Venue: Meeting Room, Frondeg, Pwllheli, LL53 5RE.. View directions
Contact: Bethan Adams 01286 679020
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillors Endaf Cooke and Elwyn Edwards along with Councillor Brian Jones (Local Member). |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: (a) Councillor
Hefin Williams declared a personal interest in relation to item 5.1 on the
agenda (planning application number C17/0094/40/AM) because of business links. The following members declared a personal interest
in items 5.6 and 5.7 on the agenda, (planning application numbers
C17/0100/46/LL and C17/0112/42/LL) for the reasons noted: ·
Councillor Dyfrig Wynn Jones because his wife's
family kept a caravan park in Llangwnnadl; ·
Councillor Gruffydd Williams because his father
owned a caravan park located less than six miles from the site; ·
Councillor Owain Williams because he owned a
caravan park located less than six miles from the site. The members were of the opinion that they were
prejudicial interests and they left the Chamber during the discussion on the
applications noted above. (b) The
following members declared that they were local members in relation to the
items noted: ·
Councillor Anwen J. Davies (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in items 5.1, 5.3 and 5.10 on the agenda (planning
application numbers C17/0094/40/AM,
C17/0016/33/LL and C17/0156/33/LL); ·
Councillor W. Gareth Roberts, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in item 5.2 on the agenda, (planning application number
C16/1373/30/LL); ·
Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones (a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda, (planning
application number C17/0041/09/LL); ·
Councillors Dylan Fernley and Nigel W. Pickavance (not a member of this Planning
Committee), in item 5.5 on the agenda (planning application number
C17/0084/11/LL); ·
Councillor Simon Glyn (a member of this Planning
Committee) in relation to item 5.6 on the agenda (planning application number
C17/0100/46/LL); ·
Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.7 on the agenda (planning
application number C17/0112/42/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. |
|
URGENT ITEMS 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, 3 April 2017, be signed as a true record. Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 3 April 2017, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. 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 aspects of the policies. RESOLVED |
|
Application No. C17/0094/40/AM - Land by Bodelen, Siop yr Efail, Efailnewydd PDF 155 KB Outline application to construct an affordable dwelling. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J. Davies Link to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Outline application for the erection of an affordable house. (a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the
Committee meeting held on 3 April 2017 in order to hold a site visit. Some members had visited the site prior to
the meeting. Attention
was drawn to the fact that a letter had been received from the owner of an
adjacent house expressing strong concern about the impact of the proposal on an
adjacent property since publishing the agenda. Substantial
concern was expressed regarding the development, it was considered that the
proposal was an over-development of the narrow site and it was not considered
that the proposal was acceptable in respect of Policy B23 of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan (GUDP), because it would cause significant harm to the
amenities of the local neighbourhood, would be an over-development of a narrow
site and would reduce the amenity space of the two existing houses by using the
garden as a plot for the proposed house.
It was emphasised that that the applicant owned two of the nearby houses
did not overcome the concerns relating to the over-development of a small site. Attention was drawn to the fact that the previous application for the
same development had been refused under delegated rights. It was noted that the current proposal did
not mitigate substantial planning concerns regarding the proposal and it was
recommended to refuse the application. (b) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:- ·
That the site was within the development boundary
of the village; ·
The development would enable a local young person
to remain in their home area; ·
That the neighbours were in favour of the
development; ·
That planning applications for housing in gardens
of a similar size had been approved; ·
That the applicant was prepared to discuss the size
and height of the house with the Planning Service. In response to the local member’s observations, the
Planning Manager explained that although it was an outline application, the
applicant had to note a maximum and minimum in terms of measurements and it was
not possible to negotiate the measurements after outline permission was
granted. (c) It was proposed and
seconded to refuse the application. During the ensuing discussion, the
following main observations were noted by members: ·
That the proposal would lead to an
oppressive and harmful intrusion to the amenities of the residents of nearby
private properties. ·
Only one individual had objected to the
proposal; ·
The proposal should be welcomed,
housing was needed for local people with young people leaving the area; ·
That the applicant was prepared to
discuss the size and height of the house with the Planning Service. The application should be approved and then a
discussion held. (ch) An
amendment was proposed to defer the application in order to hold a further
