social letting, and adaptations to the existing entrance and access road.

(a)     The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, drawing attention to the late observations form and specifically the observations of the Welsh Government which stated that it had no objection to the application but it had to be ensured that details for the "Departure from Standard" application on the A.5 were initially approved. Such improvements would have to be in accordance with the requirements and it was trusted that such an application would be submitted to the Welsh Government in March in order to be approved by them. Following receipt of information by the applicant, it was noted that it could be ensured that houses would be affordable by imposing a planning condition to this end. Therefore, as a result, attention was drawn to the fact that the recommendation would be amended as no legal agreement would be required.

         Reference was made to the relevant policies and responses to the consultation process within the report.

         A description of the application was provided along with the main relevant planning considerations, noting that the application was acceptable in principle. 

(b)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

(c)     The following points were highlighted by individual Members:

·            Would it be possible to hold a further discussion regarding the design of the bungalows to include washing facilities that would be suitable for wheelchair users?

·            There was a reference to open spaces but no reference to the statutory requirements for children to play safely. Children were expected to walk 300 metres to the nearest open space from this development, and according to one Member, a contribution towards play equipment should be requested.   

(ch)   In response to the above observations, the Planning Manager explained:

·            the developer could consider the suitability of the design in accordance with the needs. 

·            It was noted that paragraph 5.11 referred to play areas, and the fact that there was an open space 300 metres away from the proposed development.  If one was familiar with the site, it was noted that there was a formal play area in terms of equipment, a rugby field and a sufficient safe play area nearby for children and based on this it would be unreasonable to request more play provision than what was proposed. In terms of the concern, it was ensured that officers had referred to policies and supplementary guidance and that the recommendation was based on relevant requirements.

·            It was ensured that properties would be let in accordance with housing policy.

RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior Planning Officer to approve the application subject to receiving formal permission from the Economy and Infrastructure Department, Welsh Government, that amendments to the access (A.5) are acceptable prior to any work commencing on the site and to the following conditions:-

1. Five years.

2. In accordance with the plans.

3. Natural slate.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Residential development to include 5 affordable dwellings to meet a local need together with associated accesses and parking

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elwyn Jones

Link to relevant background documents

          Residential development to include five affordable homes for local need along with associated accesses and parking.

(a)     The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the development was for local need, parking spaces on the site which were on the northern outskirts of the village of Rhiwlas. The site was located outside the development boundary as contained in the Local Development Plan, but it directly abutted the boundary and could therefore be considered an exemption site.

Reference was made to relevant policies and the responses to the statutory consultation process noted in the report. Objections had been received based on the fact that the site was outside the development boundary; set a precedent; loss of green space; disturbance during hours of work on the site; lack of valid evidence of local need; impact on the Welsh language; weakness of any conditions relating to affordable homes; detrimental impact on the village infrastructure.

It was noted that the principle of constructing affordable housing on this particular site had been based in Policy TAI16 of the Local Development Plan which noted that a development immediately adjacent to development boundaries must be for 100% affordable housing if it can be shown that a local need had been proven for affordable housing that could not be addressed within a reasonable time-scale on a market site within the development boundary. Given the assessment and, subject to the proposal complying with the other policies referred to in the report, along with taking into consideration the observations of the Council's Housing Strategic Unit, it was considered that the application was acceptable in principle. It was noted that the plan of the proposed development intentionally followed the ribbon pattern of this part of the village and although the houses would appear contemporary, the external materials reflected the external materials of similar houses nearby. In terms of general and residential amenities it was not considered that any substantial over-looking would be created. Although it was acknowledged that an element of disturbance would derive from the development during the construction work, it must be considered that this would only be temporary. In the context of transport and access matters, it was noted that the proposed accesses and parking arrangement was acceptable by the Transportation Unit subject to including relevant conditions. 

The applicant would need to sign a legal agreement in order to bind the five houses to affordable housing and he was currently in discussions with a registered housing association to take ownership of the houses in future.

Having considered all relevant matters, all of the observations and objections received, it was recommended to approve the application.

(b)     The Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted:

·         the proposed development was located outside the development boundary and an application from a developer and not an individual searching for a house.

·         the Planning Committee was reminded of the boundaries set in the Local Development Plan less than a year ago and that they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Residential development of 9 affordable houses.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes

Link to relevant background documents

Residential development of nine affordable dwellings.

