Venue: Siambr Dafydd Orwig, Council Offices, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, LL55 1SH. View directions
Contact: Lowri Haf Evans 01286 679878
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: None to note. |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters. Additional documents: Minutes: (a)
The following members declared a personal interest
in the following items for the reasons noted: ·
Councillor Gruffydd Williams, in relation to item
5.2 on the agenda (planning application number C18/0614/43/LL) as he was the
applicant's son. ·
Councillor Owain Williams, in relation to item 5.2
on the agenda, (planning application number C18/0614/43/LL) as he was the owner
of the site. ·
Councillor Berwyn Parry Jones, in relation to item
5.4 on the agenda (planning application number C18/0744/23/R3) as he was
friends with the landowner. The
Members were of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests, and withdrew
from the Chamber during the discussion on the items noted. (b) The
following members declared that they were local members in relation to the
items noted: ·
Councillor Gruffydd Williams, (a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.1 on the agenda, (planning
application number C18/0614/43/LL); ·
Councillor Aled Wyn Jones, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.2 on the agenda, (planning
application number C18/0614/43/LL); ·
Councillor Dewi Roberts, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.3 on the agenda, (planning
application number C18/0715/39/LL); ·
Councillor Gareth Griffith, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.5 on the agenda (planning
application number C18/0614/43/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. |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. Additional documents: |
|
The
Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this
committee, held on, 24th September 2018, be signed as a true record. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 24 September 2018, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department. Additional documents: 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 |
|
Demolish existing storage unit and construction of 2 holiday units (revised application) LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Gruffydd Williams Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Demolish existing storage unit and
build two holiday units (amended application) Attention was drawn to the additional
observations. (a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
to the application, reminding members that a decision had been made at the Committee
meeting on 25 June to defer the decision in order to receive additional
information about the cumulative impact of holiday units in the locality. It
was reiterated that the application involved demolishing an existing shed and
constructing two single-storey holiday units.
It was noted that an amended report had been distributed to members. In terms of the
principle of the development, it was noted that Policy TWR 2 of the LDP
supported the development of new permanent holiday accommodation with services,
or self-serviced ones, to convert existing buildings into such accommodation or
to extend existing holiday accommodation establishments. Reference was made
to the additions to the amended report drawing specific attention to paragraphs
5.3 and 5.4 that related to additional information submitted by the agent along
with information gathered by planning officers that responded to the
Committee's concern about the cumulative impact of holiday accommodation
developments. It was highlighted that these paragraphs explained that holiday
homes and holiday accommodation were not considered to be the same thing in
planning terms; therefore, it was very difficult to consider holiday homes when
assessing the cumulative impact of holiday accommodation. Reference was made to
information in the report that had been provided by the Council's Taxation Unit
regarding the number of holiday accommodation units in the Nefyn
district (which included Nefyn, Morfa
Nefyn and Edern). Members
were reminded that matters such as visual and general amenities and transport
had already been discussed; therefore, specific attention was only drawn to
additional information. The cumulative impact of holiday units in this area was
only 3.8%. (b)
Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member
noted the following main points: ·
That Councillors of bordering wards shared his
concerns ·
There was no clear difference between the meaning
of holiday homes and holiday units. The definition was no longer clear
following the tax increase (up to 50%). ·
A substantial increase was seen in holiday homes
being converted into holiday units in order to avoid paying tax and to take
advantage of TWR 2 to construct more holiday units in gardens. ·
A Holiday Home was a Holiday Home, namely a house
that was unavailable for local people but associated with increasing market
prices that prevented local people from living in their native areas. ·
There were many more than what had been included in
the report - Officers had not included an additional 318 holiday homes within
the district and they had not considered the relationship of the neighbouring
village of Pistyll with Nefyn or the Natural Retreats
development. ·
Static caravans had not been considered. ·
This created a detrimental impact on the use of the
Welsh language. The number of Welsh speakers had decreased since the previous
census. ·
Was there a real need for additional units? · What was ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Application No C18/0614/43/LL - Parc Carafanau a Cwrs Golff Gwynus, Pistyll, Pwllheli PDF 156 KB Extend site area in order to site 5 additional holiday caravans on field 470, retain temporary access road and extend to service the additional caravans, erect 1.2m earth bank to northern and western boundary of field 470, revised layout of 5 caravans approved under application C15/0495/43/LL and relocate septic tank LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Wyn
Jones Link to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Extend
the surface of the site to site 5 additional holiday caravans on field 470,
retain the temporary service access and extend it for the additional units,
erect a 1.2m earthen clawdd along the northern and
western boundaries of field 410, change the layout of five caravans approved
under application number C15/0495/43/LL, and relocate a septic tank Attention
was drawn to the additional observations received (a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background to the application, and noted that this was an application to
upgrade and extend an existing caravan site.
