Agenda and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Elwyn Edwards and Simon Glyn.

To receive any declaration of personal interest.

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

·         Councillor Gruffydd Williams in item 5.1 on the agenda (application no. C16/0310/46/LL) as he was courting the applicant's sister.

·         Councillor June Marshall in items 5.3 and 5.4 on the agenda (planning applications nos. C13A/0156/11/LL and C16/0440/11/CR)) as she was friends with many of the neighbours.

·         Councillor W. Tudor Owen in items 5.5 a 5.6 on the agenda (application nos. C15/0808/20/LL and C15/0807/20/CR) as he was a member of the Caernarfon Harbour Trust. 

·         Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones in Item 5.12 on the agenda (application no. C16/0744/17/LL as she was a member of the Board of Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd.

·         Councillor Michael Sol Owen, in item 5.12 on the agenda, (planning application no. C16/0744/17/LL), as he was a member of the Board of Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd.

·         Councillor John Wyn Williams in item 5.12 on the agenda (application no. C16/0744/17/LL as he was a member of the Board of Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd.

The members were of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests and they withdrew from the Chamber during the discussion on the item noted.

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

·        Councillor Anwen Davies, (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.2 on the agenda (planning application no. C16/0410/33/LL)

·        Councillor Lesley Day (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to items 5.3 and 5.4 on the agenda (planning applications nos. C13/0156/11/LL and C16/0440/11/CR)

·        Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 5.5 and 5.6 on the agenda (planning application nos. C15/0808/20/LL, C15/0807/20/CR)

·        Councillor Elfed Williams, (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.7 on the agenda (Planning Application no. C16/0329/18/LL)

·        Councillor Selwyn Griffiths (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 5.9 and 5.10 on the agenda, (planning applications nos. C16/0704/44/LL and C16/0732/44/LL)

·        Councillor Gruffydd Williams (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.11 on the agenda (planning application no. C16/0743/42/LL)

·        Councillor Eric M Jones (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.12 on the agenda (planning application no. C16/0744/17/LL)

·        Councillor Gweno Glyn (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.13 on the agenda (planning application no. C16/0849/32/LL)

·        Councillor R. H. Wyn Williams (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.14 on the agenda (planning application no. C16/0931/39/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.

(c) The Development Control Manager declared a personal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

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, 26 September 2016, be signed as a true record.

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 26 September 2016, as a true record. 

To submit the report of Head of Regulatory 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 aspects of the policies.

RESOLVED

Extension to touring caravan site to include extension of land and increase numbers from 8 to 22 touring units together with construction of new amenity building

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Simon Glyn

Link to relevant background documents

Extension to touring caravan site to include extension of land and increase numbers from 8 to 22 touring units together with erecting a new amenity block

The Development Control Manager reported that having prepared the report the applicant's agent had made a request to defer consideration of the application in order to submit further information.

Resolved:                     To defer the application.

Construction of shed for storing materials and machinery in connection with construction business

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Anwen Davies

Link to relevant background documents

Construction of shed for storing materials and machinery in connection with a construction business.

(a)  The Committee was reminded by the Development Control Officer that the application was deferred at the Planning Committee in July 2016 in order to give the applicant an opportunity to try to regulate the use of the existing shed and yard, which were used for the builder's business rather than for agricultural use as originally approved. It was noted that the applicant had now established and authorised the use of the existing yard by submitting a request for a legal use certificate as a builder's yard; this was permitted on 19.09.16.

The proposal was noted to erect a 225m² shed at the rear of the existing yard near the property of Glanrhyd, Mynydd Nefyn to store materials and machinery in connection with the applicant's building business.   The application was submitted to the Committee at the local member’s request. The shed would be finished with a dark green box profile roof and Yorkshire panel timber wall cladding.

The site was in open countryside and within a Landscape Conservation Area and close to the AONB with an unclassified county highway serving the site. 

There was an existing shed on the site that was approved in 2003 for agricultural use.  The proposed shed would be located further back to the rear of the yard and visible from the county road, between the existing shed and huts in the property's curtilage.

Attention was drawn to the planning history, enquiries, policies and the response to the consultations that were all noted in the report. 

(b)    The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee), supported the application and noted that the applicant by now had received a legal use certificate stating that the use as a shed/workshop and builder's yard had been undertaken for over ten years.   It was further noted that the proposal would give an opportunity for a young family to remain in the countryside and would be a boost to the local school and economy.

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

(ch) A Member noted that any business developments were to be welcomed in the countryside. 

Resolved:          To approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:

1.     5 years

2.   In accordance with the plans

3.   Shed to be used in connection with the existing business only

4.   Finish

5.   Landscaping near the entrance in the next planting season.

Demolition of existing rear extension together with the erection of a part two storey and part single storey extension to the rear of the property, together with the provision of French doors and erect a new 1.8m fence by the right of way.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Lesley Day

Link to relevant background documents

Demolition of an existing rear extension and the erection of a part two-storey and part single-storey extension to the rear of the property, along with the provision of French doors and erection of new 1.8m fence near the right of way

(a)  The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the property was a three storey, end house in a row of seven listed dwellings (Grade II).  It was noted that the proposal was to demolish part of the existing two-storey rear section and re-build new sections and demolish the one storey building and re-erect a one storey extension in its place.   The Planning Committee visited the site in June.   It was noted that no internal adaptations formed part of the application and reference was made to the full details within the report before Committee.  Reference was made to late information received from the agent submitting a report by a structural engineer in order to justify the demolition work.

It was noted that the site was located within the development boundaries of the City of Bangor with an unclassified road running nearby and an access road to the back with a public right of way leading along the front of the terrace and along the side of the site. 

Based on the information in paragraphs 5.3 - 5.7, it was not considered that the extension was excessive in terms of size, or that it dominated any nearby property.  It was not considered that the new windows to the first floor of the extension would cause any overlooking of other properties and the slate roofs and materials to the external walls were acceptable.

Following a period of public consultation, several objections were received and a response was given to these within the report in paragraphs 5.12 - 5.14.

         It was considered that the principle of demolishing on the scale shown as part of the             application and then extend/re-build the rear extension was acceptable from the perspective         of local and national policies despite the disagreement in views from the statutory            consultees and officers and it was considered that it would be beneficial to receive            justification for the work and confirmation and clear reasons for demolishing sections of the             building.   

Attention was drawn to the fact that the agent had submitted a report from a structural engineer to justify the demolition work but it was not considered that the evidence gave sufficient explanation regarding the structural condition of the walls and why it was not possible to maintain them as they were.   Therefore, two sets of different types of information had been received from the agent - first dealing with sustainability and energy matters and the second in the form of a structural engineer's report, however, it was not clear from the report received if the walls were dangerous or merely not good enough to support the proposed extensions.  Therefore, the planning officers had not been totally convinced that the submitted information gave sufficient justification for demolition.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Demolition of existing rear extension together with the erection of a part two storey and part single storey extension to the rear of the property.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Lesley Day

Link to relevant background documents

Demolition of an existing rear extension and the erection of a part two-storey and part single-storey extension to the rear of the property

(a)  The Development Control Manager reported that the application before the committee was for the same site as the previous application in item 3. However, this time this was a listed building application for the partial demolition of an existing two-storey rear extension and the rear single-storey extension, along with the erection of a new single-storey extension on the same site and the erection of a fence along the side of the house.  It was noted that an appeal had been registered as no decision had been made regarding the listed building and therefore it was explained that the Planning Committee would not have the right to make a formal resolution as this would be made by the Planning Inspectorate.   However, it was explained that it would be necessary for the Planning Committee to give guidance to planning officers regarding what type of decision they would have taken if the application was before them and this was in order to deal with the appeal on behalf of the Council.   Following the receipt of the Committee's confirmation the planning officers would then provide an appeal statement to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Attention was drawn that the application details were similar to the previous application in item 3 and reference was made to the contents of the description and the full responses within the report before Committee.

It was added that the agent had submitted a late structural engineering report to the Planning Department. As a result of the concerns regarding the conclusions of the report and the lack of total clarity if it was possible to support or strengthen the walls without their demolition and if the report was based on the condition of the walls as they currently were or on the condition of the walls to support the new extension.

 Consequently, it was explained that the planning officers had not been convinced that the response fully alleviated the concerns noted in the report.   It was also intended to submit an engineering report to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the appeal information.

It was further noted that the principle could be acceptable but currently the required information was not acceptable in order to come to a conclusion that the whole proposal was acceptable.  

In order to enable officers to deal with the appeal the Committee was requested to confirm its stance on the application and authorise the officers to submit the appeal case on behalf of the Council.   It was recommended that the Committee delegated powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision and to deal with any information that came to hand during the appeal and confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend dismissing the appeal due to the lack of clear justification for the demolition work.   

(b)   The Local Member (not a member of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith

Link to relevant background documents

Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.   

(a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it was a retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay that was located on the northern wall of the harbour and linked to three locations which would allow the pontoon to be raised with the tide. It was noted that the site was part of the existing marina and the harbour wall was a Grade II listed structure. 

         Attention was drawn to the objections and the engineering report that stated that the installation of the pontoon was unlikely to have any detrimental effect from a harbour structural engineering standpoint.

Following the committee's resolution in September 2016, the objectors were given an opportunity to provide and submit their own engineering report and it did not appear from their report that the wall was in a poor state of repair nor was it under any threat from the pontoon.  In the report's conclusion it was suggested that a condition be imposed to monitor the wall regularly, as a fair mitigation measure. In addition, the opinion of Gwynedd Consultancy on the report was received and it was confirmed that it had been undertaken by a recognised company and the recommendations were fair. It was not considered that the contents of the new report by the objectors had submitted any new evidence and therefore the recommendation had not changed from the previous recommendations.

It was explained that the application was now subject of an appeal for a lack of decision and in order to enable officers to deal with the appeal the Committee was requested to confirm its stance on the application and authorise the officers to submit the appeal case on behalf of the Council.  It was recommended that the Committee delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application with a condition and a note to regularly monitor the condition of the wall. 

(b) On behalf of the area's residents, the Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and noted the following main points:

·         The importance that Committee members were aware of all the contents of the engineering report  

·         That several people opposed the application

·         The wall was over 100 years old and its condition was unknown

·         Although various reports had been submitted it was felt that no full survey of the wall had been undertaken

·         The area's residents did not object to all the pontoons, however, they objected to this type that was attached with brackets to the wall 

·         An e-mail had been received from the applicant's agent stating that he was willing to remove the pontoon during winter from 1 November to 1 March and in addition he was prepared to conduct  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith

Link to relevant background documents

Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.   

(a)   The Development Control Manager reported that the application before the committee was a retrospective listed building application to retain a pontoon within the quay and in the same way as the previous application in item 5, as this application was also subject to appeal due to the lack of decision, the committee was requested for the right for officers to act on the Council's behalf by confirming their stance regarding the application.   It was therefore recommended that the Committee delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application with a conditions and a note to regularly monitor the condition of the wall. 

(b)   The local member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) noted that the report was unclear regarding the safety of the wall and the need.  If the application were to be approved a note should be included that the applicant should regularly monitor the wall.

(c)   The planning officers’ recommendation was proposed and seconded.

Resolved:          To delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application in accordance with the plans submitted and a note to regularly monitor the condition of the wall. 

Erection of three detached two storey dwellings and associated developments.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elfed Williams

Link to relevant background documents

Construction of three two-storey detached dwellings and associated developments.         

(a)  The Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s background and noted that the application had been before the Planning Committee twice already and an inspection visit had been conducted.   It was explained that the proposal was to erect three two-storey dwellings on a brownfield site within the development boundary of Clwt y Bont. The application site had been used in the past mainly as a car park for the Post Office over the road (which was now closed).  It appeared that the site was created by means of materials being in-filled in the past to create a level platform approximately 60m x 30m with steep slopes falling from the land on three sides.

Reference was made to matters concerning amenities as seen in paragraphs 5.11 to 5.23 of the report where matters such as the visual impact, impact on privacy, concerns regarding unstable land and biodiversity issues were considered and the conclusion was that the proposed development was acceptable in terms of these matters subject to the conditions proposed in Section 7 of the report.

Bearing in mind that this was a brownfield site within the development boundary, it was noted that the principle of developing the site was supported by the Unitary Development Plan. However, Policy CH4 stated that it should be ensured that a proportion of all units proposed to be built within villages should be affordable units, unless it would be inappropriate to provide affordable housing on the site. There was a detailed reference to the matter in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.8 of the report.

Viability Calculations were provided with the application that indicated that the scheme would not be viable with an affordable element. It was noted that the Council's Property Unit had agreed that the building costs submitted were reasonable and the Joint Planning Policy Unit had used a standard methodology, they and other councils use, to assess the viability of proposed housing developments, and they agreed that the scheme would not be economically viable should it include an element of affordable housing.

Following the discussion at the previous Committee, the Policy Unit confirmed their calculations and they believed by considering the evidence before them, that it would not be reasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of a lack of affordable provision.   It was also important to bear in mind that, due to the restrictions of the site in relation to highways access, that it was not possible to develop the site to its full potential, the site was large enough to possibly include five or six units and then the affordable element would certainly become more viable.  However, considering the site's restrictions and the evidence before them, it was not deemed that there was justification to request that one of the houses should be affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.7

Application to convert former public conveniences to dwelling to include raising roof height and external alterations.

LOCAL MEMBER:   Councillor Gethin Glyn Williams

Link to relevant background documents

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 this was a proposal to convert unused former public toilets into a dwelling house   located in the centre of the coastal town of Barmouth with a primary school east of the site.   The school's playing field was at the rear and northern boundary of the application site.      West of the site was a pavement and an unclassified county highway, with the promenade and the beach across the road. This building was previously used as public toilets prior to their closure in 1997, and they were sold by the Council in July 2015.   There was a mixture of land use locally which comprises residential dwellings, hotels and a primary school.   It was noted that this site was located within the development boundary for the town of Barmouth and within the Mawddach Landscape of Historic Interest.   Several responses had been received to the consultation with the proposal satisfying the requirements of transportation, Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales.  Several objections were raised by the public including considerations such as the proximity of the building to the school playing field, lack of amenity land surrounding the building, the was building unsuitable for conversion and that the standard of the design was unacceptable together with other matters discussed in the report. There was also correspondence which welcomed the development as an improvement to the current untidy condition of the site.

It was emphasised that in terms of a planning decision it was important to bear in mind 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 Unitary Development Plan. Attention was drawn to policy CH11 of the Plan that specifically relates to proposals to convert buildings within the development boundaries for residential use. Consideration was given to the criteria of that policy and it was deemed that the proposal satisfied each of these criteria.  It was noted that policy C4 was supportive to the adaptation of buildings for appropriate new uses.

In terms of amenities, the site was detached, and of a sufficient distance from any other residential property so as not to have a direct impact on them.  In addition, it was considered that restoring and reusing the building would present an opportunity to tidy it up and prevent its further deterioration, thus, safeguarding and improving the quality and condition of the site and protecting the area's visual amenities in general.

It was noted that this was an application to re-develop a building within the development boundary for an appropriate use for the location and therefore it was recommended that the application be approved with conditions as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.8

Application for the erection of 2 dwellings.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Selwyn Griffiths

Link to relevant background documents

Application for the erection of two houses.

(a)    The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted the main elements regarding the application.   It was noted that this was a full application to erect 2 new dormer bungalows within a site that was previously used as a formal car park attached to a nearby shop and before that, as a garage. Attention was drawn to the detailed plans that indicated that both properties would have three bedrooms and the total floor area would be approximately 190m2 and 7m high to the apex.   Externally the walls would be finished with a pebble dash finish and natural slate roofs.

