Venue: Siambr Dafydd Orwig, Council Offices, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, LL55 1SH
Contact: Lowri Haf Evans 01286 679878
Webcast: View the webcast
To accept any apologies for absence.
Apologies were received from Councillors Stephen Churchman, Anne Lloyd Jones, Huw G. Wyn Jones and Edgar Wyn Owen
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS
To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters.
(a) The following members declared a personal interest in the following item for the reasons noted -
· Councillor Owain Williams
- in item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number C19/0090/33/LL) as he was the owner of a Caravan Park located less than six miles from the site.
· Councillor Gruffydd Williams;
- in item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number C19/0090/33/LL) as he was the son of the owner of a Caravan Park located less than six miles from the site.
- in item 5.3 on the agenda, (planning application number C19/0338/42/LL) as he had expressed his view by calling the application to committee
Members were of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest, and they withdrew from the Chamber during the discussion on the application.
(b) The following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted:
· Councillor Anwen Davies, (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number C19/0990/33/LL)
· Councillor Glyn Daniels, (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.2 on the agenda, (planning application number C19/0305/03/LL)
· Councillor Gareth Morris Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.3 on the agenda, (planning application number C19/0338/42/LL)
The Members withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the discussion on the applications in question and did not vote on these matters.
To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration.
None to note
The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 01 July 2019, be signed as a true record.
The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 1 July 2019, as a true record.
To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department.
The Committee considered the following applications for development.
Details of the applications were expanded upon and questions were answered in relation to the plans and policy aspects.
Site 8 additional pods, extension to site, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies
To site eight additional pods, extend the site, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building
Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received
It was highlighted that the application had been submitted to the Committee as the site was owned by a Council member.
a) The Planning Manager expanded on the application's background, and noted that the application involved creating a camping site for eight pods which would include an access road and parking spaces. It was noted that it was also intended to construct an extension to the existing self-catering room, to serve the eight new pods.
From the information submitted as part of the application, it was highlighted that the occupancy period of the pods would be between 1 March and 31 October and planning permission would restrict the occupancy of the site to that period within any year. The pods would remain on site throughout the year, and would be unoccupied during the winter months. Bearing in mind that the pods will not be moved for storage to an alternative site during the winter months, the application was considered under Policy TWR 3, which concerns touring caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation. The site lies within a Special Landscape Area and Policy TWR 3 states that proposals for the development of new permanent alternative camping accommodation will be refused within the Special Landscape Area.
In the context of visual amenities, it was reported that the field, that was subject to the application, was approximately three metres higher than the ground level of the existing caravan site and as part of the proposal the field would be excavated to reduce the level by approximately one metre. Consequently, the lowest metre of the pods would be sunken into the ground compared to the existing field ground level. Although the sides of the site would be graded when undertaking the excavation work, it was considered that the upper half of the pods would remain visible and the applicant had no intention to undertake landscaping work as part of the application. It was recognised that the dark green colour of the roofs of the pods would reduce their prominence in the landscape; however, this did not overcome the fact that pods would be placed on higher land than the nearby land. In light of this, it was considered that the proposal would not do anything to maintain, improve or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policies PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the Local Development Plan.
When considering transport and access matters it was noted that access to the site would be along the existing agricultural track and although the proposed site would share the same access to the county highway, there would be a different access to the proposed site and the existing caravan site. Facilities such as toilets / showers and amenities room would be shared between the existing ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1
Two storey rear extension and side conservatory
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor R Glyn Daniels
Two-storey rear extension and side conservatory
It was highlighted that the application had been submitted to the Committee at the wish of the Local Member.
a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that this was a full application to erect a two-storey flat roof extension with a single-storey conservatory to the gable-end of the house. It was highlighted that the rear extension would measure 7.8 metres in length and 4.8 metres in width, and would extend from the rear wall of the house to the rear boundary wall, where there was currently a single-storey storeroom. Although the proposal was unlikely to constitute a prominent feature in the wider landscape, concern was highlighted regarding the scale and design/form of the rear extension in relation to the character of the existing house. It was noted that Policy PCYFF3 supports proposals that contribute to and enhance the character and appearance of the site, building or area, and that respect the context of the site and its place in the local landscape. It was added that the property was located outside the development boundary and within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.
Although there was no objection to extending the house, it was considered that the design and scale of the proposed rear extension, that would extend 15 metres to the rear compared with the side of the existing house, which measured 7.2 metres, would be incongruous to the appearance and character of the property and would not conform with good design principles. As a result, it did not meet the objectives of policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan or the requirements of the Design Guidance. It was also reported that the application did not respond to the requirements of PCYFF 2 of the Local Development Plan, although the size of the curtilage allowed the siting of a two-storey extension, the Planning Unit had suggested to the applicant that a more acceptable site was available.
b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member, who objected to the application, noted the following main points:-
· That the extension was detrimental to the area's characteristics
· It did not suit the site
· An application for an extension on the same site had been refused in September 2018
· There was concern locally that the extension would be used as a holiday unit in the future.
c) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.
ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:
· That an application had been refused in 2018
· The extension is too large
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
1. The two-storey rear extension, due to its length and scale, would create an oppressive and dominant feature that would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of residents of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 of the Local Development Plan.
2. The proposal involves constructing a two-storey extension of a scale and ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2
Front extension, create first floor balcony, alterations to roof and extend outbuilding to create annexe
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth T Morris Jones
Front extension, create a first floor balcony, alterations to the roof and extend an outbuilding to create an annexe
It was highlighted that the application was submitted to the Committee at the request of the Local Member and two other members.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that this was an application to erect a porch on the front of the house; install a first floor balcony along the front of the house above existing flat roof sections; to undertake alterations to the roof by installing a slate roof and a small dormer door to the front; front decking; and extend the existing outbuilding within the property's curtilage to create an annexe at Bwthyn Bridyn, Lôn Bridyn, Morfa Nefyn. It was noted that the property was adjacent to the access to Morfa Nefyn beach, but at a slightly higher level than the beach, with a high boundary wall surrounding the front and sides.
It was reported that the application comprised two elements, namely the extension and the alterations to the house and the extension to the outbuilding to create an annexe. It was reported that the house currently had an asbestos sheeting roof and it was proposed to re-roof with slate, which was an improvement, together with a small dormer door that would not cause substantial harm to the appearance and character of the front.
Several objections had been received to the proposal expressing concern about introducing modern features to the property as the existing fishermen's cottages were unspoiled. Bearing in mind that only a light glazed screen would be in the front of the balcony and that the building's shape would not significantly change, it was considered that the changes would not significantly harm the appearance of the property to justify refusing the alterations. Since the alterations to the house were relatively minor, it was considered that they were acceptable additions in terms of appearance, scale and the treatment of elevations and complied with the requirements of policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan.
It was noted that the second element involved erecting an extension on the existing outbuilding that formed part of the ownership of the property. As the curtilage was enclosed by a high boundary wall, only a small section of the wall and the roof would be visible from the access road to the beach. It was highlighted that the objections had expressed concern about changing the appearance of a historic building, however, the alterations were not considered to be significantly intrusive and were not unacceptable in terms of scale, height and mass on this site that was enclosed by a high wall. It was considered that the annexe was in compliance with the requirements of PCYFF3.
Reference was made to flooding issues that had been included in the report together with a comment that the plans had changed significantly since the Maritime and Country Parks Officer had submitted his objections.
Having weighed up the application and the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3