Agenda and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Apologies: Councillors Ann Lloyd Jones and Huw G. Wyn Jones

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

(a)       No declarations of personal interest were received from any members present.

(b)     The following member declared that he was a local member in relation to the item noted:

·        Councillor Aeron Maldwyn Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.2 on the agenda (planning application number C17/1011/24/LL);

The Member withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the discussion on the application in question and he did not vote on the matter.

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

None to note

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 25^th June 2018, be signed as a true record.

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 25 June 2018, as a true record, subject to changing a word in paragraph 3(iv), in the English minutes (registering the Mawddach Crescent public path to Barmouth Bridge),

‘The Local member noted that the application had historical arguments and she had visited the Crescent on several occasions as a Councillor...’ to, ‘The Local member noted that the application had historical arguments and she had visited the Crescent on many occasions as a Councillor...’

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

Retrospective application to extend touring caravan site and retain toilet block and decking, together with implementation of landscaping scheme

LOCAL MEMBER:  Councillor Angela Russell

Link to relevant background documents

Retrospective application to extend a touring caravan site and retain the toilet block, a timber platform and undertake a landscaping plan.

a)      The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, explaining that the application had been deferred at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 April 2018 in order to re-consult and reassess the application in light of receiving amended plans. It was outlined that this was a retrospective application to extend an existing touring caravan site, and retain the toilet block, electrical hook ups, and undertake a landscaping and tree planting scheme along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. It was reiterated that the application entailed siting 10 additional touring caravans on the property in addition to the 10 touring caravans approved in a previous retrospective application in 2016. It was noted that the proposal also included additional storage for 20 touring caravans and since there was extant permission for storing 10 touring caravans, there would be storage for a total of 30 touring caravans.

It was reported that the site lay in a prominent site within a Special Landscape Area and was visible from the parallel county road and the public footpath that ran along the site's northern boundary. It was noted that the site was clearly visible from the county road between Llanbedrog and Mynytho.

Reference was made to Policy TWR 5 of the Local Development Plan which approved proposals for extensions to existing touring sites or additional pitches provided they complied with all the criteria noted. It was emphasised that the aim of the policy was to facilitate the establishment of high quality touring and camping sites in suitable locations.

Although the proposal would not be contrary to all the requirements of Policy TWR 5, it was considered that the proposal did not meet the policy's main aims which required that sites be unobtrusive in the landscape; therefore, it was considered that the principle of the development was contrary to policy TWR 5.

It was noted that the application was a request to increase the storing provision of touring caravans to 30, but the Planning Service was of the opinion that the location of the extended site was intrusive in the local landscape, and was clearly visible from Lôn Pin, and the current landform and landscaping were not sufficient to assimilate the units within the site. Although the plans showed a proposal to reinforce the existing landscaping, there was no assurance that the planting would be carried out to the extent that would be necessary to screen the development.

Reference was made to the concerns and the objections that had been received in the context of general and residential amenities. It was emphasised that the Transportation Unit objected to the application because of the substantial increase in the number of touring units that would triple the site's capacity, and was likely to lead to a substantial increase in traffic flow along this rural road. It was presumed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Full application for the construction of 4 two storey dwellings to replace 4 previously approved bungalows

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aeron Maldwyn Jones

Link to relevant background papers

Full application for the construction of four new two-storey dwellings to replace four previously approved bungalows

          The members had visited the site.

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

(a)       The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the application was deferred in the committee meeting on 14 May 2018 due to difficulties in relation to registering to speak and a suggestion that a site visit should be held.

It was noted that the application was a vacant plot within a larger residential estate that was partly developed. It was explained that the land was located within the development boundary of Rhostryfan village and within a built up area, which consisted of residential dwellings in the form of individual, terraced and semi-detached houses, the design and size of nearby houses varied and included single and two-storey dwellings. It was reiterated that the existing access to the site was off the nearby public road with a standard estate road leading to the housing estate.  It was noted that the land rose from the access road towards the highest part of the estate itself. It was stated that formal discussions had been held regarding this proposal through the service's pre-application procedure. It was also noted that there was extensive planning history related to the site in the form of historical applications for residential development in addition to recent applications relating to individual houses that had already been constructed within the estate.

Reference was made to the observations received from neighbours of the site expressing concerns about the impact of the development on amenities and the impact on the area in general. Consideration was given to all the material planning matters, the local and national policies and guidance, the site's planning history and the 'live' permission that existed to erect four bungalows on the site together with the observations received as part of the public consultation. Consequently, the proposal to construct four two-storey houses with ancillary facilities was acceptable.

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

·         An application for two-storey houses had been refused in the past

·         The photographs displayed were misleading. They did not reflect the difference in the gradient of the site.

·         Two-storey houses would result in the loss of natural sunlight to nearby houses

·         Plot number 4 overlooked existing housing - this was unacceptable

·         Houses were larger in size than bungalows and, consequently, would have a detrimental impact on nearby amenities

·         There were no objections to bungalows

b)     The following main points were made by the local member (not a member of this Planning Committee):

·         He had no objection to bungalows

·         The number of bedrooms were the same - more profit to be made from building a house than a bungalow

·         There was more demand for bungalows

·         The Council needed to ensure that it met local needs

·         There was a need for an appropriate mixture of housing on the site

·         The road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Sub division of existing dwelling to create two holiday letting units while retaining two storey dwelling along with raising the roof height by 600mm (partly retrospective) - revised proposal

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith

Link to relevant background papers

Divide the existing dwelling to create two holiday units to let, retaining a two-storey dwelling together with raising the roof level by 600mm (part retrospective) - amended plan

(a)       The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application, noting that it was an application to divide a four-storey dwelling that received planning permission in 2010 (C10A/0126/20/LL) but which had not been completed, in order to create two holiday units on the lower floors and retain a dwelling on the upper two floors. It was added that it was intended to raise the level of the building's roof by 0.6m compared to what was originally approved. The changes would create two flats with two en-suite bedrooms each and two kitchen / lounge spaces, and the upper floors of the two-storey house would have four bedrooms and an integrated garage.

Policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Joint Local Development Plan approved proposals for new developments as long as they did not have a detrimental impact on the health, safety or the amenities of the occupant of local properties or on the area in general. It was explained that the building had already received planning permission for residential use and there was no change in the internal floor area from what had already been approved. After the completion of the house, it could be use by a substantial number of people within the same family and, given that holiday use was a type of residential use, it was not considered that changing two parts of the house for alternative residential use would intensify the use of the site in a manner that would be detrimental to neighbours' amenities.

It was emphasised that raising the height of the building by 0.6m would not cause significant harm to the neighbours' amenities in terms of shadowing than what had already been approved and it was not considered that this street had a consistent development pattern that would mean that the height would be inconsistent with the character of the streetscape. It was considered that the materials shown were acceptable and consistency could be ensured with the development that had already been approved via appropriate conditions.

The Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal and having considered the development already approved on the site, there would be no new significant harm in terms of highway safety. It was considered that the proposal complied with policies TRA 2 and TRA 4 of the Local Development Plan.

It was considered that a development of holiday units in this building would be acceptable in terms of the relevant policies noted above, and that it would not have any additional adversely harmful impact on the area’s amenities or on neighbouring residents than what had already been approved. Furthermore, it was considered that the location, design, finish and form of the development was acceptable and corresponded with the context of its location.

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

(c)     During the ensuing discussion,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolish stables and remove existing concrete surface and construction of 2 holiday units and landscaping work

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background papers

To demolish stables and remove existing concrete surface and construct two holiday units, along with landscaping work.

         The Senior Manager explained that the applicant had withdrawn the application.

Use of land for a quad bike safari activity in addition to existing segway, paintball (skirmish games) and bushcraft activities

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Ll Evans

Link to relevant background papers

Use of land for a quad bike safari activity in addition to existing segway, paintball (skirmish games) and bushcraft activities

Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received which included a suggestion to defer the decision

(a)       The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s background and noted that the site was located in existing woodland on the outskirts of the village of Llanystumdwy, with access to the site along an existing unclassified road. It was noted that the site had separate site access and a car park. It was explained that the area had been created as an assembly point and reception area for the site's activities farther into the woodland, with managed access to the permanent paths that led through the woodland to the activity areas.

It was added that this current proposal was to provide quad bike safaris along the site's existing paths as an additional activity to the existing activities held on the site. It was noted that the proposed development offered

-       6 people using a total of up to six bikes at any one time

-       350cc and 50cc bikes to be used

-       The bikes' speed to be restricted to 12-15 miles per hour

-       Only ONE activity would be held at any one time, e.g. only the quad bikes, not the bikes and the segways

It was noted that noise impact deriving from the proposed use had been included as a concern in a number of letters of objection received. In a formal response to the public consultation, the Public Protection Service noted that a comprehensive noise assessment response should be conducted in relation to the proposal before making a decision on the application. It was confirmed that Public Protection had received a report from the applicant, and that conclusions on this report were acceptable. The service recommended to approve the development subject to noise level conditions.

Having considered all the relevant planning matters, including local and national policies and guidance, the proposal was considered to be acceptable.

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

·         He was responding to two main avenues of concerns - concerns about noise and overdevelopment

·         He had owned the site for 16 years

·         He had no intention of causing concern for his neighbours

·         He had employed a noise consultant to assess the activity of the quad bikes, and this expert had visited the neighbours who had raised concern to complete the noise assessment.

·         In the context of overdevelopment, he said that it was not intended to develop anything else and that the existing paths would be used for the new activities

·         The company employed 10 staff, with an intention to employ two additional staff if the application was approved

·         Over 6.5 thousand people visited the site every year

·         He had transformed a section of untidy woodland into a successful local business

c)      It was proposed and seconded to defer the application in order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.