The site was within the village's development boundary and had already been developed with existing residential dwellings to the side and rear of the site. A public road runs past the front of the site with a road leading to an estate of residential houses past the side with a shop on the other side of this road.

The application was submitted to the Committee in light of receiving three or more correspondences that object to the recommendation. Reference was made to the concerns stated and noted within the report.

In the report it was seen that a full assessment had been made of all the relevant matters including compliance with policies as well as the objections received.  The proposal was not considered to be unacceptable and was suitable for the site; it was in keeping with the general elevations in the area and made good use of the existing empty site.  It was recommended to approve the application in accordance with the conditions noted.

(b) The local member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) stated that he had no objection to the proposal and he noted the following main points:

·         Reduction in traffic to the highway as the land was used in the past as a car park

·         Better use of land having been developed  

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

         Resolved:          To approve in accordance with the following conditions:

            1.         Time

            2.         Comply with plans

            3.         Materials / slate

            5.         Highways

            6.         Drainage

            7.         Finished floor level details

            8.         Party wall note

            9.         Opaque glass

          10.         Conduct a pollution investigation of the site.

 11.         Removal of rights to include additional windows

          12.         Protect the velux windows' setting on the rear roofs

Resubmission with amendments of applications C15/1033/44/LL, C16/0144/44/LL and C16/0313/44/LL for the erection of a 3 bedroom dwelling.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Selwyn Griffiths

Link to relevant background documents

Re-submission with amendments of applications refused under C15/1033/44/LL, C16/0144/44/LL and C16/0313/44/LL to erect a three bedroom property.

(a)  The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted that this was a re-submission of a full application that had been previously refused to erect a detached property with an integrated garage and new vehicular access.    An amended application was submitted that included three bedrooms. The application was amended by reducing the overall size of the proposed building as well as removing some of the features.  It was noted that the current plan indicated that the width of the building was 10.7m compared to 11.6m and 12.3m as refused previously, and the height was also reduced to 6.7m from the previous 6.9m and 7.6m. 

It was noted that the principle of erecting the house was acceptable as the site was within the development boundary of the village of Borth-y-gest and outline permission had been approved in the past to erect a new house.

Attention was drawn to the fact that consistent amendments had been made as a result of the previous refusals in response to the planning authority's concerns.

It was recognised that concerns had been highlighted regarding this application that were consistent with the objections submitted with the previous applications.  Full consideration has been given to all the relevant planning matters submitted.

It was believed that the proposal was now acceptable based on the amendments made and the reduction in the size of the proposed building and the site had already been considered suitable for residential development by the approval of an earlier application.

It was recommended that the application should be approved with the conditions as noted in the report.

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

·         That he objected the previous application due to the size of the house, however, because of the amendment to reduce its size, he was of the view that he could now not object

·         Whilst accepting that there were concerns locally regarding he quality of the land these concerns had been addressed in the report before them

·         The land behind the site was steep and prior to commencement of the development it had to be ensured that there would be no land slippage

·         It could not be refused as the development complied with the relevant policies

·         The member was glad to see that condition 9 (withdrawal of PD rights) had been included in the conditions to ensure that the site would not be extended having received planning permission

(c) Regarding safeguarding the land at the rear of the site, the Development Control Manager confirmed that it would be possible to impose a condition to draw the applicant's attention to the concern via building regulations 

         Resolved:          To approve in accordance with the following conditions:

            1.         Time

            2.         Compliance with plans

            3.         Materials / slate

            4.         To submit and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.10

Construction of a two-storey side extension and construction of front porch.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

Construction of a two-storey side extension and construction of front porch

(a)  The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the application was to erect a two-storey extension at the side of the existing house with a porch in the front to take the place of a flat roof extension and existing porch.  It was proposed to demolish these structures and erect a new extension to provide additional living space.  The roof of the extension would be set down from the ridge of the existing roof and would be finished with a natural slate roof.

It was noted that the site was outside the development boundary and in an open and prominent location on Nefyn beach and within the Heritage Coast and the Llŷn Historic Landscape. The property was connected to the Hendafarn property on the southern side which was a Grade II listed building. On the other side, the northern side, in very close proximity is Hafod y Môr dwelling.