The application included a proposal to upgrade the ten existing static
caravans to holiday cabins and to relocate them to a section of the existing
golf course. Approval had been given in 2015 to relocate 5 static caravans to
the golf course whilst the other 5 would be relocated within existing
boundaries. The proposal also included retaining the temporary service road
that had received approval as part of application C15/0495/43/LL and extending
it to serve the additional units, erecting a 1.2m earthen clawdd
along the northern and western boundaries of the site and relocating a septic
tank. It
was noted that there was extensive planning history to the site and, when the
C15/0495/43/LL application was approved, it had been for the whole site. It was
reiterated that this had been of assistance to rationalise all historical
applications on the site. The site was situated in the countryside and within
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It was also within the Landscape
of Outstanding Historic Interest. It was
highlighted that a number of policies within the Local Development Plan (LDP)
were relevant when determining the application. The main policy to consider
when assessing the principle of the development was policy TWR 3. It was noted that the policy permitted small
extensions to the site's surface area and /or relocating units from prominent
locations to less prominent locations subject to compliance with criteria. Permission had been granted in application C15/1495/43/LL to extend the
current site to 3565 square metres while the existing application requested an
extension to the site so that it would take up a total of 7658 square metres.
This would be an increase of nearly 43% to the size of the site, based on its
size prior to the 2015 permission. Reference was made to the need to relocate a
sewerage treatment tank but there was no reason to extend the site in order to
locate the sewerage treatment tank. When considering the reasons, the question was whether to consider the proposal as an extension at all. There was no physical connection between the element of the existing holiday park and the proposed location, and it was proposed to create a wholly separate access and track. It appeared that the relocation would lead to a whole new site. Policy TWR 3 did not support establishing new static caravan sites within the AONB. It was considered that the plan approved in 2015 had been an appropriate compromise to ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
Application No C18/0715/39/LL - 68, Cae Du Estate, Abersoch, Pwllheli PDF 113 KB Two storey
dormer extension, dormer window
and balcony to front and single storey
front extension to existing
garage and external alterations to the property LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes Additional documents: Minutes: Two-storey dormer
extension, dormer window and balcony to the front and single-storey front
extension to existing garage and external alterations to the property. Attention was
drawn to the additional observations received. (a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
to the application and noted that it was an application for the erection of a
two-storey dormer extension to square off the front of the house, to install a
dormer window and balcony to the front along with a single-storey front
extension to the area of the existing connecting garage. It was explained that
the property stood on a slope in a row of residential houses, in the corner of
the fairly modern Cae Du Estate cul
de sac and parallel to the traditional Cae Du
farmhouse. The property in
question was a dormer bungalow which was of slightly different design to the
remaining dormer houses in the row, which already had front balconies above
integrated garages. It was noted that the proposal would involve filling the
south eastern corner to square off the house with a two-storey gable end dormer
extension, and install a dormer window and balcony to the front. Although
gables were not a common feature in the row in question, there were elements of
glass gables in houses in the cul de sac parallel to
it within the Estate; therefore, it was not an entirely alien feature in the
vicinity. It was noted that the rest of the houses in the row had front
balconies and were a common and very prominent feature in the design of houses
on the estate, therefore, there was no significant concern regarding the
addition. It was accepted that the
house was visible from a distance due to its elevated position; however,
bearing in mind that the design of the existing house was different from the
rest of the row and the fact that there were views of it in a built-up context
amongst houses of various designs, it was considered that the appearance would
not have a significant impact on the street-scene or on the AONB landscape. In the context of general and
residential matters, it was highlighted that objections had been received from
neighbours on the grounds of issues such as overlooking, loss of privacy, noise
and loss of light. Due to the angle of the layout of the property, it was
considered that the new front windows would not directly face Cae Du Farm. It was noted that the side windows of the
proposal would be changed from bedroom windows to small bathroom windows;
therefore, in this respect, it was an improvement for objectors on both sides,
to what was experienced at present. Due to differences in the level of the land, the property to the front of the application site, namely the 67 Cae Du bungalow, was on a much lower level and only the building's roof was visible from the application site; therefore, the vastness of the front windows or balcony would not compromise their privacy. Views ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
Application No C18/0744/23/R3 - Land by Cibyn Industrial Estate, Caernarfon PDF 104 KB Create a new car park, access, street lighting together with associated engineering Works LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors Berwyn Parry Jones and
Jason Wayne Parry Link to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Creation of a new
car park, access, street lighting along with associated engineering works. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received. (a)
The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated
on the background to the application and noted that it was a full application
to create a park and share facility for the construction work of the Wylfa power station. It was noted that the facility would
accommodate approximately 153 vehicles which included parking for the disabled,
electric vehicles and motor bikes. Reference was made
to the relevant policies noted in the report.
It was reported that the public consultation period had ended and that
one objection had been received on the grounds that the proposed bypass and car
park would have a detrimental impact on the Fferm Bodrual holiday accommodation business. In terms of the
principle of the development and that the site was located adjacent to, but
outside, the Caernarfon development boundary as included in the LDP, policy
PCYFF1 along with policies PS12 and PS9 would apply in this instance. Having
considered these policies, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable
in principle given that the Local Development Plan permitted such a development
on this parcel of land along with the fact that its location opposite the
industrial estate was crucial given its proximity and accessibility to the
local roads network that would serve Wylfa. Although the site
was located in the countryside, in the context of visual amenities it was
considered that the impact of the bypass would be much greater and broader than
the impact of the car park on the local landscape given its design, the
landscape plan and the scale of the proposal compared with the design and scale
of the bypass. In the context of
residential and general amenities, it had already been noted that an objection
had been received from the occupants of Fferm Bodrual which was located approximately 100m from the
application site. In the context of the application, it was considered that
creating a car park next to an industrial estate and to the west of a new
bypass would not create a significant increase in noise disturbance and that it
would not lead to loss of privacy given the distance between the application
site and the property/holiday accommodation, along with the fact that the
bypass would be located between the two sites. (b)
When considering highway matters, the need to
update this consideration was highlighted as Welsh Government had confirmed
that they had no objection to the application, subject to including an
appropriate condition. It was reiterated
that the recommendation had been modified to delegate the right to the Senior
Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to receiving favourable
observations from Natural Resources Wales and imposing additional conditions. In response to a
question, the officer highlighted that the car park would be available to the
public should Wylfa not go ahead. (c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application. |
|
Application No C18/0780/20/LL - Fferm Plas Llanfair, Ffordd Caernarfon, Y Felinheli PDF 136 KB Siting of 4 seasonal
holiday accomodation units in the form
of shepherd huts together with a shower hut (amended
application to that refused under reference
number C18/0393/20/LL) LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith Additional documents: Minutes: (a)
Siting of 4 seasonal holiday accommodation units in
the form of shepherds' huts together with a shower hut (amended application
from that refused under reference C18/0393/20/LL). Attention
was drawn to the additional observations received. The Senior
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background to the application and
noted that it was a full application for the siting of four seasonal holiday
accommodation units in the form of shepherds' huts together with a shower hut.
It was reiterated that the proposal would also entail the planting of trees and
shrubs together with the creation of a parking area. It was highlighted that
the application was an amendment to the plan refused in June 2018 under
delegated rights where the holiday units were sited in a row within the
application site. The huts would be sited in a semi-circular formation in the
amended plan. It
was explained that the site was on a parcel of land in a corner of an
agricultural field, with unobstructed views toward the Menai Strait (a Special
Area of Conservation) and Anglesey (with the banks of the Menai Strait within
its AONB). Access would be gained to the site from a private roads network. It
was noted that agricultural land and the residential dwellings of Llanfair Hall
were located to the north of the site and open agricultural land and the dwelling
of Llanfair Old Hall were located to the south. It
was reported that the principle of establishing new, temporary holiday
accommodation was included in Policy TWR 5 of the Local Development Plan. It
was reiterated that such developments were approved if compliance with a number
of criteria could be secured. The proposed development was required to be of
high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance, and located in an
unobtrusive location. Despite being located in the corner of the field, such a
development on a parcel of land, which by its nature and character was open,
would be an obtrusive development in the landscape and would create structures
that were incompatible with the open landscape. Historically,
it had been noted that this part of the landscape would have been identified as
park land with an open character and nature, and although there were other
developments locally, these were on a domestic scale rather than within the
open landscape. Having considered the nature and amended layout of the holiday accommodation units, the parking bays, the associated equipment and the introduction of human activities of a tourist nature to the landscape, the cumulative effect of these elements of the development would still be akin to creating an obtrusive development in the local landscape. Any ancillary facility should be located in an existing building or, should this not be possible, that any new facility should be commensurate with the scale of the development. It was considered that adding the washing and toilet structure to the four holiday units would not be commensurate with the scale of the development since it would increase the density of ... view the full minutes text for item 5.5 |