Agenda and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Councillors Louise Hughes, Anne Lloyd Jones Eric M. Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd and Cemlyn Williams.

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 members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted:

·        Councillor Dewi W. Roberts (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 6.1 and 6.3 on the agenda, (planning application numbers C18/0715/39/LL a C18/0865/39/LL);

·        Councillor Elin Walker Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 6.2 on the agenda, planning application number C18/0874/11/LL).

·        Councillor Elfed Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 6.4 on the agenda (planning application number C18/0640/18/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.

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 November 2018, be signed as a true record.

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

To submit the report of the Senior Property Manager.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts

The report of the Corporate Property Senior Manager was submitted in the context of issuing an Off-street Parking Order, for parking spaces near y Fach, Abersoch near the A499 main road. It was explained that over the years motorists had parked on the verge without any regulatory arrangements.

It was noted that in 2017, the Council had invested in a scheme that enabled people to park and cross the road in a safer and orderly manner and the scheme had been welcomed locally.  There was a need for regulatory arrangements to ensure that the space was not misused by motorists or caravan users for long periods and to promote a reasonable turnover during the day. It was noted that discussions had taken place with the local member and the Community Council and they supported the proposal, namely, to introduce pay and display arrangements during the holiday season only (March to October) and to prohibit use by caravans and motorhomes between 10pm and 8am.

It was noted that one objection had been received to this proposal during the public consultation. Reference was made to the summary of the matters noted by the objector together with the Council's response highlighting that increasing the safety of motorists and pedestrians was one of the main reasons for creating this new resource.

It was noted that this parking resource had been created in response to the aspirations of the local community and that the proposal had been advertised in accordance with the statutory requirements and had received overall support with only one objection to hand. It was recommended that the response to the individual points raised by the objector supports and justifies the intention to confirm the Parking Order.

The local member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), noted that he supported the Parking Order, and there had been some discussion locally on this issue and what was proposed in terms of pay and display arrangements during the holiday season only and the charge for parking were acceptable. He added that the Community Council had no objection to the proposal.

RESOLVED to approve issuing an Off-street Parking Order, y Fach, Abersoch.

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

Two storey dormer extension, dormer window and balcony to front and single storey front extension to existing garage and external alterations to the property.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts

Link to relevant background documents

Two-storey dormer extension, dormer window and balcony to the front and single-storey front extension to existing garage and external alterations to the property.

(a)      The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 15 October 2018, in order to undertake a site inspection visit. Some members had visited the site prior to the meeting.

It was noted that the applicant's agent had submitted further plans in response to the objectors' concerns regarding the design, overlooking and parking.  

It was noted that objections had been received expressing concern about the scale of the extension, however, it was not considered unreasonable in terms of size and scale and was not an over-development of the site as a reasonable amenity area was retained around the house. Given that the design of the existing house was different to the rest of the row and the fact that there were views of it in a built-up context amongst houses of various designs, it was considered that the appearance would not have a significant impact on the street-scene or on the landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Although the local member's concern and those of the objectors were acknowledged, it was considered that there were no grounds to refuse the proposal in terms of design and visual amenities.

She expanded and stated that objections had been received from two neighbours regarding overlooking, privacy, noise and loss of light. It was not considered that the proposal would significantly make the situation worse, due to the angle of the layout of the property the new front windows would not directly face Cae Du Farm.

It was noted that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design, visual and general amenities and transport, and complied with the requirements of relevant policies.

(b)     The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the following main points:-

·         He thanked the Committee for visiting the site;

·         There were many holiday homes on the estate with modifications made to houses in order to generate profit at the expense of the Welsh culture and language;

·         Parking concerns on the estate due to the number of visitors to one house;

·         Parties were held on the verandas with food and drink purchased beforehand. This would not benefit the local economy; 

·         There was no reference to privacy in the Joint Local Development Plan. The proposal would impact the privacy of the neighbours.

·         Reference was made to paragraph A29 of Policy PPS7 within the national addendum in terms of the distance between buildings in order to reduce overlooking and enable natural light in the buildings. Under paragraph A30 overlooking meant from a room into a neighbour's garden, namely the nearest 3-4 metres to the house.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Change of use of dwelling (use class C3) into a home in multiple occupation (use class C4).

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elin Walker Jones

Link to relevant background documents

Change of use of a house (C3 class use) to a house in multiple occupation (C4 class use).

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that Policy TAI 9 of the JLDP supports the principle of converting existing buildings into multiple occupation housing within the development boundaries subject to meeting four criteria:

1.    That the property was suitable for conversion - In considering the size of the building and its current residential use, it was deemed that there was no reason to believe that the building was not suitable to provide alternative living units to its existing use.

2.    The proportion of houses in multiple occupation in any electoral ward should not exceed the specific threshold for the ward - 10% was the current threshold for Glyder ward, with the current percentage of houses in multiple occupation in the ward being 6.2%. Only 2 out of 13 houses with the same postcode were houses in multiple occupation.

