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
Elwyn Edwards and Dyfrig Wynn Jones and Councillors Aled Ll. Evans, Charles Wyn
Jones, Ioan C. Thomas and R. H. Wyn Williams (Local Members). |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: The following members declared that they were local
members in relation to the items noted: ·
Councillor Eirwyn Williams (a member of this Planning Committee), in
relation to item 5.2 on the agenda (planning application C15/0847/35/LL); ·
Councillor Jason
Humphreys (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.7 on
the agenda (planning application number C15/0748/44/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, 9 November, 2015, be signed as a true record. (copy enclosed) Minutes: The
Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 9
November 2015, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. (copy enclosed) 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. C15/0759/41/LL - Land at Rhosgyll Fawr Farm, Chwilog PDF 974 KB Construction of ground mounted solar photovoltaic (pv) farm with 5mw of capacity on 9.05 ha of agricultural land along with grid connection equipment, access track construction compound, security fence and landscaping improvements. Local Member: Councillor Aled Ll. Evans Additional documents: Minutes: Installation of solar
photovoltaic (PV) farm on the land with a capacity of 5mw on 9.05 ha of
agricultural land, along with ancillary equipment, access track, building
compound, security fence and landscaping improvements. (a)
The Development
Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
the development complied with the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (GUDP) along
with Strategic Policy 9 for the provision of renewable energy sources for the
reasons noted in the report. Correspondence had been
received from the occupiers of nearby houses objecting to the proposal mainly
on the grounds of the impact on the landscape and views from their properties.
Whilst acknowledging that parts of the site was visible from the property, due
to the form of the land, existing vegetation and the distance of the property
from the site, it was not believed that the development would be a dominant
feature for residents and that the impact on the landscape would not be so
harmful as to justify refusing the application. It was noted that
objections had also been received on the grounds of the development’s impact on
road safety. It was considered that there would only be an increase in traffic
flow during the construction period. It was added that the development was
acceptable in principle by the Transportation Unit but that it noted the need
to reach agreement on a Transport Management Plan prior to the commencement of
the development. Reference was made to
objections received raising concern regarding the impact of the development on
biodiversity and the presence of protected species in the area. It was noted
that the Biodiversity Unit or Natural Resources Wales did not have any
objections to this aspect of the application, provided that appropriate
mitigation and controlling measures were ensured for the site and the vicinity
to protect the interests of biodiversity features. ·
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:- ·
That the development
would generate clean, locally generated renewable energy for approximately
1,300 houses; ·
It was intended
to plant additional trees to strengthen existing hedges and plant wildflowers,
install nesting boxes for birds, bats and beehives; ·
That the
installation of the solar panels had been amended in response to an objection; ·
That
grazing use continued on the site; ·
That
the development would provide a stable income for the business and thus
safeguard its future; ·
A
public consultation had been held and 22 feedback forms were used and only
three of these were against the development;
·
He
asked the Committee to approve the application. (c) It was
reported that the Local Member had no objection to the application. It was
proposed and seconded to approve the application. (ch) The following
main points were noted during the discussion: ·
That
the application should be deferred due to the increasing number of solar
development applications, the need to establish an appropriate size for such
developments, considering the importance of tourism for Gwynedd and the impact
on the area’s beauty; · That ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Application No. C15/0847/35/LL - Cilan, Caernarfon Road, Criccieth PDF 647 KB Erection of two storey rear extension to dwelling. Local Member: Councillor Eirwyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: Erection of two-storey
rear extension to dwelling. (a)
The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 9
November 2015 in order to undertake a site visit. The members of the Committee had
visited the site prior to the meeting. It was
noted that the development did not comply with the requirements of policies
B22, B23 or B24 of the GUDP due to its considerable size, bulk, location, form,
scale and design and its unacceptable impact on the personal amenities of
nearby residents due to shadowing and overlooking. (b) The local
member (a member of this Planning Committee), made the following main points:-
·
That
he was grateful that members of the Committee had visited the site; ·
That
this was an application to extend to enable a local family to continue living
in their home; ·
That
neighbours had not objected to the application; ·
That
the Town Council supported the application; ·
He
asked the committee to approve the application. A
proposal was made to refuse the application and it was noted that it was
possible to erect an extension to the house in a different form without
affecting the neighbours’ amenities. It was noted further that the applicant and the
Planning Service should discuss alternative acceptable plans should the
application be refused. The proposal was
seconded. (c) The following
main points were made during the discussion: ·
That
the family’s circumstances had changed and that the extension would meet its
needs; ·
That
the window where overlooking would occur was essential; ·
That
the right to light was not an argument for refusing; ·
No
objection had been received from neighbours and any future prospective buyers
would be aware of the situation; ·
That
the proposed extension was acceptable in terms of its surface area; ·
That
the setting of the house was more set in than the nearby houses; ·
That