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that this was an outline application to consider the principle of developing the site together with an access.   However, the indicative plan of the proposed setting of the site had been submitted as part of the application.  The application had been amended several times since the original application was
submitted and it was further noted that the applicant's agent had asked for the application to be deferred.  The site lay in the countryside and it was explained that the application's red line did not touch the Morfa Nefyn development boundary in the Local Development Plan.  It was noted that land north of the site had begun to be developed with six houses built. 

         In terms of the principle of the development, it was noted that the LDP proposal maps for the village of Morfa Nefyn showed that the site lay outside the village development boundary and this was considered tantamount to erecting a new house in the countryside.   Attention was drawn to policy TAI 16 which involved proposals for affordable housing on rural exception sites and the purpose of the policy was to free up sites on the outskirts of settlements to provide affordable housing where houses would usually not be approved. The policy also noted that an exception site was located directly adjacent to the development boundary and formed a reasonable extension to the settlement. The application site was located near a partly constructed housing estate. However, if looking at the map for Morfa Nefyn in the Gwynedd Maps Document attached to the LDP, it was clear that the application site was not located directly adjacent to the development boundary.  Attention was drawn to paragraph 5.4 of the report with regards to the long and extensive history of the land adjacent to the application. It could be seen that the applicant had space available for housing development within the boundary without having to consider the developing land outside the boundary. Even if there was justification for affordable housing on a rural exception site, it was noted that the developer had land that abutted the development boundary and therefore there was no need to develop the site that was subject to the planning application submitted. It was understood from the Joint Policy Unit that the land bank for houses provided or that have permission for Morfa Nefyn was greater than the indicative supply for the village. Due to the current situation, it was not considered that developing the land in question was a logical development for the settlement as vacant land was available between the existing houses on the Maes Twnti estate and the application site and therefore developing the site in question would create an isolated development with vacant land between it and the existing houses at Maes Twnti. It could not be considered as a rural exception site and it would mean building new houses in the countryside, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Full application to demolish an existing garage and erect a new two storey residential dwelling with a new vehicular access.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gareth Thomas

Link to relevant background documents

Full application to demolish an existing garage and erect a new two-storey residential house, with a new vehicular access.

(a)          The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the site had been located in a mixed and dispersed residential area within the development boundary of Penrhyndeudraeth. Reference was made to the relevant policies and the responses to the public consultations within the report.  Attention was drawn to the fact that the proposal complied in principle with the appropriate requirements.  It was noted that the contents of the report explained that the planning officers had no concerns about the material planning considerations. However, it was noted that there was some local concern and these matters were dealt with in paragraphs 5.12 to 5.14 of the report. It was not considered that these matters outweighed the material policy considerations. Having considered all relevant planning matters and the observations received, the planning officers’ recommendation was to approve the application subject relevant conditions.

(b)       It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

RESOLVED unanimously to approve in accordance with the following conditions:

1.         Commence the work within five years.

2.         In accordance with plans.

3.         Slates and external materials

4.         Agree on a Building Management Plan / working times

5.         Highways

6.         Landscaping/protecting trees/biodiversity

7.         Welsh Water conditions.

8.         Boundary treatments to be submitted and agreed

9.         Withdrawal of PD

10.       Party Wall Act Note

Erection of a poultry unit for the production of free range eggs, track, turning area, landscaping, muck store and 2 silos.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Berwyn Parry Jones

Link to relevant background documents

Erection of poultry unit for the production of free-range eggs, driveway, turning space, landscaping, storage area for manure and two silos.  

(a)       The Senior Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that Policy CYF 6 of the LDP stated that proposals to erect a new building in the countryside for a business or industry would be approved if two criteria could be satisfied, namely:

·         That the scale and nature of the development is acceptable given its location and size of the building in question;

·         That the development would not lead to a use that conflicts with nearby uses or has an impact on the viability of similar uses nearby.

         The proposal met the criteria and was acceptable in principle.

         Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.

         It was noted that it was believed that restrictions imposed on the form, scale, elevations (dark-green coloured covering), along with the setting of the unit in the landscape, would mean that any resulting visible impact would be from close vistas only and any views of it from a distance would be intermittent.

