Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Elin Hywel and Councillor Gareth Coj Parry

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

a)     The following member declared an interest in relation to the item noted:

·          Councillor Huw Rowlands (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.2 C20/1093/24/LL on the agenda, as he had presented observations on the application

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

·        Councillor Elfed Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.1 C24/0977/18/LL on the agenda

·        Councillor Llio Elenid Owen (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.2 C20/1093/24/LL on the agenda

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 Assistant Head would be announcing the results of the voting on the applications.

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held February 3^rd 2025, be signed as a true record.

The Chair accepted the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 3 February 2025 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.

Restoration works to the site to include internal and external alterations  

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elfed Williams

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve the application subject to the following conditions:

1.       5 years

2.       In accordance with the plans

3.       Cast-iron rainwater goods

4.       Details of the new doors to be approved beforehand  

5.       Lime mortar

6.       Details of flue/vents to be approved beforehand 

7.       Details of the new fence to be approved beforehand  

8.       Stone samples

9.       Samples of the materials to be used

10.     In accordance with the requirements of GIS

11.     Welsh Water Conditions

12.     Lighting conditions

13.     Biodiversity/NRW conditions

14.     Landscaping

Restoration work to the site to include internal and external alterations 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application for restoration work to the site to include demolishing the existing café and shop and erecting new buildings. ⁠

It was explained that the Gilfach Ddu site in the village of Llanberis was located outside of the village's development boundaries but within the Slate Industry World Heritage Site, as well as the Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. It was noted that the buildings were grade I listed and that the waterwheel there was a monument.

The application was submitted to the committee due to the scale of the site.

It was reported that most of the work was internal restoration work, and there was no need for formal planning permission to complete this. However, it was noted that the restoration work had been assessed within the associated listed building application and that approval and permission had been obtained from CADW on that application. This meant that listed building consent had been obtained for the physical work to the building, but the proposal still required planning permission. It was elaborated that the Council's Conservation Officer had provided significant input to the application during the 'pre-application advice' period and the success of the advice was reflected by CADW's prompt decision to support the proposal.

Attention was drawn to the main elements of the proposal which included demolition of the existing shop and erection of a new one with the same footprint, erecting an extension to create new toilets, demolishing the existing café and erecting a new one with the same footprint, erecting a new workshop and a new canopy as a shelter for visitors.  Reference was made to the variety of minor alterations that were also included in the application, namely creating and altering openings, installing infrastructure, erecting fences, landscaping, creating a storage yard and removing modern partition walls.

In the context of the principle of the proposal, it was noted that improving tourist attractions was supported by policy TWR 1. It was considered that the proposal, on the grounds of the design and impact on amenities, was acceptable and no objection was received from the Transportation Unit as there were no changes to the entrance or the parking provision within the site. Wildlife reports were received with the application and, by imposing conditions, it would be possible to satisfy the observations of the Biodiversity Unit and Natural Resources Wales.

It was noted that the restoration work was essential for the future of the site and the new buildings would be a significant improvement in terms of design and visitors' experience of the site. It was considered that the proposal would be acceptable and the officers recommended that the Committee approved the proposal with conditions.

b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following comments:

·        That he, as well as the Local Member for the Llanberis ward, supported the application

·        There was a need to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposed change of use from chalet / bedrooms to 10no. Affordable residential units (mixture of 1 and 2 bed self contained bedsits) 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Llio Elenid Owen 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE

1.     The application was considered to be contrary to policy TAI 7 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside' as the building is not traditional.  As there are no other policies within the LDP which permit new residential dwellings in open countryside, it is considered that the proposal is also contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

2.     No evidence had been received of affordable local need, or information indicating that there is an appropriate mix of housing for the number and type of units proposed. As a result, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy TAI 7 and TAI 8.

3.     No sufficient evidence was received to show that the commercial use of the building is not viable or evidence to justify the loss of serviced holiday accommodation, which is contrary to PS 14, and criterion 1 of policy TAI 7.

4.     That the units, due to their limited size, are contrary to paragraph 4.2.30 of edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales as the units do not meet the Welsh Government's development quality standards. It is also contrary to policy TAI 8 as the proposal does not reflect a high-quality design standard that creates sustainable and inclusive communities and the units will not help create healthy and vibrant environments, and do not take into account the health and well-being of future occupiers in line with policy PCYFF 3.

Change of use of chalet / bedrooms to proposed 10 affordable residential units (mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms, self-contained units) 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to change the use of bedrooms to 10 affordable residential units.

In terms of the principle of the development, it was explained that policy PCYFF 1 was relevant as the site was located outside of any development boundary as defined within the LDP and the site was in open countryside. It was highlighted that the policy stated that proposals were refused unless they were in accordance with other policies within the plan or national planning policies or the proposal showed that its location in the countryside was essential.

It was reiterated that consideration to Policy TAI 7 was also important, as the proposal involved converting buildings in the countryside into living units. However, the policy only allowed the conversion of traditional buildings. Reference was made to Section 7 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside', which defined traditional buildings as those built prior to 1919 and of 'breathable construction'. It was noted from the site's planning history that permission was given to erect the building in 1978 and therefore it will not be possible to consider the proposal against Policy TAI 7 as it would not be a conversion of a traditional building. It was noted that the guidance also noted that traditional buildings had an aesthetic value which derived from the way that people had sensible and intellectual enjoyment of the building with the character of the building often encompassing local unique features and contributed to the sense of place. In this context, it was explained that the construction was mainly made of red brick construction and modern windows that did not have a high amenity value and did not reflect the character and nature of traditional buildings in the area. Given this, the application did not meet the requirements of policy TAI 7 as the proposal did not involve a conversion of a traditional building, and as there was no other policy within the LDP that allowed provision of affordable housing in open countryside; the principle of the proposal was therefore contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

It was also explained that the application did not meet other criteria within policy TAI 7 as a structural report was not received to support the application. In addition, no evidence was received to prove the need for the affordable units and how the development had been designed to ensure an appropriate mix of housing in accordance with policy TAI 8. It was highlighted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) required new affordable housing to reach the Welsh Government's development quality standards, and because these units, based on their size, did not meet these requirements, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to PPW. It was also considered, due to the restricted size of the units, that the proposal was contrary to policy TAI  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.