Venue: Siambr Dafydd Orwig, Council Offices, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, LL55 1SH. View directions
Contact: Lowri Haf Evans 01286 679878
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies: Councillors Ann Lloyd Jones and Huw G. Wyn Jones |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters. Additional documents: Minutes: (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. |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. Additional documents: Minutes: None to
note |
|
The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 25th June 2018, be signed as a true record. Additional documents: Minutes: 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...’ |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department. Additional documents: 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 policy aspects. RESOLVED |
|
Application No C17/1181/38/LL Bryniau, Llanbedrog, Pwllheli PDF 137 KB 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 Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Application No C17/1011/24/LL Fron Deg Site, Rhostryfan, Caernarfon PDF 144 KB Full application for
the construction of 4 two storey dwellings to replace 4 previously approved
bungalows LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aeron Maldwyn Jones Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Application No C17/1249/20/LL Melan, Plot 4, Caernarfon Road, Y Felinheli PDF 123 KB 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 Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Application No C18/0332/42/AM Northern Lights, Lon Tyn Pwll, Nefyn, Pwllheli PDF 111 KB Demolish stables and
remove existing concrete surface and construction of 2 holiday units and
landscaping work LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |
|
Application No C18/0385/41/LL Dragon Raiders Activity Park, Gwynfryn Lodge, Criccieth PDF 106 KB 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 Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |