Agenda, decisions and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

None to note

To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters.

a)             Councillor Cai Larsen (a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.1 C24/0205/32/LL on the agenda as he was a Member of the Adra Board

The Member was of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest, and he withdrew from the meeting during the discussion on the application and did not vote on the application.

b)            The following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted:

·       Councillor Gareth Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.1 (C24/0205/32/LL) on the agenda

·       Councillor Gareth Tudor Jones (a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.3 (C24/0640/42/LL) on the agenda

c)              Protocol matters

It was suggested that all Members of the Committee had received e-mails relating to application C24/0205/32/LL on the agenda - Land Near Cae Capel, Botwnnog, Pwllheli,

To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration.

As a matter of order, it was reported that since the Chair was joining the meeting virtually, the Legal Officer would announce the results of the voting on the applications.

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on the 30^th of September 2024, be signed as a true record.

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 30 September 2024, 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.

Full application for the proposed erection of 18 no. affordable dwellings together with associated development

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Williams

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation.

REASON: Application is contrary to PS1 – significant harm to the Welsh language

         Full application to construct 18 affordable houses with associated developments

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that included a summary of observations received by Botwnnog Community Council and on behalf of the Perthyn Project; a recent appeal decision in Anglesey (which has the same planning policies as Gwynedd), where the appeal was upheld, with costs against the Council for unreasonable conduct; information and evidence from Adra shows that the percentage of main tenants in new housing developments who speak Welsh is on average higher than the percentage of Welsh speakers in Gwynedd and that similar developments, overall, have a positive impact on the Welsh language.

a)     The Assistant Head of Planning and Environment highlighted that the intention of the Committee on 9 May was to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation for reasons relating to a negative impact on the Welsh language and lack of need for affordable housing within the Botwnnog ward. With a substantial risk to the Council over refusing the application, the application was referred to a cooling off period. The context of the planning policy, the potential risks to the Council and options for the Committee before making a final decision on the application were reported on.

It was explained that this was an application for 18 affordable homes to be built on a site specifically designated for housing, within the development boundary of Botwnnog Service Village, as defined in the Local Development Plan (LDP). It was reiterated, since reporting to the Committee last time, additional information has been submitted by the applicant responding to two reasons given for refusing. The information stated that:

-        Botwnnog's status as a settlement in the LDP meant that there was no need to prove that the local need had been restricted to the Botwnnog ward, instead that there was an expectation for the settlement to welcome the area's wider need; that the scale of the development was appropriate and complied with Botwnnog's status as a Service Village; that recent statistics from the Council's Strategic Housing Unit proved the need for affordable housing in the County and the mix of houses proposed reflected that need; that plans like these were key to supporting the Welsh language and responded to the housing crisis in Gwynedd. It was considered that lack of evidence had been offered to defend the reason for refusal.

-        In the planning policy context, it was noted that the statutory requirement was that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the adopted plan (LDP), unless a relevant planning consideration states otherwise. Attention was drawn to a full list of the relevant planning policies and specifically to the planning policies relating to the two reasons of refusal given by the Committee. It was reiterated that consideration to the Welsh language was central to the LDP's Strategy, as a way of contributing to maintaining and creating Welsh communities, and that had been a consideration when designating sites for housing developments in the Plan area. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The change of use of Ground floor from Public House to Holiday Lets

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dafydd Meurig

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse

The Local Planning Authority is not persuaded that the evidence submitted with the application is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not possible to continue with a community use of this building. The application is therefore contrary to Policy ISA 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 as it relates to the protection of community facilities.

Change of use of ground floor from Public House to Holiday Lets

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application for the conversion of the ground floor of an empty public house into two self-contained holiday units. The application was submitted to the committee for decision at the Local Member's request and also because of the public interest in the application. It was explained that this was the third submission of a similar scheme, and the other applications were refused due to the lack of information to justify the loss of a community resource. It was highlighted that the main difference with this application was that a Viability Report had been included with the application.

When considering the principle of the development, attention was drawn to Policy ISA 2 and the relevant criteria. It was highlighted in the report that there was no similar facility within convenient distance of the village without the use of a motor vehicle to reach it.

It was noted that the Viability Report discussed proposals from a community group to maintain a business in the pub, which concluded that such an enterprise would not be viable in this case. However, it did not appear that those conclusions were based on any detailed analysis of a particular business proposal and the community group remained of the opinion that their proposals to run a business from the site were viable and practical. It was reiterated that the Viability Report specifically relied on the views of the expert and that there was no robust financial evidence in the appropriate form submitted to support the application.

It seemed that the policy also asked for evidence of genuine attempts to market the facility. Reference was made to an e-mail which was submitted stating an effort to market the property for over 12 months, but no detailed evidence had been submitted to support this statement. In addition, it seemed that this was an effort to market the property for rent rather than an effort to sell the property as a whole as a business. A copy of a marketing advertisement was received, but there was no information to show when the property was advertised, the length of the advertising period and the response to that advertisement - there was no longer an advertisement for the property on the company's website. When assessing the information submitted with the application, it was not considered that sufficient evidence had been submitted regarding the financial situation of the business or to show that the pub had been advertised appropriately for a continuous period of at least 12 months in accordance with the requirements of the SPG and policy ISA 2.

In the context of providing self-service holiday accommodation, it was explained that there was no evidence of excess in the area and, therefore, the proposal met the relevant criteria within policy TWR 2. However, it was highlighted that policy TWR 2 aimed to protect the residential character of an area and considering that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Full application for the construction of a 3 bedroom two storey dwelling (C3 use) and creation of a new vehicular access

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gruffydd Williams

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

To defer in order to conduct a site visit

Full application to construct a 3-bedroom, two-storey residential property (C3 use) as well as the creation of a new vehicular access

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application for erecting a two-storey residential property within a section of garden in an existing property in the village of Edern. The application was submitted to the committee at the local member’s request.

It was explained that the site was located within the Edern development boundary which was a village identified as a Rural Village in the LDP and policy TAI1 was considered when assessing the application. It was highlighted that the indicative housing supply level for Edern was 12 units, with a total of 3 units completed and 4 units in the windfall land bank. Based on this information, approving a development on this scale would be completely acceptable based on the Village's indicative growth level and as there was only a proposal for 1 house, it did not reach the threshold of needing an affordable housing contribution.

It was reported that planning permission existed on the site until January this year for the same development and that decision had been considered under the LDP - the same policy considerations remained. It was reiterated, as there was no change in policy or terrestrial terms, refusing the application would be unreasonable and would be a subject of appeal costs if the application would be refused. However, attention was drawn to an older planning history where applications were refused based on the fact that the proposal added to the number of second homes, concern about the size of the site and the ability to provide access, parking and amenity space and that there was no contrary information available to the council. It was highlighted, at this time, that the policies were different, the planning applications were outline ones without the need to show an indicative layout.

In the context of transportation and access matters, it was noted that it was possible to provide a quality access and plenty of turning space and parking within the curtilage. The transportation unit had no objection.

It was noted that the applicant had confirmed that the proposal was for a class C3 permanent residential house which meant that it was possible to manage the use through a condition to ensure that this was a permanent residential use and not a holiday use or second home use. In terms of visual impacts, it was explained that there was a variety in the size and design of nearby houses which included traditional houses and more modern ones with a variety and mix of clusters of terrace houses and separate two-storey houses seen throughout the village. With the proposal located near other houses, it was not considered that it would be prominent in the landscape.

In terms of construction materials, it was considered that slate, render, timber boards and stone would be suitable for the location and in-keeping with the local construction materials. In terms of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.