Venue: Siambr Dafydd Orwig, Council Offices, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, LL55 1SH. View directions
Contact: Lowri Haf Evans 01286 679878
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillors Endaf Cooke, Elwyn Edwards, Dilwyn Lloyd (substitute), Hefin Williams, Gruffydd Williams and Councillors Ann Williams and Llywarch B Jones (Local Members). |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Additional documents: Minutes: (a) The following members declared a
personal interest for the reasons noted: ·
Councillor June Marshall in item 5 on the agenda, (planning application
C13/0412/13/AM) as she knew the applicant. ·
Councillor Gwen Griffith, in item 5 on the agenda
(planning application C13/0412/13/AM) as her son lived close by and walked the
public footpath through the site to the nearby primary school. ·
Councillor Owain Williams in item 5 on the agenda (planning application
C15/0034/37/LL) as he was the owner of a caravan park that was located less
than six miles from the site. ·
Councillor Anne Lloyd-Jones in item 5 on the agenda, (planning application
C15/0337/11/AM), as she was a member of the Board of Cartrefi Cymunedol
Gwynedd. ·
Councillor Michael Sol Owen, in item 5 on the agenda, (planning
application C15/0337/11/AM), as he was a member of the Board of Cartrefi
Cymunedol Gwynedd. ·
Councillor John Wyn Williams, in item 5 on the agenda, (planning
application C15/0337/11/AM), as he was a member of the Board of Cartrefi
Cymunedol Gwynedd. The following officer declared a personal interest for the reasons noted: ·
Medi Emlyn Davies (Development Control Officer) in item 5 on the agenda
(planning application C14/0984/44/HD) as she was a shareholder. The Members and the officer
were of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests, and they withdrew
from the Chamber during the discussion on the applications noted. (b) The following members declared
that they were local members in relation to the items noted: ·
Councillor Elin Walker Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in
relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application number C13/0412/13/AM). ·
Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee) in
relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application number C13/0611/18/AM); ·
Councillor P Jason Humphreys (not a member of this Planning Committee) in
relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application C14/0984/44/HD); ·
Councillor Aled Evans (not a member of this Planning Committee) in
relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application C15/0421/41/LL); ·
Councillor Siân Gwenllïan (not a member of this Planning Committee) in
relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application C15/0435/20/LL –
C15/0603/20/CR). |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. Additional documents: |
|
The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the last meeting of this committee, held on, 27 July, 2015, be signed as a true record. (copy enclosed) Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of
this committee that took place on 27 July 2015, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. (copy enclosed) Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
considered the following applications for development. Details of the applications
were expanded upon and questions were answered in relation to the plans and
aspects of the policies. |
|
Application no. C13/0412/13/AM - Land Maes Coetmor, Bethesda PDF 1 MB Outline application for the erection of 69 dwellings including 20 affordable units. Local Member: Councillor Ann Williams Additional documents: Minutes: An outline application to
erect 69 dwellings, including 20 affordable units (a)
The Development Control Manager expanded on the application's background
and noted that this was an outline application for planning permission (with
all details reserved) to erect 69 new residential units on agricultural land in
the village of Bethesda. The application was submitted to the Planning
Committee in June 2015, where it was deferred in order to receive further
information regarding bats, trees and the loss of important habitat. It was noted that a Tree Preservation Order had been
attached to a tree on the site since 31.8.15 and that the application’s agent
had now submitted assessments on trees and bats and these had been assessed. In terms of the principle of
the development, it was noted that the site was designated in the UDP for
housing and the proposal would respond to the demand for housing in the area. A reference was
made to an appeal resolution on a nearby site where a residential development
had been refused on the Gray Garage site by the Council in 2014. An appeal was
conducted as a result of this refusal and the Inspector stated in his appeal
decision that the development was required in order to satisfy the need for
housing as current targets were not being met. Reference was also made to the
objections to the application with the majority concerning the Welsh Language
and the claim that this development if approved would have a detrimental impact
on the language in Bethesda / Dyffryn Ogwen. In response, one of the conclusions of the
Housing and Language Study, which was conducted jointly with the Isle of
Anglesey County Council and the Snowdonia National Park Authority, was that
promoting the right mix of housing units in the right locations could
contribute towards sustaining or strengthening Welsh-speaking communities.
The information reiterated information about the
relative strength of the language in the Ogwen ward and it referred to the
existing social infrastructure, the support from the Language Initiative, the
schools’ language policy and additional measures that could be put in place.