Attention was drawn to the observations received during the consultation period in Section 4 of the report and it was noted that the statutory bodies were satisfied with the proposal although some consideration was given to biodiversity and flooding issues. Objections had been received from the public, such as:

·         The visual impact, especially on the listed building with the use of inappropriate materials such as UpVC windows 

·         Concern about access for carrying out maintenance to the gable-end of the adjacent Hafod y Môr property

Attention was drawn to the fact that the property in question had an interesting architectural character and that the main elevation had unique features. It was considered that the scale, size, form and density of the proposed extension were acceptable and in keeping with the existing property. Given that there was currently a flat roof extension on the site, it was not considered that erecting a two-storey extension in its place would significantly impact the views of the site that the public currently have nor was it likely to have a detrimental impact on the character of the designated landscapes.  

It was not clear from the application what was proposed as an external finish for the extension walls, however, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the site, it was deemed that a condition should be imposed to ensure an appropriate finish, such as a white render at this location.

In terms of the attached listed building, the extension would not adjoin the listed building or lead to the loss of important historical features. The proposed design would ensure that the extension appeared as subordinate to Glan y Môr, neither imposing on the property nor on the adjacent listed building.

In terms of the impact on the amenities of neighbours at Hafod y Môr, the new extension would more or less be constructed exactly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.11

Full application to erect 5 two storey residential properties and alterations to an existing vehicular access and roadway, provision of parking spaces and landscaping.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Eric M. Jones

Link to relevant background documents

Since the Chair had declared an interest in this application and in the absence of the          Vice-chair from the meeting, it was proposed and seconded that Councillor Gwen      Griffith should take the chair, and the Chair withdrew from the Chamber during the      discussion. 

Full application to erect 5 two-storey houses, along with the adaptation of the existing access and vehicular road, provision of parking spaces and landscaping.

(a)  The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and noted the main elements regarding the application.    It was explained that this was a full application to erect 5 two-storey houses, along with the adaptation of the existing access and estate road that had been submitted by Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd who provide housing in response to local demand for two bedroom houses.  

In terms of size, the houses would measure a total of 79m² per unit and laid out as two sets of semi-detached dwellings with one detached dwelling.  Formal gardens would be provided with parking spaces. Additionally, it was seen that part of the estate road and the existing access would be altered mainly by widening.  It was noted that separate parking spaces would be provided for the proposed houses on a section of the site for the existing residents of Y Garreg and their visitors. 

The application was submitted to committee as the number of houses proposed was greater than that which can be dealt with under the delegated procedure.  It was noted that this site was within the development boundary of the village of Groeslon and was on previously developed land.  Based on this alone it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle. It was recognised that concerns had been highlighted regarding this application and full consideration has been given to all the relevant planning matters submitted.

It was noted that this proposal was submitted on behalf of Cartefi Cymunedol Gwynedd to satisfy local need for housing.  Full consideration was given to all the relevant planning matters and the proposal was in compliance with the policy requirements and guidance.  It was recommended that the application should be approved with the conditions as noted.

(b)  The local member (who was a member of this Planning Committee), noted that he supported the application for the following reasons:

·         that houses already existed on the site and it was suitable for housing 

·         that there was a local demand for this type of housing

however, he expressed concern and asked if the sewerage system was suitable for an increase in use.

(c)  In response to the concern, the Development Control Manager noted that Welsh Water did not object the application and they suggested standard conditions and therefore it was accepted that there was sufficient capacity for any increase in use. 

(ch) In response to observations made by individual Members, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.12

Construction of a free-range poultry unit and associated works

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gweno Glyn

Link to relevant background documents

Construction of free-range poultry unit and associated works

(a)  The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of this application to construct a free-range poultry unit and associated works. The proposal would include erecting a shed with four feed storage areas and the creating an access track to connect the development with the existing farmyard. The shed would measure 135 metres long with a height to the ridge of 6.8 metres.  There would be six fans pushing up from the roof, approximately an additional metre. The shed would have a floor area of 2630 square metres for up to 32,000 egg-laying hens.  It was proposed for the external walls and roof of the shed to be box profile sheeting of a juniper green colour and the feed stores would measure approximately 3m in diameter and 6.8m high.      