3.    There would be no detrimental impact on the residential amenities of nearby properties - It was considered that the impact on amenities from this development in itself would not be significantly different to what could occur under the current legal use and therefore, it was not considered that approving one multiple occupancy unit in the ward would have an additional significant harmful impact on the residential amenities of close neighbours.

4.    Ensure an appropriate parking provision for the development - The Transportation Unit had no concerns regarding the proposal. This development was not considered to be significant in terms of changing the density of the site's use.

It was noted that due to its location in an existing residential location, and that residential use of similar density was proposed here, it was not considered that this development would harm the amenities of neighbours or the area in general.

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

(b)     The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the following main points:-

·         That local residents and Bangor City Council councillors objected the proposal; 

·         That the houses in this area were family three-bedroom dwellings with a small garden and a parking space for one car.

·         Lack of parking space on the street; 

·         No need for a multiple occupation house, with 6.2% of housing in multiple occupation in the ward, adding to this number would be an over-development. 

·         That University accommodation was half empty;

·         Young people would create more waste compared to a family, there were already fly tipping issues in the area;  

·         There would be more nuisance to residents and there was already a fairly high percentage of lawbreaking in the area; 

·         The location map was misleading;

·         The Committee was requested to refuse the application in order to enable the house to be rented by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.2

Extension and alteration to house including raising roof level and installing a rear dormer window (revised plan).

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts

Link to relevant background documents

Extension and alterations to the house to include raising the roof level and installation of a rear dormer window (amended application).

(a)     The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that some Members had visited the site prior to this meeting. 

         She referred to the consultations and noted that the Community Council objected due to over-development, the AONB Unit were satisfied with the proposal and no comments/objections were received during the public consultation period. 

         It was explained that the main change to the property's front elevation, namely the most prominent elevation, would be an increase of 0.42m to the height of the roof and the introduction of roof-lights to the front roof in order to provide bedrooms in the roof space. She noted that the four bungalows were currently fairly uniform, however, considering the small scale of the increase in height, it was not considered that this would entail a detrimental or significant visual change in this built context and was not bad enough to be refused.

         It was noted that there was a hard standing area with space for two cars to park at the bottom of the front garden of the adjacent property and the estate road. She drew attention to the parking spaces that were also along the side of the estate road. The Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, therefore the proposal was considered acceptable in relation to road safety and parking policies.

         It was recommended that the proposal was acceptable for approval in terms of design, visual and general amenities, landscape and transport, and that it complied with the requirements of relevant local and national policies in accordance to what was stated in the report.

(b)     The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the following main points:-

·         That the proposal was an over-development of the site and there would be overlooking;

·         Houses in the area were used as holiday homes and caused disruption to other residents; 

·         Approval of the application would set a precedent in terms of raising the height of the roof;

·         Detrimental effect on the estate residents and the local area in terms of parking and litter;

·         That the Community Council objected the proposal;

·         House prices were going beyond the reach of local people.

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

·         That it was difficult to state that the proposal was an over-development of the site considering the extensive garden at the back;

·         The extension would be at a lower level than the house at the back of the site and there would be no unacceptable overlooking;

·         That Policy PCYFF 2 of the JLDP protects amenities, there would be no significant increase in the current impact;

·         Although concerns regarding litter were noted, this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.3

Change of use of former public house into holiday accomodation.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elfed W. Williams

Link to relevant background documents

Change of use of former public house into holiday accommodation.

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee held on 5 November 2018 for officers to consult on the business plan and consider this as part of the assessment.  

         It was explained that the application was to convert the derelict The Bull Inn public house in Deiniolen into self-serviced holiday accommodation with eight bedrooms. The development involved a considerable change to the internal layout of the building but there would not be a significant change to the external appearance.

         It was noted that the public house had been closed since 2016 and had been for sale for over a year (between July 2016 and October 2017) and advertised at a low price (£75,000). Should the public house business be viable, it was considered that it would be reasonable to expect that new managers for the business would have come forward during that period. It had to be borne in mind that another public house, namely "The Wellington", was within 20m of this building.

         It was highlighted that Policy TWR 2 of the JLDP supports the development of permanent holiday accommodation by converting existing buildings provided that proposals are of high quality. It was noted that there was justification to call the development one of high quality.

         It was noted that it was believed that the potential to cause detriment to amenities such as noise and disturbance was more likely from the authorised use, such as a public house, than there would be from self-serviced holiday accommodation as proposed here. 

         Attention was drawn to the fact that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal. In considering the authorised use of the building as a public house, it was not deemed that this development would be likely to cause substantially worse difficulties than the authorised situation. It was noted that the Transportation Unit stated that public parking was available in car parks and on the street within a reasonable distance to the facility.

         Reference was made to the business plan submitted by the applicant that explained that the intention was to convert the public house into high quality accommodation for up to 20 guests and stated that there were no similar facilities for large groups, and of this quality, available locally. Attention was drawn to the additional observations received from the Tourism, Marketing and Customer Care Service together with the Council's Rates Unit.

         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, the applicant’s representative noted the following main points:-

·         It was proposed to provide high quality accommodation for groups at a competitive price;

·         The proposal complied with the policies in the JLDP;

·         The change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.4