Together this could contribute to the aim of
maintaining and strengthening the language in Bethesda and the local area. Although the Joint Planning
Policy Unit had referred to some deficiencies on the Language Statement
submitted by the applicant, it was considered that in essence it was acceptable
and therefore the application was acceptable and satisfied the requirements of
Strategic Policy 1 and the requirements of policies A1, A2 and A3 in terms of
linguistic matters. In the context of traffic and
flooding, there were no objections to the proposal. It was stressed that there was an amendment to the recommendation in the report as the assessments for trees and bats had been received after the report had been prepared. Having assessed the assessments the proposal was considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that a lack of acceptable information had been submitted in relation to the ability to thoroughly assess the impact ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Application no. C13/0611/18/AM - Rhiwgoch, Clwt-y-bont, Caernarfon PDF 697 KB Residential development of 17 dwellings (including 2 affordable units) together with a new access. Local Member: Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: A residential development of
17 houses (including two affordable units), along with a new access. (a)
The Senior Planning and Environment Officer expanded on the application’s
background and noted that the cooling-off application had been reported to the
Planning Committee on 27.07.15 with the officers’ recommendation to approve the
proposal as the applicant had submitted information responding to the concerns
of the Planning Committee based on overdevelopment
and a lack of play area provision following the application's submission to
Committee back in March 2015. However,
the Committee decided to defer the decision on the application in order to
confirm that the Linguistic and Community Statement had been received and
assessed appropriately by the Joint Planning Policy Unit. The Joint Planning Policy Unit confirmed that the
Statement had been received and assessed appropriately by the Unit and this had
been included as part of the report submitted originally to the Planning
Committee on 02.03.15. It was noted that this was an
outline application to build 17 two-storey houses including two affordable
houses on a site south-west of Deiniolen/Clwt-y-bont on a plot of brownfield
land included within the village development boundary. The proposal
also included the creation of a vehicular opening to the adjacent class III
county highway. It was explained that a
previous application for 17 houses (including two affordable houses) was
approved in July, 2010 with a Section 106 agreement to bind two of the 17
houses as affordable homes. However, no reserved details application was submitted
within the statutory period and the permission had now lapsed.
The Senior Manager expanded on
the possible risks to the Council if the application was refused (listed
clearly in the report) together with the two options that the Committee had. 1. Refuse the application on the grounds of over-development of the site in terms of building density. Refusing the application for 17 houses on this site (which corresponded to a building density of 24 houses per hectare in comparison with the density of 30 units per hectare which had been suggested both nationally and in the Unitary Development Plan) on the grounds of over-development would be very hard to justify, especially given that the site was located within the development boundary, on previously developed land, which had already received planning permission in 2010 for 17 houses. Refusing for this reason would pose a significant risk for ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Application no. C14/0984/44/HD - Coliseum Cinema, Stryd Fawr, Porthmadog PDF 898 KB Prior notification of demolition. Local Member: Councillor Jason Humphreys Additional documents: Minutes: Prior
Notice of Demolition (a)
The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s
background and noted that this was an application for prior approval to
demolish the former cinema and to clear the site. It appeared from the information received
that it was not viable to retain the existing building. The building was currently in a relatively poor state
of repair and the applicant was eager to demolish the building and clear the
site before its condition deteriorated with the intention of redeveloping the
site for commercial purposes. In terms of evidence, there
was no reason to refuse the application regarding the demolition method,
however, consideration had to be given to, as well as receiving further
information regarding how exactly this will be implemented. It was
explained that the demolition of such a building constituted a 'development'
therefore such plans fell under planning regulation. However; demolition was permitted under Section 31,
Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Order (Permitted General
Development) 1995 (as amended). This
meant that formal planning permission was not required to demolish buildings if
the developer was in compliance with the requirements of Section 31. The
criteria required the applicant to issue a prior notice to the Local Planning
Authority to determine if prior permission was required by the Authority for
the demolition method and any restoration work proposed on the site. Consequently,
the only considerations to be addressed here were the demolition method and the
restoration work. It was noted that a bats
assessment had been received and neither the Council’s Biodiversity Team nor
Natural Resources Wales had any objections to the proposal provided the
demolition work was completed in accordance with the recommendations of the bat
report. Therefore, it was considered that the application complied with policy
B20. It was added that the proposal was