It was noted that excavation and infilling work would take place in order to create a flat platform for the structure and a hard-standing would surround the unit.  It was proposed to plant trees on the eastern side as a screen.  It was intended to use the existing road access and a track will be created from the existing farm buildings towards the poultry unit site.  Attention was drawn to the other details regarding how the unit will operate in the first section of the report.

It was noted that the site was in the countryside and within the Landscape Conservation Area and the Registered Historic Landscape of Llŷn and Bardsey. The site is approximately 1km from the AONB. The unit would be located approximately 260 metres from the existing farm buildings of Crugeran and the nearest dwelling houses were approximately 350 metres away at Tre'r Ddôl.

Reference was made to the responses to the consultation in section 4 of the report and no objections had been received during the consultation period although the AONB Unit had expressed concern regarding the visual impact from areas of the AONB.  In addition, several correspondences in support of the scheme were received as it would be an economic boost to the local economy. 

It was noted that the development plan's policies supported erecting buildings for agricultural purposes if they were reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes. In this case the applicants were a family partnership who run Crugeran farm which was a 190 hectare farm focusing on beef, sheep and cereals.  It was proposed to diversify to free-range poultry and it was accepted that there was a valid agricultural purpose for the new development.   

The building would be detached and approximately 260 metres from the existing buildings on the holding.  This would contribute to the farm's biosecurity by separating the poultry element from the rest of the farm and the location is less visually prominent that closer sites on the existing farm. It was noted that the shed's design was of a general agricultural type but it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.13

Revised application - construction of outdoor pool, pool plant room and summer kitchen structure including pizza oven and bbq with mechanical extract, terraces, landscaping and boundary fence.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor R H Wyn Williams

Link to relevant background documents

Amended application - construct an outdoor swimming pool, swimming pool plant room together with a summer kitchen structure to include a pizza oven and barbecue with mechanical extractor, terraces, landscaping and boundary fence. 

(a)  The Development Control Manager expanded on the application's background and noted that a previous application had been refused and the amended application was to construct an outdoor swimming pool, swimming pool plant room together with a summer kitchen structure to include a pizza oven and barbecue and landscaping work at the rear of the garden.  It was noted that the site was on a corner plot with nearby dwelling houses and was within the development boundary of Abersoch.

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that stated that an amended plan had been received that indicated highway improvements to the Lôn Engan bend that had not been submitted originally with the application, in an attempt to improve road visibility for all road users and not only for this property. It was noted that the responses to the consultation were shown in the report and specific attention was drawn to the objections received.

It was noted that the garden was fairly extensive and it was considered that the size of the structure proposed was acceptable in terms of the size of the entire curtilage.   Likewise, it was confirmed that the size of the swimming pool was acceptable.   It was not considered that the proposal would cause any impact on the AONB as the developments would be sunken into the landscape.

The previous application had been refused due to concerns regarding the amenities of nearby houses, however, the amended application was considered an improvement and the concerns had been overcome.  Concerns had been received from neighbours regarding the location of the terrace, the swimming pool and the structure that were so close to them, however, as these were located along the boundary it would be difficult to refuse on the grounds of nearby residential amenities and reference was made to the full details in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8 of the report.    

It was considered that the objections had received full consideration and the concerns had been overcome and the application was in compliance with the relevant policies together with an additional condition by the Highways Department to ensure improved visibility.

(b)   The Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:

·         Following the receipt of the amended plan and the alterations to improve visibility and safety on the bend that some of the concerns had been overcome and it was trusted that this improvement would be undertaken soon 

·         It was asked if it was possible to ensure that the boundary fence was strong and in addition that a condition be imposed to restrict the use of music until 11.00p.m. to ensure the amenities of the nearest neighbours

(c)    In response, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.14