Venue: Neuadd Dwyfor, Stryd Penlan, Pwllheli, Gwynedd, LL53 5DE. View directions
Contact: Bethan Adams 01286 679020
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillors Eric M. Jones and Dilwyn Lloyd. |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters. Minutes: (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 item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number C18/0127/39/LL); ·
Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths, (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda (planning application number C18/0078/44/LL);
·
Councillor Charles Wyn Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.5 on the agenda, (planning application number C18/0132/23/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. (c) Members noted that they had been lobbied by the local member in relation to item 5.5 (planning application number C18/0132/23/LL) on the agenda. |
|
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, 14 May 2018, be signed as a true record. Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 14 May 2018, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of the Head of Environment 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 policy aspects. RESOLVED |
|
Application No. C18/0127/39/LL - Beach Hut, 27, Porth Mawr, Abersoch, Pwllheli PDF 101 KB Construct a replacement beach hut. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi W. Roberts Additional documents: Minutes: Construction of a Beach Hut to
replace the existing. (a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
the application was to replace
the existing beach hut with a new
beach hut, rotating its setting
and increasing its size. It was noted that the proposed beach hut and the rotated
setting would be in keeping with
the location as nearby huts had been set out in the same
manner. Attention was drawn to the additional observations received and it was noted that confirmation
had been received from the applicant that the door would
be yellow and the hut blue. It was noted,
bearing in mind that the application
in question was for a hut to replace
the original, it was not considered
that there would be any significant
change to the AONB landscape,
on biodiversity or on the coastline. The proposal 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)
noted the following main points:- ·
Concerns in terms of alterations to the beach huts and
increasing use made of roller doors; ·
That the area
was important in terms of tourism; ·
That the AONB Unit and the Community Council noted that
the existing beach hut was in a fairly
good condition; ·
That rotating
its setting would be an improvement,
however, there was insufficient reasoning regarding increasing its size; ·
That the AONB Unit noted that ".. too wide and
high a building should be avoided. Also, in order to retain
the historic character of
the original building it is
suggested that corrugated sheets are used rather than box profile sheeting
and wooden doors (not shutters)."; ·
He was not totally
opposed to the proposal, but was concerned that the hut would
be too large. ·
That he
was pleased to receive confirmation regarding the colours of the external finish. (c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application. A member noted that there
was no point in objecting the proposal as a beach hut was already situated on the site. In response to a question by a member regarding the possibility of imposing a condition regarding the external finish with corrugated sheeting, the Planning Manager explained that it was not necessary to submit a planning application to change the external material of a beach hut as it was considered to be maintenance and repair work. RESOLVED to approve
the application. Conditions: 1.
In accordance with the plans 2. Colour of the external finish 3. No occasional living or sleeping use. |
|
Application No. C18/0244/25/LL - Goetre Uchaf, Penrhosgarnedd, Bangor PDF 126 KB Construction of six new dwellings comprising 4 detached and 2 semi-detached, with associated parking and garden amenities. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Menna Baines Additional documents: Minutes: Construct six
new houses, including four detached houses and two semi-detached
houses with associated parking and gardens. (a) The
Senior Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the site was totally within land earmarked
as a Protected Open Space on the Inset
maps of the Joint Anglesey and Gwynedd Local Development Plan (JLDP). He noted
that Policy ISA 4 of the
JLDP encourages refusing proposals that would lead to the loss of existing open spaces, including
amenity green spaces, unless four specific criteria can be
met, namely: ·
There is an
overall surplus of provision in the community - The Planning, Design and Access Statement submitted with the application claimed that there was 4.93ha of existing open space
within Goetre Uchaf estate
(10.55ha in total). There were no
details in the report regarding what land was considered
as open space. No evidence was submitted to demonstrate a decrease in the need for open
spaces in the area. ·
The long term requirement for the facility has ceased
- Given that the existing housing development had not yet been completed, it was not deemed possible to argue that the long-term need for the facility
had ceased as it has not yet reached its
full use. ·
Alternative provision
of the same standard can be
offered in an area equally
accessible to the local community in question
- Much of the vacant land assumed to be included in the applicant's calculation of existing Open Spaces,
was steep wooded land near the A55, and it was not believed reasonable to consider this land as land
of the same amenity quality. ·
The redevelopment
of only a small part of the site would allow the retention and It was recommended
that the Committee refuse the application on the grounds that insufficient justification had been submitted to approve the loss of an existing
open space and therefore the proposal did not meet the requirements of ISA 4 in the
JLDP. (b) It was proposed
and seconded to refuse the application. RESOLVED to refuse the application. Reason: No sufficient justification has been submitted to approve the loss of an existing open space and therefore the proposal does not meet the requirements of ISA 4 in the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan. |
|
Application No. C18/0312/25/LL - 2, Maes Mawr, Penrhosgarnedd, Bangor PDF 110 KB Erection of single storey one bedroom annexe. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Menna Baines Additional documents: Minutes: Erection of single storey one bedroom annexe. (a) The Senior Development
Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it was to erect a one-storey annexe in the property's back garden that was situated within the Bangor development boundary. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations
that had been received. It was noted
that the principle of locating new developments
was based on Policy PCYFF1 of the JLDP that stated that proposals
within development boundaries will be approved, it was deemed that this application
to provide a fairly small annexe in
size and scale, within the residential curtilage of 2 Maes
Mawr was acceptable in principle. Details
of the objections received following the public consultation period were given and
these were based on noise
disturbance, over development, visual amenities and road
safety and parking requirements. Having considered
all the material matters as
well as the objections and observations received on the application, the development was acceptable in terms of relevant
local and national policies for the reasons given in the report. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:- ·
That it was proposed
to build the supplementary annexe mainly for
his frail mother; ·
They had considered
a house extension, however, this would
not satisfy their needs and would
have more of an impact on the location;
·
That the annexe's
design was in keeping with the house and nearby
buildings. ·
There was plenty
of parking area. (c) It was proposed
and seconded to approve the application. In response to a question from a member in
the context of the applicant's
need to receive a retrospective licence to create the access at the rear of the property, the Planning Manager confirmed that planning permission was not required for the access at the rear of the property, however, the applicant would need to have a licence for lawful
use. A member expressed her support for the proposal to provide a living unit for a vulnerable adult and noted that
the size and design of the one-storey annexe was acceptable. RESOLVED to approve
the application. Conditions: 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the plans. 3. Natural slate. 4. Restrict the use of the annexe to be supplementary to the residential use of the main house. 5. Removal of permitted development rights with regard
to the windows and new
extensions. 6. Withdrawal
of permitted development rights with regard
to the erection of fences/walls. |
|
Application No. C18/0078/44/LL - Trwyn Cae Iago, Borth-y-Gest, Porthmadog PDF 128 KB Demolition and rebuild of dwelling. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths Additional documents: Minutes: Demolish and
rebuild a house. (a) The Planning
Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the existing property was located within the Borth-y-Gest development boundary, however, the rest of the site towards the coast was situated outside the boundary. It was highlighted that the site was within a Special Landscape Area. It was noted
that the floor area of the existing dwelling was approximately 173m2,
and the proposed house would include
three floors with a floor area
of approximately 465m2. It was highlighted
that it had been suggested to the applicant that the plan submitted in order to receive
pre-application advice was
not acceptable, due to its location outside
the development boundary and its size
and scale. The plans submitted as part of the application originally continued to site the majority of the proposed dwelling outside the development boundary, and despite
further advice when dealing with
the planning application, a
proportion of the proposed dwelling continued to be outside the development boundary, and its
size and scale was substantially larger than the existing property. It was noted that clear advice
had also been given on how
to overcome the oppressive impact and the impact on the amenities
of nearby properties. It was explained
that it was considered that a house located
within the development boundary and sensitively
designed to respect its surrounding area would be acceptable;
however, in this case, it was considered that the size, bulk and
setting of the proposed house would be unacceptable and this meant that
the design created a structure that was incongruous with the prominent sloped side, and which
lead to a substantially greater visual impact than the existing building. It was noted
that the proposed development would cause a substantially greater visual impact than the existing house, and would
cause a detrimental impact on the amenities
of nearby residents, and to this end,
it was considered that the proposal was unacceptable and contrary to the policies noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the
following main points:- ·
That he
was a neighbour and the proposal would have an adverse
impact on his privacy, he had requested that the proposed house be moved back to be on the same line
as his house; ·
That the proposed
house was substantially outside the development boundary, especially on the southern side of the site; ·
Concern regarding
the visual impact of the development; ·
His concern
regarding the associated engineering work with the proposal and the impact on the foundations of his own house; ·
The submission
of a geotechnical survey should be a requirement as the site was on a cliff
edge; ·
Approving the application
would set a precedent that would be harmful
to the area and the whole of Gwynedd. (c) The local member (not a member of ... view the full minutes text for item 5.4 |
|
Erection of 9 two storey dwellings (including an affordable dwelling), new access, parking and turning area. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Charles Wyn Jones Additional documents: Minutes: Erection of 9 two-storey
dwellings (including an affordable dwelling), new access, parking spaces and
turning area. (a) The Senior Development
Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the application site was within the Llanrug local
service centre development boundary and had been specifically allocated for
housing development. It was noted that the proposal was acceptable in
principle. It was explained that the
site was level in nature and very visible from the nearby class I county
highway (Llanberis Road). It was noted that the
layout of the houses within the site meant that quite a substantial part of the
site would be an amenity/green area and given the form, size, density,
appearance and design of the proposed houses, it is considered that the
proposal would not create an alien or oppressive development which would have a
substantial or significant impact on the visual amenities of this part of the
streetscape. It was highlighted that
the proposal involved creating a standard access off the nearby class I county
highway along with extending the existing footpath into the site itself. The
design and plan of the estate road, as well as parking spaces, was amended in
order to comply with the requirements of the Transportation Unit. It was noted
that siting a new access on this part of the highway was also acceptable based
on the requirements of road safety on the grounds of visibility and the number
of houses that would be served by the access. It was noted that third
parties had recommended that this current proposal should include a roundabout,
connecting footpath/road and parking spaces in the same way as the previous
application approved in December 2012. However, consideration must be given to
the fact that these elements from the previous application had been included in
the application itself at the applicant's wish at that time (Bangor Diocese),
and they were not necessary or a statutory requirement in order to ensure road
safety or to make the proposal acceptable in relation to planning matters. 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 the land in question had been transferred over
a 100 years ago to the church to build a church, however, this was not
undertaken and the land was retained for community use; ·
The site was opposite the school and had double
yellow lines to prevent parking, together with buses stopping opposite the
school and another bus stop; ·
The site was in the centre of the village of Llanrug
and close to the village square, where there was a complex junction with five
roads meeting there; · Following discussions the Transportation and Street Care Service proposed a possible scheme to improve the situation in terms of road safety and a public meeting took place. The Diocese confirmed that they would ... view the full minutes text for item 5.5 |