not contrary to any relevant policy and was unlikely to cause a detrimental
impact on the local area’s amenities or on nearby houses, road safety or
protected species. Therefore, having
received additional information on how exactly the demolition and restoration
work would be implemented, the proposal was deemed to be acceptable for
approval. (b)
The following main points were made by the local member (not a member of
this Planning Committee):- ·
Dwyfor District Council refused an application from the residents of
Porthmadog in 1984 to support/assist in maintaining a cinema in the town. Objection to
this application continued to be a sensitive issue to some of the town’s
residents. ·
That the Coliseum had been a large part of the Porthmadog community. ·
Many attempts had been made to retain the Coliseum and many volunteers had
given their time to try and restore the building. ·
Friends of the Coliseum were established in 2011; however, they had not
managed to secure the Coliseum’s future. ·
There was sufficient evidence of the community’s efforts to save the
Coliseum. ·
Request for support from Gwynedd Council to the arts would be discussed/take
place in the future. Proposed and seconded, with sadness, to approve the ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
Application no. C15/0034/37/LL - Parc Elernion Caravan Park, Trefor PDF 868 KB Conversion of existing toilet block into holiday accommodation unit, the erection of a new toilet block building, the siting of two additional static caravans, the siting of 5 touring caravans, associated parking area and landscaping. Local Member: Councillor Llywarch Bowen Jones Additional documents: Minutes: Conversion of existing
toilet block into a holiday accommodation unit, erection of a new toilet block,
siting of two static caravans, siting of five touring caravans, associated
parking area and landscaping. (a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the application’s background
and noted that there were several elements to the application that included: ·
Conversion of existing toilet block into self-contained holiday
accommodation ·
Building a toilet block /new facilities ·
Siting of one new static caravan ·
Siting five touring caravans (in place of five caravans with exemption
certificates) ·
Landscaping work including planting trees and creating hard standing areas
for parking It was added that the site was
in a hidden area from nearby roads but was visible from higher ground within
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. It was
explained that mature trees bordered the site on three sides, with an
agricultural field on the other side. Public
footpath number 9 Llanaelhaearn crossed the northern part of the site. A discussion on this application
was deferred at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 06/07/15 at the
request of the applicants in order to amend the plan to include one static
caravan, rather than two. In terms of the principle of
the development, it was noted that Strategic Policy 17 in the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan supported proposals to develop or improve the variety and
quality of tourist facilities and attractions provided they did not
significantly harm the environment, the area’s cultural characteristics or the
amenities of nearby residents. In addition, Policy D17 GUDP supported proposals to
upgrade static holiday caravan sites if they conformed to a series of relevant
criteria. It was noted that the
application offered improvements to the quality and facilities of the site and
the increase in the number of static units proposed was acceptable in terms of
the relevant policies and the SPG. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s
agent noted the following main points:- ·
That the principle of the development was acceptable ·
The application conformed with policies 17, D17 and 18
that refer to improving variety and provision for tourism ·
That the application offered significant improvements –
landscaping and appropriate screening to improve the visual element from higher
ground and public footpaths. ·
Extended the choice /type of accommodation by protecting
the building’s character ·
Improved the provision in terms of toilets on the site ·
The improvements did not have a detrimental impact or
visual impact on amenities Proposed and seconded – to approve the application. RESOLVED to approve with conditions: 1.
Five years 2.
In accordance with the plans 3.
Materials for the buildings 4.
Biodiversity conditions 5.
Landscaping conditions 6.
Touring caravans’ standard
holiday season 7. The unit will need to be taken from the site out of season 8. Holiday use only
– static and touring caravans. 9. Must maintain a
register of users Notes for information: Public Footpath Number 9 – Llanaelhaearn must be safeguarded Observations of the Flood Risk Management Unit Observations of Natural Resources Wales ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|
Application no. C15/0337/11/AM - Plas Llwyd, Stryd Fawr, Bangor PDF 802 KB Outline application for the demolition of the existing building together with the erection of a new building containing a total of 9 flats (6 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 2 bedroom). Local Member: Councillor Jean Forsyth Additional documents: Minutes: The discussion on the above
application was chaired by Councillor Gwen Griffiths. Outline application for the
demolition of the existing building together with the erection of a new
building containing a total of nine flats (6 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 2 bedroom). (a)
The Development Control Manager expanded on the application’s background
and noted that the proposal entailed the demolition of the existing building,
together with the erection of a new building in its place to provide nine flats
within the building. The proposal also provided five parking spaces within
the curtilage of the building, together with bin storage and two clothes lines.
In the application form it was noted that
access, appearance, landscaping work, plan and scale formed part of this
outline application and the proposed building was approximately the same height
as the existing. As the proposal provided nine
new living units, a percentage of the units must be considered for affordable
need. The general percentage was 30%, equivalent to three units in this case;
the Strategic Housing Unit agreed that there was a need for affordable units
and had agreed on the number and to offer a discount of 20% to ensure that they
were affordable. This was based on the
fact that the rent prices included in the Affordable Housing Statement were
higher than what the Strategic Housing Unit considered to be affordable.
The need for further information was noted
regarding imposing a section 106 condition as the Planning Authority had not
recently been asking CCG to complete a section 106 for new housing developments
as this duplicated their lettings policy. It was considered that the
proposal complied with all relevant policies in the Unitary Development Plan
and relevant national advice and that the proposal was not likely to cause
significant detrimental effect on the amenities of the local area or on any
neighbouring property. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application in
accordance with the recommendation to delegate the right to the Senior Planning
Manager to approve the application, subject to ensuring arrangements regarding
providing affordable housing and to relevant conditions. (b)
During the discussion, the following main observations were made: ·
Would the flats be provided for persons on the housing list? ·
Need assurance regarding who was the site’s owner ·
If the site was released it had to be ensured that a 106 condition was
included ·
That it was not necessary to consider who the applicant was ·
It had to be ensured that the flats were for local people ·
A request to defer in order to receive further information (c)
In response to the above observations, the Solicitor noted:- ·
It was an application for a housing development and for the Committee to
delegate the right, subject to the completion of a 106 agreement, and if
further information came to hand that CCG was the developer then the condition
would have to be re-considered. · The link between CCG and Gwynedd Council was not relevant here. Considering who the applicant was was not ... view the full minutes text for item 10. |
|
Application no. C15/0421/41/LL - Llety Plu, Llangybi, Pwllheli PDF 623 KB Extension to existing garage (amendment to plan refused under planning application No. C15/0012/41/LL). Local Member: Councillor Aled Ll. Evans Additional documents: Minutes: Extension to existing garage (a revised plan to that refused under
application no. C15/0012/41/LL) (a) The
Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s background and noted
that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee dated 6 July
2015, at the request of the Local Member. It was
noted that it was an application for the extension of an existing garage at
Llety Plu, Llangybi. The existing single
garage measured approximately 6.3m long and approximately 5.1m wide (32m²) and
was located in the corner of the property’s curtilage. The Design and Access Statement elaborated that the
reason for the extension would be to provide more room to store equipment and
machinery which was part of the owner’s collecting hobby. Planning permission had already been granted to extend
the garage, namely application C13/0162/41/LL, which also included extending
the curtilage of the site. The curtilage
had already been extended but work had not commenced on the extension. The proposed extension was different in the sense that
it was wider than the existing garage in the direction of the public footpath.
It was
noted that this application was a re-submission of application C15/0012/41/LL
for an additional extension which was slightly larger than the current
application and requesting an additional floor area of 32m² (which would have
meant a total floor area of 94m² for the whole garage). This application was refused in January this year for
three reasons: Over-development of the
site; Detrimental to the Conservation Area; Impact on Public Footpath No.