discussion with the applicant in terms of the size and height of the house. The Planning ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Residential development of 5 affordable houses along with new vehicular access and estate road. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor W. Gareth Roberts Additional documents: Minutes: Residential development of five affordable
dwellings along with a new vehicular access and estate road. (a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the site in its entirety was located outside but immediately adjacent to the
development boundary of the village of Aberdaron. It
was noted that policy C1 of the GUDP stated that proposals for affordable
housing would be approved on suitable rural sites immediately on the boundaries
of villages and local centres as an exception to normal housing policies
provided that all criteria included in the policy could be complied with. It
was explained that the proposal complied with the criteria under this policy
because: ·
The information submitted in the Affordable Housing
Statement and the response of the Housing Strategic Unit confirmed that there
was a need in the area for affordable housing; ·
That the site formed a reasonable extension to the
built form of this part of the village of Aberdaron
and that it would not form an unacceptable extension to the countryside; ·
That the occupancy of the house would be restricted
as affordable housing by means of a 106 affordable housing agreement for
general local need. It was confirmed that the houses corresponded to
the requirements of the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing in
terms of size. It was reported that information had been received about the
open market price of the houses with the valuation noting that the price of the
houses would be between £230,000 and £250,000 on the open market. Considering
the valuations received and the observations of the Housing Strategic Unit, it
was considered that the discount off the value of the open market price of the
house should be at least 40%. It was noted that the Transportation Unit was
satisfied with the proposal provided that the application would be approved
with conditions relating to the access and parking. 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),
supported the application, and he noted that it was a reasonable extension to
the village and that local young people should be supported in their attempt to
obtain a home. (c) It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application. A
member noted that he welcomed the application but that he was concerned about
the affordability of the houses, it was not obvious
that the Housing Strategic Unit was completely satisfied with the proposal. He
was surprised as there was no mix of houses and was of the opinion that an
opportunity needed to be given to young people who needed a two or four bedroom
house. In
response, the Planning Manager noted that the Affordable Housing Statement
noted that the houses met the needs of five specific families. A member noted that he had been completely convinced that there was a local need and that the proposal addressed the needs of young couples who wished ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
Application No. C17/0016/33/LL - Tŷ Cynan, Rhydyclafdy, Pwllheli PDF 266 KB Creation of touring caravan site for 10 caravans including toilet / shower block, hardstanding and septic tank. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J. Davies Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Creation of touring caravan site for 10
units including a toilet / shower block, hard standings and a septic tank. (a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application,
noting that the application site was located outside the development boundary
of the village and over 60 metres away from the nearest residential houses. It
was noted that the proposal was not considered to be one that would cause
significant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood. Attention
was drawn to the fact that a letter had been received objecting to the proposal
since the agenda had been published. The
original proposal had included a proposal to connect the toilet's drains to a
new septic tank. However, an amended
plan had been received from the applicant showing a proposal to connect the
toilets to the public sewer running through the site. It was noted that the recommendation had been
amended; now it was recommended to delegate powers to the Planning Manager to
approve the application subject to reaching agreement on the exact method of
disposing of sewage. It
was noted that due to the scale and location of the application together with
the existing natural features it was not considered that the site was obtrusive
in the landscape, nor was it considered that it was likely to have a
significant harmful impact on the visual amenities of the Landscape Conservation
Area. The
development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for
the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points: ·
That a vast number of trees had been planted on the
site to improve screening; ·
That reducing the height of the hedge would improve
visibility from the entrance; ·
That the proposal would provide an additional
income to protect his family's home; ·
The proposal had been designed carefully in order
to reduce the impact on the community; ·
That there was local support to the proposal. (c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application. A
member noted that despite the fact that there was attention in the press in
relation to his views on touring caravan parks, he was not against the
application and the applicant had striven to conceal the site. RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior
Planning Manager to approve the application subject to reaching agreement on
the exact method of sewage disposal. Conditions: 1. Five years 2.
In accordance with submitted plans. 3. The number of units on the site at any one time to be restricted to 10. 4. Conditions on the timeframe for siting caravans/holiday period/moving the
caravans when not in use 5. No storing on the land 6. Records list 7. Landscaping 8. Improve access visibility before using the site. 9. Submit clawdd
construction details along the site's northern and eastern boundary and
implement it before using the site. |
|
Application No. C17/0041/09/LL - Land adjacent to Glan y Môr, Tywyn PDF 69 KB Erection of two terraces of nine dwellings (four dwellings to be for affordable local need). LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors Anne Lloyd Jones and Mike Stevens Additional documents: Minutes: The
discussion on this item was chaired by Councillor Michael Sol Owen. Erection
of two terraces of nine dwellings (four dwellings to be for affordable local
need). (a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of
the application, noting that the proposal was a residential development on a
site within the development boundary of Tywyn town
with some residential houses located on land adjacent to the site in every
direction. It was noted that there would be a reduction of 20%
in the price of the affordable housing to approximately £128,000 in comparison
to an open market price of approximately £160,000. Attention was drawn to the fact that the
application site was located within a flood zone but that there was concern
that the access to the site from Marine Parade could be affected by flooding.
It had been noted originally that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had substantial
concerns; however, following amendments to the contents of the Flood
Consequence Assessment, confirmation had been received that NRW was happy with
the amendments provided that conditions were imposed on any planning permission
noting that the escape route to the direction of Ffordd
Warwig (to the east) would be provided before the
development was occupied, and that the finished floor level of the development
was 7.1 metres Above Ordnance Datum. The development complied with the GUDP for the
reasons noted in the report. (b) The local member (who was not a member of
this Planning Committee) noted that she was satisfied with the
recommendations. (c) It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application. In
response to a member’s observation that the affordable housing was high
considering salaries in the Meirionnydd area, the Planning Manager noted that
the Housing Strategic Unit had confirmed that they were affordable. RESOLVED to delegate powers
to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to the
applicant completing a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Planning Act
1990 in order to ensure that four out of a total of nine houses are affordable
initially and in perpetuity. Conditions: 1.
Five years to commence the work. 2. In accordance with the submitted plans. 3.
Natural slate. 4.
External materials to be agreed 5.
Landscaping work, planting and improvements to biodiversity to be
completed within a specific time-schedule
6.
Relevant highway conditions. 7.
Removal of permitted development rights. 8.
The finished floor levels of the dwellings to be 7.1 metres Above
Ordnance Datum. 9.
Ensure that a footpath is provided to link the site with Warwick Place
and available prior to the occupation of the houses, the path should be kept
clear and unobstructed during the development's lifetime. 10. A condition to submit and agree upon site boundary details. 11.
No surface water is to be disposed of into the
public sewer. 12.
Not to disturb Welsh
Water resources crossing or nearby the application site. |
|
Application No. C17/0084/11/LL - Maesgeirchen Social Club, 90, Penrhyn Avenue, Bangor PDF 205 KB Demolition of existing social club building and erection of a three storey building with shop (including cafe, fascia signage and ATM) on ground floor and 10 one bedroomed flats above along with two storage containers (re-submission of application ref. C16/0157/11/LL) LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors Dylan Fernley and Nigel W.
Pickavance Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Demolition of existing social club building and erection of a
three-storey building with shop (including café, fascia signage and ATM) on
ground floor and 10 single bedroom flats on the floors above together with two
storage containers (re-submission of application C16/0157/11/LL) (a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted
that the site was located within the development boundary of the Sub-regional
Centre of Bangor. It was noted that policy CH38 of the GUDP involved
safeguarding existing community facilities. Whilst accepting that a community
facility had been lost from this site due to problems with the viability of the
previous business, the new building would be a community facility in itself,
and by providing a broader range of services, there was potential to ensure a
more certain future for the site. It was explained
that the policies of the Unitary Development Plan were supportive of the
principle of seeking to ensure positive developments on re-development sites
such as this one which was within urban development boundaries. It
was noted that the proposed building would be substantially higher than the
existing building, and indeed it would be higher than all of the other
buildings in the vicinity. Attention was drawn to the fact that there were many
three-storey buildings in other parts of Maesgeirchen,
including blocks of flats of similar size, and it was not considered that a
building such as this would be different in nature to other buildings in on the
estate. Although
local concerns about the proposal were appreciated, it was noted that the plan
had to be considered in the context of the site's urban location as well as its
previous use. It was not believed that the development would have an additional
significant detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents and
the development would therefore be in-keeping with Policies B23 and B33 of the
GUDP which aimed to protect the amenities of local residents. Attention
was drawn to the fact that the Housing Market Assessment submitted with the
application alleged that there was a lack of one-bedroom units for individuals
or couples who wished to take their first step on the property ladder in the
local housing market. It was noted that
the site in general was suitable for living units and these flats would meet
with the local demand in an affordable way.