         The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

(b)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

In response to observations from members in relation to the chickens' living conditions, the Senior Development Control Officer noted that noted that regulations were in place outside the planning system to manage well-being matters. The Planning Manager added that the shed was of the highest standard and that the chickens would be free range.

RESOLVED      To approve with the following conditions:

1.         Five years.

2.         In accordance with the plans submitted with the application.

3.         Dark-green colour for the external elevation of the unit and the manure storage area.  

4.         Agricultural use of the building only.

5.         Public Protection conditions relating to the restriction of noise levels from the temperature control fans and concentration of particulates.

6.         Complete the landscaping plan in accordance with the details submitted with the application and the time-scale for completing this.

7.         Agree on the colour of the feed bins/silos.

Application to site 10 touring caravans and a static caravan for site manager, shower and toilet block, acoustic fence, earth bank, new access drive and parking spaces for nearby chapel.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor John Brynmor Hughes

Link to relevant background documents

Application to site 10 touring caravans and a static caravan for site manager, shower and toilet block, acoustic fence, earth bank, new access drive and parking spaces for a nearby chapel

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the applicant alleged that the field had been used to site caravans in the past. It was reported that information from the applicant was received late on Friday but as there was no planning right or lawful development certificate in place, it was no possible to place any weight on the information.

         Attention was drawn to the fact that the site was located approximately 100 metres from nearby houses, was outside a development boundary as designated in the LDP, was within a Conservation Area and within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

         It was noted that the AONB Unit had stated its concern that the new caravan site, and the ancillary developments, would affect the AONB and Conservation Area. It is felt that landscaping would not sufficiently reduce the impact of the proposal on the landscape and that it would not overcome concerns relating to the prominence of the site in the landscape within the AONB and the Conservation Area.

         It was reported that the Transportation Unit had stated that the proposal would be likely to have a substantial impact on road safety.

         It was noted that it was not believed that the proposal was acceptable in principle and based on the matters noted in the report, namely that the proposed development would be likely to have a substantial detrimental impact on views of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the village's Conservation Area, and on road safety, it would likely impact the amenities of nearby residents.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:

·         The observations of the Transportation Unit could not be seen on the track and trace system on the Council's website and so far no response had been received from the Unit to the enquiry submitted

·         The documents attached to the application had not appeared on the track and trace system in a timely manner

·         One field was already being used for the Caravan Club, and another field had touring caravans

·         The existing access was dangerous with a lack of visibility therefore another method to gain access had been included in the application

·         The Biodiversity Unit had recently confirmed that they no longer objected to the application

·         There was enough space on the site for planting in order to screen the development.

(c)     A Member acting as the Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee), supported the application and made the following main points:

·         There were parking problems on the road therefore the fact that the application included a car park which could be used occasionally in association with activities at the Chapel was welcomed

·         There had been a touring caravan site on the site since the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.9

Change of use from pub to dwelling.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Stephen Churchman

Link to relevant background documents

         Change of use from public house to dwelling house.

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the existing building provided a public house facility on the ground floor and a living unit on the first floor.

         It was noted that Policy ISA 2 of the LDP stated that change of use of a community facility should be withstood unless it would be possible to comply with one of three options. Part iii. was relevant in this case, as it involved a facility that was commercially run, and evidence of the following had to be presented:

·         That the current use had ceased to be financially viable

·         That it could not reasonable be expected it to become financially viable

·         That no other community use could be established

·         That there was evidence of genuine attempts to market the facility, which had been unsuccessful

Having weighed up the evidence submitted against policy ISA 2 and the fact that it was highly unlikely, based on the information to hand, that the building's use as a public house would be reinstated on account of the costs and nature of the community, it was believed that justification had been shown for the change of use.

An observation had been received from the Economic Development service based on the information submitted with the application, which stated that a rural public house business of this type faced a number of challenges. They had assessed the information submitted and that it confirmed that it was not viable in its current form.

Attention was drawn to additional observations that had been received, noting that a concern had been noted in terms of the evidence submitted. It was noted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had noted that the proposal must be considered in the context that the unit had been empty for an extended period and that it had been marketed for a reasonable price for a continuous period of 12 months. Evidence was received with the application in relation to marketing the building unsuccessfully since 2011, which was a significantly longer period than the required 12 months. It was considered that the requirements of Policy MAN 4 of the LDP had been met.