there would be no overlooking into 1 Victoria Terrace as the extension would
extend back over the garden; ·
If
the application was refused, there was room to discuss an acceptable form of
extension with the applicant; ·
That
the application should be approved to enable the family to stay in the area to ensure
the continuation of Welsh communities. (ch) In response to the abovementioned observations,
officers noted:- ·
Consideration
was given to whether or not there would be unacceptable shadowing on nearby
properties when applications were assessed; ·
That
the extension would have a surface area of 84m2; ·
The
new window would look into the rear curtilage of 1 Victoria Terrace which was a
private area; ·
That
future residential amenities had to be considered when applications were
assessed; ·
That
the proposed extension would be almost stuck to the boundary of the property
next door, thus having an unacceptable impact on amenities; ·
That
developments had to respect their boundaries in terms of scale and size; ·
A
willingness to discuss with the applicant in relation to alternative plans to
meet the needs. (d) In ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Application No. C15/0915/18/LL - Cil Fynydd, Penrhos, Bethel PDF 686 KB Application for the conversion and extension of attached garage to annexe and erection of new garage. Local Member: Councillor Sion Wyn Jones Additional documents: Minutes: Application for the
conversion and extension of attached garage to an annexe and erections of new
garage. (a) It was
reported that a request had been received from the applicant and the local
member to defer the discussion on the application so that the applicant could
take advantage of the right to speak.
RESOLVED
to defer the application. |
|
Application No. C15/0922/23/LL - Land by Cil y Bont, Crawia, Llanrug PDF 914 KB Change of use of existing Caravan Club Site into a site for 12 touring caravans, erection of toilet block with associated drainage. Local Member: Councillor Charles Wyn Jones Additional documents: Minutes: Change
of use of existing caravan club site into a site for 12 touring caravans and
erection of toilet block with associated drainage. (a)
The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the proposed development was acceptable in terms of its scale and
layout and that the existing and proposed landscaping would be of assistance to
ensure that there would not be an excessive harmful impact on the visual
amenities of the nearby area. Attention
was drawn to the fact that the Transportation Unit did not object to the
application and it was confirmed that the proposal was acceptable and complied
with the current required standards. The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) It was noted
that the local member supported the application. It was proposed and seconded
to approve the application. (c) In response
to a member’s observation in relation to an increasing number of applications
for touring caravan parks, the Development Control Officer noted that when
applications were being considered in accordance with policies that
consideration was given to whether or not the specific application area could
cope with developments. It was added that
there were not many similar developments in the nearby area and that there was
no significant visual impact. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1.
Time 2.
To
comply with plans 3.
Materials/slates 4.
Landscaping 5.
To restrict
the use of the site to touring use only and only for 12 touring units on the
plots shown 6.
To
restrict the season 7.
To keep
a register 8.
No
storage of touring units on any part of the site 9.
Work to
the entrance to be carried out before the commencement of the remainder of the
proposal/before bringing the site into use Note: Instruction to
follow advice submitted by the Caravans Officer. |
|
Application No. C15/0954/39/LL - Roslyn, Lon Rhoslyn, Abersoch PDF 761 KB Change of use of the remainder of the building to form part of an existing shop along with the creation of associated facilities such as storage, office and canteen for staff along the minor external changes including an additional window on the rear elevation and blocking of windows on the side elevation. Local Member: Councillor R. H. Wyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of the
remainder of the building to form part of an existing shop along with the
creation of associated facilities such as storage, office and canteen for staff
along with the minor external blocking of windows on the side elevation. (a)
The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the property was located in a central and prominent site in the
centre of the Abersoch shopping area. It was
noted that it was considered that the principle of the proposal to create an
extension to the existing shop in the village was acceptable, that it would not
harm the street scene or visual amenities of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) or cause significant harm to the amenities of the local
neighbourhood. The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) It was
proposed and seconded to approve the application. A member
noted that renovation work had commenced on the property and that he had been
given to understand that the unit was being advertised by an estate agent as
two units. In response, the Senior
Solicitor noted that the application should be considered as submitted for a
single unit and that the applicant’s intention to lease a section of the shop
was not a consideration. The
Development Control Manager added that a condition was recommended to restrict
the property’s use to a single retail unit only. She noted that in response to local concerns that a condition was
recommended to ensure that the door facing Lôn Rhoslyn was not used for
distribution and delivery of goods or as a customer access to the shop so as to
secure the amenities of nearby neighbours. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1. Five years 2. In accordance
with the amended plans 3. Any external
adaptations to be finished so as to match the existing property. 4. The site to
be used as a single retail unit. 5. To install
shutters on the internal side of the ground floor windows on the northern
elevation facing Lôn Rhoslyn. The
shutters to be in place whilst the shop use continues and nothing to be
displayed between the shutters and the window’s glass. 6. Not to use the
doors facing Lôn Rhoslyn for the distribution and delivery of goods or as a
customer access to the shop. 7. Not to keep waste and bins in the curtilage facing Lôn