The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the
following main points:- ·
That there was a need for accommodation and a shop
in Maesgeirchen; ·
That there was demand for one-bedroom accommodation
which was not being met; ·
That he had experience of developing such
properties. (c) Councillor Nigel Pickavance, local
member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application
and he made the following main points:- ·
That there was a high number of objections to the
proposal; ·
That it would be an over-development of the site; · That ... view the full minutes text for item 5.5 |
|
Application No. C17/0100/46/LL - Hirdre Ganol, Edern, Pwllheli PDF 250 KB Extend existing touring caravan site and increase number of touring caravans from 11 to 22. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Simon Glyn Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Extend existing touring caravan site and increase the number of touring
caravans from 11 to 22. (a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the application site was located in the countryside and within the
Landscape Conservation Area. Although
the site or parts of the site were visible from higher areas further away, it
was not considered that the proposal of extending the site in terms of its
surface area and numbers was likely to cause an obtrusive and prominent feature
in the landscape. Attention was drawn to the fact that the
site was located approximately 225 metres from the Llŷn
Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Cors Hirdre Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It was noted
that observations had been received from Natural Resources Wales about the
proposal and these observations considered that the development, because of its
nature, was unlikely to effect the features,
ecological integrity or the practicality of any statutory sites of ecological,
geological and/or geomorphological interest. The development was acceptable in terms of relevant
local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report. (b) The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) supported
the application and noted that the site was suitable for the number requested
and that the caravan site was being managed responsibly. RESOLVED to approve
the application. Conditions: 1. Commencement within five years. 2. In accordance with submitted
plans. 3. The number of touring units on the site at
any one time to be restricted to 22. 4. Restrict the season to between 1 March and
31 October. 5. Holiday use only. 6. A register to be kept. 7. No storing of touring caravans on the site. 8. Carry out the landscaping plan. |
|
Application No. C17/0112/42/LL - Gwynant, Lôn Cae Glas, Edern, Pwllheli PDF 153 KB Increase number of touring caravans from 25-35 and environmental improvements. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Increase number of touring caravans from 25 to 35
along with environmental improvements. (a) The Development Control Officer expanded on
the application’s background and noted that the site was located approximately
350 metres outside the development boundary of Edern
and within a Landscape Conservation Area. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received. It
was noted that due to the scale and location of the application together with
the existing natural features it was not considered that the site was obtrusive
in the landscape, nor was it considered that it was likely to have a
significant harmful impact on the visual amenities of the Landscape
Conservation Area. 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), supported the
application and she made the following main points:- ·
That the applicant made a living from the caravan
park; ·
That they had a stable customer base and a waiting
list for plots; ·
That the site was not visible; ·
That the Transportation Unit did not object to
increasing the number; there were a number of passing places along the road. (c) It was proposed and
seconded to approve the application. A member noted that he
did not object to the proposal but that he was concerned about the cumulative
impact on the area. A member noted that it
was essential to attract tourists to the area. A member added that the proposal
would increase local income. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1.
Commencement within five years. 2. In accordance with submitted
plans. 3. The number of touring units on the site at
any one time to be restricted to 35. 4. Restrict the season to between 1 March and
31 October. 5. Holiday use only. 6. A register to be kept. 7. No storing of touring caravans on the site. 8. Carry out the landscaping plan. |
|
Application No. C17/0116/08/LL - Gweithdai, Portmeirion, Penrhyndeudraeth PDF 165 KB Full application to erect a new services building to include stores, workshops, laundry room and offices as well as planting a new woodland on adjacent land. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Thomas Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Full application to erect a new services building
to include stores, workshops, laundry room and offices as well as planting a
new woodland on adjacent land. (a)
The Development Control Officer expanded on the
application’s background and noted that the site was within the boundary of the
Conservation Area and within an area designated as a Landscape Conservation
Area. Attention was drawn to the additional observations
that had been received. It was acknowledged that it was a substantially
sized building of an 'industrial' appearance within a sensitive area with
regard to designations and appearance. Nevertheless, it was believed that the
proposal would be an opportunity to neaten the site. It was noted that the
final exterior elevations were to be agreed by means of a formal condition. It
was not believed that the building due to its size, design and finish would
impact upon the features or character of the protected areas. It was noted that the proposed development involves
felling some existing trees within the site, observations received from the
Biodiversity Unit stated that any felling should take place outside the bird
nesting season, and when the site was completed it should not be lit to any
extent that would affect an ancient woodland. It was suggested that relevant conditions
should be included to ensure that the above requirements were satisfied. It was reported that discussions had been held
between the Biodiversity Unit's Senior Officer and the applicant to agree on
appropriate mitigation measures for the loss of trees on the site. It was noted
that the applicant had proposed to plant a woodland of indigenous species on
nearby land and further landscaping details would be provided in order to agree
upon other areas for tree planting. The development was acceptable in terms of relevant
local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
an objector noted the following main points:- ·
That he had submitted photographs to the Planning
Service; ·
That he was the owner of quality self-catering
accommodation with the garden looking directly towards the biomass building; ·
That he did not object to the proposal in principle
but local and national policies also supported accommodation; ·
The need for the applicant to submit a detailed
tree planting plan; ·
The need to undertake a visual impact assessment. (c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s
representative noted the following main points:- ·
That the development was key to the sustainability
of Portmeirion; ·
That the proposal would improve the resources; ·
Prepared to collaborate with the officers. (ch) In response to the objector's observations,
the Planning Manager noted: ·
That the Service had received photographs from him
which showed the relationship between his property and the site. It was not
considered that the impact would be unacceptable. ·
That a Senior Officer from the Biodiversity Unit
had been holding discussions with the applicant and imposing a landscape
condition was recommended. · Of the opinion that a visual impact assessment was not required ... view the full minutes text for item 5.8 |
|
Application No. C17/0144/23/LL - Land to the rear of 1 Tai Trefor, Ceunant, Llanrug PDF 158 KB Erection of an agricultural shed. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Brian Jones Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Erection of agricultural shed. (a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the objections received mainly referred to the site's existing use, the size
and location of the shed in relation to nearby property, and the impact of
transport generated by the user on the condition of the private road leading to
the site as well as the rear of the nearby terrace of houses. It
was noted that the shed's design was simple and of the type expected for an
agricultural shed and that this type of building was a normal feature seen in a
rural area; therefore, it was not considered that the shed would stand out
prominently in the broader landscape. It
was acknowledged that the shed would be entirely visible from the rear of the
nearby houses and the gardens, but because the gable end of the shed would face
the houses, and because of the distance between them, the impact was not deemed
to be oppressive or substantially detrimental to the residential amenities. It
was highlighted that the land's use as part of an agricultural unit existed
already. It was acknowledged that
agricultural activities were likely to generate impacts but this impact already
existed whether a shed existed on the site or not. It was reported that during
a site visit, it had been clear that the unit did not have a suitable place to
store machinery and equipment and this, in itself, created a negative visual
impact. It was considered that approving a suitable storage shed to be
constructed on the site would be a means of improving the site by keeping the
equipment inside the shed. It was not considered that the shed would increase
the impact on nearby residents as the shed would not lead to an increase in
agricultural use of the site. The shed responded to existing use and needs. Concerns
raised by objectors about the housing of livestock in the shed were
acknowledged, but this proposal was for a shed to store equipment, machinery
and feed only. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received. It was noted that the development was suitable and
acceptable for the site and that it complied with the local and national
policies and guidelines noted in the report. (a)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:- ·
That the applicant did not have a farmhouse or
ancillary buildings to store equipment. That this restricted the applicant's
ability to develop the farm; ·
That the applicant acknowledged the concerns of the
objectors but that the proposal would be an improvement as it would neaten the
site; ·
The applicant's intention to improve the access
track. (c) It was
proposed and seconded to approve the application. During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members: · Questioned the need to impose a condition to prevent the storage of manure and slurry within the building considering that storing these outside breached ... view the full minutes text for item 5.9 |
|
Application No. C17/0156/33/LL - Land by Bryn Hyfryd, Rhydyclafdy, Pwllheli PDF 275 KB Construction of a portal frame building to relocate a vehicle repair business along with improved access, external hardstanding, drainage and landscaping. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J. Davies Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Construction of a portal frame building to relocate
a vehicle repairs business and improvements to the access, exterior
hard-standing, drainage and landscaping (a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that policy D7 of the GUDP stated that
proposals would be approved for small scale workshops/industrial units/business
units if it can be shown that the development site was the most suitable
location to supply the need and provided that the criteria in the policy were
complied with. It was noted that the development in terms of its size was
considered as a small-scale development. It was also requested that the site
was justified as the most suitable to meet the need. It was reported that the applicant had
submitted information on a number of sites that he has considered and that were
unsuitable or unavailable for various reasons.