9 Llanystumdwy. Attention was drawn to Policy B24 of the Unitary Development Plan that
recommended approving the extension of buildings within development boundaries,
rural villages and the countryside but only if the proposal met the two
following criteria: ·
That the design and scale were in keeping with the main building and the
local area, ·
That the extension would not lead to an unacceptable reduction in amenity
space within the curtilage of the house. Whilst
it was realised that permission had already been granted for an extension to the
garage, there was significant concern about the size and scale of the proposed
extension bearing in mind that this was an ancillary building. The proposed extension to the garage was considered to
be an over-development in terms of scale, size and form compared to the main
building and was likely to have an impact on the setting of the conservation
area and was also contrary to policies B4, B22 and B24 of the GUDP. (a)
The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the
following main points:- ·
That describing the development as an 'alien’ ‘over-development’ was
rather going overboard ·
The area of the dwelling was sufficient to accommodate the size of the
extension to the garage ·
That no objection had been received from neighbours ·
The curtilage had already been extended ·
The purpose of the building was to provide more room for the applicant to
store equipment and old machinery. · Disagreed with the impact on visual amenities – the ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
Application no. C15/0435/20/LL - Bron Menai, Helen Terrace, Y Felinheli PDF 670 KB Change of use of 3 bedroom dwelling into two 2 bedroom flats including the demolition of garage and provision of 3 car parking spaces and the retention of planning permission C08A/0420/20/LL for the erection of an additional dwelling on the site. Local Member: Councillor Sian Gwenllian Additional documents: Minutes: Application to change the use
of a three bedroom house to two 2 bedroom flats, together with demolishing a
garage and creating three parking spaces and retaining planning application no. C08A/0420/20/LL
for the construction of an additional house on the site (a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that it was complex: it was a full application to change the use
of a three bedroom house into two 2-bedroom flats along with demolishing an
existing garage and creating three additional parking spaces. In addition, and within the same site, it was proposed
to construct an additional house which was approved under reference no. C08A/0420/20/LL. It was noted that all the application’s historical details had been
included in the report. To all intents and
purposes the proposal entailed developing a combination of the permissions
already granted to enable the conversion of the existing property into two
2-bedroom flats and in order to develop a new three-bedroom house and
associated parking for the three units all within the same site. It was also considered that the proposal conformed to
the requirements of policies B22, B24 and B25 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan. It was noted that objections
had been received on the grounds of impact on privacy and light because of the
proposal to construct a new two-storey house on the site. It was noted that these issues were discussed in the
appeal decision and it stated that the character of the area, including the
buildings that were close to each other in the form of terraces had been
intermingled more recently with properties of various styles, sizes and plans
and there was a substantial variety in the spatial arrangement of the buildings
and the space surrounding them. Bearing
in mind all the relevant issues, local and national policies, observations
received on the application including the objection, it was considered that
this proposal would not be unacceptable and as a result would satisfy policy
requirements. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the
following main points:- ·
Considering the application’s history and background, the development had
already been granted ·
The size of the unmodified development and was therefore totally suitable ·
It did not impact on the house opposite and therefore was not an
over-development ·
There was no impact on visual amenities ·
Parking requirements continued to be the same although the parking area
would be re-located within the site ·
Application to approve based on the recommendation of the Planning Officer (c)
The following main points were made by the local member (not a member of
this Planning Committee):- ·
The site/application had an extensive history and background ·
She was of the view that the development was an over-development ·
Sympathy with local residents regarding the uncertainty concerning the
site ·
The change of the parking areas was not acceptable bearing in mind that it
was in close proximity to a dangerous corner · However, in terms of tidying up planning permissions that approval was required ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|
Application no. C15/0603/20/CR - Menai Marina, Hen Gei Llechi, Y Felinheli PDF 840 KB Retrospective application for the retention of 3 enclosed security gates. Local Member: Councillor Sian Gwenllian Additional documents: Minutes: A retrospective application to retain three closed security gates (a)
The Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s background
and noted that it was a retrospective listed structure application to retain
three closed security gates that were located on the harbour wall. It was noted
that the three gates were located on the northern, southern and western wall,
where existing ladders went down to the boats. Due to security issues, the gates had been installed around the ladders
and were secured to the ground by means of four bolts. The three gates measured 2.2m in height and 1.8m and
1.6m long and were constructed of iron and painted black. Additional rails were located around the quay along
with maritime equipment which had been installed on the quay side. The site was
part of the existing marina which was located in Felinheli. The harbour wall was a grade II listed structure.
The site was within a C2 Flooding Zone. (b)
Reference was made to objections received regarding the impact of the
gates on the public’s enjoyment of the marina. Despite the fact that the existing gates
were quite large on the site, the context of the site must be considered as a
whole – the site was part of an operational marina with substantially sized
boats and all the associated equipment and sailing activities that were seen
all around. For these reasons, the gates
did not appear to be out of place on this site or as having a detrimental
effect on the character of the listed wall. The gates were associated with the existing rails and were acceptable in
that context also. It was not considered
that approving the application would have a detrimental effect on the
appearance or historic character of the listed structure or the amenities of
the wider area and, therefore, it was considered that the proposal was in
accordance with policies B2 and B3 of the GUDP. (c)
The justification for the gates stated that they were a vital part of
securing health and safety in the marina and they blended into their background
and all the current sailing activities that could be seen. Proposed and seconded to approve the application. RESOLVED to approve in accordance with the recommendation. |