Observations/objections to the proposal had been received from local residents and a petition objecting to the proposal which raised a number of matters relating to the proposed development and recent history of the business.

It was believed that sufficient evidence has been submitted to prove that the use as a public house was not viable and although reference had been made in observations received to an intention to attempt to buy it locally, there was no strong evidence to suggest that the use was likely to be reinstated in the near future. It was, therefore, believed that there was justification for the proposed change of use to approve the building to be used as a house.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.10

Vary Condition 4 on planning permission C15/0901/39/LL to revise the design of the proposed house.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts

Link to relevant background documents

Amend condition 4 of planning permission C15/0901/39/LL to amend the design of the proposed house.

(a)     The Enforcement Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that only the design of the house was under consideration, along with minor amendments to the site formation. The principle of the development had already been accepted, and planning permission had already been granted for the house.

         It was noted that the amended plan meant that the house would still be in the same location but its angle would change slightly, re-locate the platform on the first floor, a small increase in the size of the house, and two dormer windows on the northern elevation, rather than one previously. It was reported that the garage shown on the original plan had now been removed from the application by an amended plan received on 15 February.

In light of the public consultation, objections were received to the application on grounds of the amenities and privacy of local residents, the impact of the garage on mature trees, and that a platform did not need to be provided as part of the application. The garage had been removed from the application, therefore it was presumed that this solved the concerns raised by the public and by Biodiversity officers. There was no concern about the impact of the proposal on the amenities of nearby residents.

It was considered that the proposed amendments were acceptable and it was recommended to approve the application with the conditions listed in the report.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:

·         There was planning permission in place and the application was for minor changes to the design

·         The application had been discussed with the officers

·         Three local men had come together for the development in order to make money

·         The amendment in the design and a lower pitched roof was an improvement on the plan originally approved.

(c)     The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:

·         The proposal included external stairs and a balcony

·         Concern from the Community Council in terms of the privacy of nearby neighbours

·         Concern that the balcony would be used for entertainment and a condition had been imposed on the original planning permission that it was not to be used for entertainment. It was difficult to enforce the condition

·         The amendments did not allay the concerns of local residents

·         The Committee was asked to refuse the application or impose an additional condition to prevent use of the balcony for entertainment.

         In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted:

·         External stairs and a balcony were quite a common feature in the vicinity

·         The nearest houses were approximately 19 metres away and there would be no direct overlooking due to the layout/angle of the houses

·         In terms of the condition to restrict use of the balcony for entertainment, the size of the balcony restricted the use that could be made of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.11

Extension to touring caravan site to locate 12 additional touring units (increase in numbers from 20 to 32)

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes

Link to relevant background documents

Extension to the touring caravan site to site 12 additional touring units (increase the numbers from 20 to 32).

(a)     The Enforcement Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the site was located in the countryside and within a Special Landscape Area and the Llŷn and Bardsey Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

         It was noted that policy TWR 5 of the LDP permitted proposals to develop touring caravan sites provided they conformed to a series of criteria and it was believed that this proposal did so. The site had already been hidden well in the landscape due to existing hedges and cloddiau. The nine units would be sited along the existing boundaries with an intention to reinforce the existing screening. By ensuring that this work would take place, it was considered that the design, layout and appearance of the proposal were acceptable and that it would not cause substantial harm to the landscape.

It was reported that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal and, although it was an increase of more than 10% in terms of the number of units, there would be no detrimental impact on the safety of the local roads network.

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

(b)     The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) supported the application, and noted that the applicant had set up a high quality touring caravan site and that the proposal was an opportunity to expand the site.

RESOLVED      To approve with the following conditions:

1.               Commence within five years.

2.            In accordance with submitted plans.

3.            The number of units on the site at any given time to be restricted

to 32.

4.            Restrict the season to between 1 March and 31 October.

5.            Holiday use only.

6.            A register to be maintained.

7.            No storing of touring caravans on the site.

8.            Carry out the landscaping plan.

Application for the creation of a camping site for 28 vehicles and the erection of a building for reception, shop and washing facilities.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gareth Thomas

Link to relevant background documents

Application for the creation of a site for up to 28 vehicles and the erection of a building for reception, shop and washing facilities.

(a)     It was reported that the above application had been withdrawn.

Demolition of existing detached church hall and erection of new church hall attached to existing church of St. Helen, Penisarwaun, together with creation of on site parking for seven vehicles including two spaces for the disabled (revised plans to those considered under C17/0093/18/LL)

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elwyn Jones

Link to relevant background documents

Demolition of existing detached church hall and construction of church hall attached to the existing Santes Helen Church, Penisarwaun, and creation of parking on site for seven vehicles, including two spaces for the disabled.

(a)     The Enforcement Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the new building would provide a space for community activities, a shop and café, vestry, stores and toilets.

It was noted that the site was located on the outskirts of the village in a residential area, and within the development boundary of the village of Penisarwaun in the Development Plan.  The church was not listed, but the site was located within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

The proposal was considered acceptable in terms of visual amenities, residential amenities and privacy. Also, the proposal complied with policies in the Local Plan in relation to retail.  A protected species survey was submitted with the application and the Biodiversity Unit and Natural Resources Wales did not have an objection to the proposal, provided that the developer acted in accordance with the recommendations of that report.

Attention was drawn to the fact that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, provided that the developer followed the submitted plans.

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:

·         The proposal would be an over-development of the site.

·         That there was a community hall in Penisarwaun and so there was no need for the hall;

·         Concerns in terms of road safety;

·         Local people did not need or want the hall.

(c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main points:

·         The existing hall was deteriorating and the new hall would add to the community;

·         That disabled access and toilets would be included in the hall;

·         Had discussed with the Transportation Unit and planning officers in the context of managing speed on the road;

·         The shop would not be for profit and it would not compete with other places;

·         There were no planning grounds to the objections received;

·         That letters of support had been received from local people.

(ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:

·         That he saw both sides but that he tended to side with the objectors;

·         That local people did not see a need for a hall and they were concerned in terms of road safety;

·         That there was a prosperous community hall in the school.

(d)     Proposed and seconded to approve the application.

During the ensuing discussion, the following main points were noted by members:

·         Although they sympathised with the objectors, the hall would be an asset to the village and the church;

·         Would it be required to hold a public consultation in terms of installing speed humps as part of the method of managing speed on the road?  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.14

Creation of a new static caravan site for 11 caravans, construction of a reception / lounge building, creation of a new vehicular access and access road, parking area and play area.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths

Link to relevant background documents

Creation of a new static caravan site for 11 caravans, and erection of new reception / lounge, creation of a new vehicular access and access road, parking space and playing field.

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the site was within a Special Landscape Area and outside (although parallel to) the development boundary of the village of Morfa Bychan. 

         It was noted that one of the main policies to consider when assessing the principle of the development was Policy TWR 3 of the LDP. The relevant part of the policy in terms of this specific application due to its location within a Special Landscape Area was part 1 which states that "proposals to develop new static caravan sites (i.e. a single or double caravan), new holiday chalet sites or permanent alternative camping accommodation will be refused in...Special Landscape Areas". Therefore, the proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policy TWR 3.

         Objections had been received from local residents referring to the likely harmful impact of the proposal on their residential amenities. It was highlighted that residential housing surround the site on three sides, some within a distance of approximately 12m to some of the proposed units. It was believed that the proposal was likely to lead to further disruption and thus would be unacceptable in terms of Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.

         Attention was drawn to the fact that the application had been submitted originally showing an intention to connect the foul drainage of the site to the main public sewer.  An objection was received to this proposal from Welsh Water because it would overload the public system. Consequently, the application was amended to include private treatment work on the site and, as a result, Welsh Water's objection was withdrawn. Natural Resources Wales now objected to the proposal in its amended form by noting that "Building a private sewage treatment works in an area with a public sewage system (main sewage running through the site) is not considered acceptable from an environmental perspective."

         The proposal to create a new static caravan park was unacceptable as it was unable to satisfy the requirements of the relevant policies as noted in the report.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:

·         That the Special Landscape Area designation had been acknowledged and respected;

·         That the land in its current form did not add to the area as it was desolate and unused;

·         The development would have a minimal impact on the landscape;

·         That Welsh Water was unable to refuse using the public sewage system so the situation could be resolved;

·         In terms of Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP, the likely impact was insufficient to refuse on the grounds of this policy;

·         Hope that the Committee was aware of the letters of support submitted by local people.

(c)     The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.15

Locate 2 additional static caravans to the existing site along with improvements to site and locate 1 static caravan as office / reception.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor John Brynmor Hughes

Link to relevant background documents

Site two additional static caravans to the existing site along with site improvements and siting a static caravan as an office / reception.

         The Senior Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

         It was noted that the main policy to consider when assessing the principle of the development was Policy TWR 3 of the LDP. The relevant part of the policy in terms of this specific application was part 3. It was explained that this policy may permit small extensions to the site's surface area and /or re-locating units from prominent locations to less prominent locations subject to compliance with criteria. Attention was drawn to the fact that the policy did not allow an increase in the number of static caravans on sites within the AONB or the Special Landscape Areas. The proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policy TWR 3 in terms of sites within the AONB.

         It was acknowledged that the development showed some improvements to the facilities of the existing site and it was proposed to have additional landscaping on a part of the site, however, the proposal did not overcome the basic principle of Policy TWR 3 and Gillespies' report that there was no capacity for additional static caravans within the AONB.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:

·         Policy TWR 3 was being implemented as one wide brush;

·         The AONB Unit did not object to the application;

·         The application site was an infill site in the middle of other caravan sites;

·         Gillespies' report in terms of landscape capacity and sensitivity was not prescriptive;  

·         The Committee was asked to consider holding a site visit.

(c)     The following main points were made by a member who was acting as a local member (not a member of this Planning Committee):

·         That the site was tidy and was located in the middle of other caravan sites so it would not have an impact on the area;

·         That the proposal would lead to a small extension to the existing site;

·         That the AONB Unit noted that there would be no detrimental impact on the AONB;

·         That an office/reception could be provided in an alternative way to the static caravan;

·         The proposal would mean raising safety standards and providing a phone and Wi-Fi;

·         Suggested that a site visit should be undertaken.

(ch)   It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

·         That there were plenty of caravans in the area and it should be refused in accordance with Policy TWR 3;

·         That a site visit should be considered as the application proposed improvements to the site;

·         That the proposal was contrary to Policy TWR 3 and the Gillespies report which noted that there was no capacity in the landscape for this type of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.16

Install one 17.5 metre high telecommunications mast including 3 antenna and 2 transmission dishes along with 2 equipment cabinets and 1 meter cabinet and ancillary work.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Dafydd Owen

Link to relevant background documents

Erect a 17.5m high telecommunications mast, including three antennae, two broadcast satellites, two equipment sheds and one measuring cabinet and associated work.

(a)     The Senior Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the site was located against a backdrop of high, wooded land, above the A55 trunk road. The plan was an amendment of a previously submitted plan on a site approximately 200m south that was withdrawn because of concerns about the possible impact on a nearby scheduled ancient monument.

         Attention was drawn that observations had been refused objecting to the application during the public consultation based on the concern regarding the possible impacts on wildlife, harmful visual impact, harm to the designated historic landscape, harmful impact on nearby relics, potential harm to the nearby trees, harmful to the amenities of the users of the busy public footpath nearby and that the development could be harmful to the historical well nearby thus polluting the water flowing from it.

It was noted that Policy PS 3 of the LDP supported provision of new facilities to extend or improve connectivity through communication technologies in all areas of the Plan, subject to appropriate protection measures.

It was reported that a declaration of Conformity with the ICNIRP requirements (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) had been submitted as part of the application, which confirmed that the development had been certified as complying with the ICNIRP guidances, namely the internationally recognised guidance for this type of development.

With this type of development, it was inevitable that the proposed structure would be partly visible from public places as it needed to be in a fairly open location to ensure that it worked to its full capacity. Nevertheless, in this case, it was believed that the site's wooded location meant that the tower would be fairly hidden from most public places. On the whole, it was considered that the tower was unlikely to have an obvious long-term impact on the visual amenities in the local area.

It was noted that information had been submitted with the application listing other sites that were considered prior to deciding on this site. It was clear that these had been disregarded for various reasons. It was therefore acknowledged that an attempt had been made to find other sites but that this had been identified as the most suitable for the proposal following the consideration of practical, technical and amenity matters.

It was not believed that there would be any significant detrimental impacts on the amenities of local residents as a result of the development. It was noted that the site was suitable in terms of its location and was acceptable in terms of its impact on the general and residential amenities of the area.

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:

·         That he was speaking on behalf of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.17