From the information submitted, it appeared that an effort had been made
to seek an alternative site, including sites on or near existing industrial
sites, and no suitable alternative site was available. It
was explained that the proposal complied with the criteria under this policy
because: ·
The site was located exactly adjacent to the
development boundary of the village. Although there would be some distance
between the nearest building towards the east, it was considered that the
proposal would be located comparatively close to the buildings in the village
and when the houses with extant planning permission on the southern side of the
county road would be constructed, the proposal would appear as if it was
located within a group of buildings. ·
That the scale of the proposal was acceptable for
the site; ·
That the proposed landscaping would compensate
against the loss of the existing clawdd in order to create a suitable access. As part of the
landscaping details, it would also be possible to request a long-term
landscaping management plan; ·
It was not considered that the proposal would cause
significant harm to the local neighbourhood in terms of its scale, type and
design. Attention was drawn to the fact that the site lies
within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of
Outstanding Historic Interest. In terms of its location and its size, it was
considered that its impact would be local and it would not have a wider impact
on the historic landscape. It was noted that the development was suitable and
acceptable for the site and that it complied with the local and national
policies and guidelines noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent
noted the following main points:- ·
That the survey of potential sites for the
relocation of the business highlighted the lack of suitable sites, except for
the site in question; ·
Extending the village's 30mph speed restriction
beyond the site would improve road safety; ·
The proposal would safeguard a business that
employed three full-time and four part-time members of staff; ·
The proposal would safeguard an important service
in the countryside; · That the proposal complied with ... view the full minutes text for item 5.10 |
|
Change of use of land for the creation of a touring caravan site and extension of existing building to create toilet facilities and erection of building for the disposal of waste. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Annwen Daniels Additional documents: Minutes: A retrospective application to change the land use
to create a touring caravan site and to extend the existing building to create
toilets and to erect a building to dispose of waste. (a) The Development Control Officer elaborated
on the background of the application, and noted that the site was located
within the development boundary of Blaenau Ffestiniog.
The site was empty land behind Gwynedd Terrace, and there were a number of
houses dispersed around the site. It
was reported that work had already commenced on the site and the majority of
the formal pitches were in place, and the vegetation had been planted. During
the site visits, a touring caravan and a motor-home were located on the site.
The applicant was aware of the planning situation, and the Enforcement Unit had
already been discussing the matter with him. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received. It
was noted that the Caravans Officers had confirmed that the site setting did
not meet the licensing conditions (Model Standards 1983) in terms of site
density. It was considered that the layout of the site was not suitable for its
proposed use as a touring site.
Attention was drawn to the fact that no open spaces had been planned
into the site, and although there were open spaces immediately nearby, there
was no space for children to play within the safety of the site itself. It
was noted that the site was located off Ffordd Baltic
(unclassified road) and that the access to this road was approximately 80m away
from the junction of Ffordd Baltic with the A470
trunk road. This was the most direct route into and out of the site. A new
access had already been created to this site from Ffordd
Baltic. There was no specific objection to this access alone. The Transport
Unit had confirmed that the road network from this access to the right towards
the A470 or to the left towards Glanypwll Road was of
sufficient width to cope with general two-way traffic, but it was not
considered that the junction on either side of Ffordd
Baltic (i.e. junction with the A470 or the junction with Glanypwll
Road) was suitable for the type of expected traffic in relation to a touring
caravan site. In addition, the Trunk Road Unit had confirmed that the use of
the Ffordd Baltic junction to the A470 would be
unacceptable. It
was reported that the Enforcement Case Officer and the Transport Unit had
stated clearly that the site access off Ffordd Baltic
was unacceptable should an application be submitted for the site. They had
already suggested that possibly the use of the existing access past the
applicant's property known as Tŷ'n y Coed could be acceptable. This access did not form a part
of the application, and it had not been assessed by the Trunk Road Unit. It was noted that the development was considered unsuitable for the site and that it was contrary to the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.11 |