Rhoslyn. |
|
Application No. C15/0960/14/LL - Bloc A, Doc Victoria, Caernarfon PDF 960 KB Change of use of part of second floor of Block A into 6 residential units together with changing the use of the ground floor of Block C into a car park for 23 cars. Local Member: Councillor Ioan C. Thomas Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of part of
second floor of Block A into six residential units together with changing the
use of the ground floor of Block C into a car park for 23 cars. (a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the principle of this development was acceptable as mixed use had
already been established on the site. It was
noted that the applicant had stated that it would be impractical to provide
affordable houses as part of this latest proposal as the prospective owners of
the units would have to contribute towards the management costs of the site and
also considering the nature of the occupancy of existing units in Victoria
Dock. In terms of the development’s
viability, it was not considered appropriate to include an affordable element
in the development. It was
noted that the local member supported the application. The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) It was
proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officers’
recommendation because approving the application would set a dangerous
precedent in terms of reducing the number of holiday homes in a site designated
for another use. The
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that applications had to be determined
based on the evidence submitted. He added
that if members were of the opinion that insufficient information had been
submitted in the context of the affordable housing provision then a further
explanation could be sought from the applicant. An
amendment was made to defer the application in order to receive further
justification in the context of the affordable housing provision as part of the
development. The amendment was seconded.
(c) During the
ensuing discussion, the following main points were noted: ·
That
affordable housing had been promised when the site had been developed as part
of the original plans; however, these had not been realised; ·
That
there was a need for affordable units; ·
Concern
that it was noted that the development was not viable to accommodate affordable
houses considering that the GUDP noted the need for an element of affordable
houses in such developments; ·
That
making such developments exempt from providing an affordable element was
dangerous as any developer could justify not including an affordable element by
saying that a maintenance fee was charged; ·
The
need for an affordable provision as part of the development or if it was not
viable, the need for a financial sum to satisfy affordable housing needs on an
alternative site. (ch) The Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that there were some circumstances where it was
not viable to include an affordable element in developments but that the
applicant had to submit evidence. In response to a member’s question regarding the additional parking spaces, the Development Control Manager noted that it was believed that they were for the site as a whole rather than specifically for this development. A member noted that there was no parking provision for the surgery located ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
Conversion and extension of former caravan repair premises into car sales, MOT centre and vehicle repair garage. Local Member: Councillor Jason Humphreys Additional documents: Minutes: Conversion
and extension of former caravan repair premises into car sales, MOT centre and
vehicle repair garage. (a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on
19 October 2015 in order to hold a site visit. The members of the Committee had visited the site prior to the meeting. Attention was drawn to the fact that late observations had been received
from the applicant’s agent proposing to reduce the height of the building in
the front by approximately 400mm along with changes to the parking and lighting
arrangements for the site to mitigate the concerns of objectors. It was
noted that there was mixed land use in the application area which varied from
residential use to employment sites and considering that the proposed
development was on a site previously used in the past for the storage and
repair of caravans, it was not considered that a significant change would be
caused to the area’s amenities. It was
noted that after receiving observations from the Public Protection Service it
was recommended to impose conditions to restrict the operating hours on the
site should the application be approved. It was added that no time restriction had been in
place on the previous use of the site and the conditions would give more
control over the site. It was
reported that the current recommendation was to delegate powers to approve the
application subject to dealing with the amended plans and to relevant
conditions as noted in the report. (b) The local
member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main
points:- ·
That
he was grateful that the members of the Committee had visited the site; ·
That the applicant had submitted an amended Traffic
Management Plan which he felt that was worse than the original; ·
That there were speeding and parking problems on the street. The
development would contribute to the problem; ·
That
he supported local businesses; ·
That
he was against the development as he considered that it was an overdevelopment
on a small site as the business would operate as an MOT and car sales centre. (c) In response
to the local member’s observations in relation to traffic management, the Senior
Development Control Officer – Transport noted that lengthy discussions had been
held in the context of speeding in the area and that improvements had been
made; however, further methods to slow down traffic could be considered.
It was noted that the proposal would not result
in a detrimental increase in traffic.
It was
proposed and seconded to approve the application. The seconder to the
proposal noted an amendment to alter condition 7 to ‘to restrict the operating
hours of the car sales unit to 08:00 – 19:00 every day’ rather than 18:00. The
proposed accepted the amendment. The Development Control Manager confirmed that condition 8 in the report should not ‘To restrict lighting hours – no lighting between 18:30 and 07:30’, rather ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |