Agenda and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Elin Walker Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd and Owain Williams.

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

(a)       The Senior Solicitor declared a personal interest in item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number C19/0014/19/LL), as a close relative of his lived opposite the site.

The officer was of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest and he left 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 Eric M. Jones (a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda (planning application number C19/0355/17/LL)

·        Councillor Peter Garlick (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number C19/0014/19/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, 20^th May 2019, be signed as a true record.

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 20 May 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.

RESOLVED

Full application for the provision of 29 residential units with associated landscaping, parking, the creation of a new entrance and an area of public open space

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Peter Garlick

Link to relevant background documents

Full application to erect 29 residential units together with landscaping, car parking, create a new access and open public area.

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received

(a)       The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and reminded the members that the application had been deferred in the committee meeting on 29.4.19 in order to receive more information / amended plans that would satisfy the Committee's concerns.

It was explained that the site was located within the development boundary of the village of Bontnewydd and was designated as a site for the construction of new housing in the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (LDP). For information, permission had previously been given for the construction of 26 houses on the site, and it was considered that a material commencement of this consent had been made and this meant that it remained 'extant' and that a legal right existed to erect 26 new houses on the site. It was now a full application for 29 new houses.

The Planning Manager reported that all details of the application had been included in the report, but specific reference was made to responses to concerns that had been raised by the members during the previous Committee, as well as concerns that had been raised by the owner of the nearby house. Attention was also drawn to the late observations received. One of these concerns was the layout of plots 14, 15 and 16 with a request for the applicant to consider suitable amendments to this part of the site in order to minimise the detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjacent property (Tywyn), mainly due to overlooking. In response to these concerns, amended plans were received for the three proposed properties, and it was reported that the applicant had stated that he had discussed the amendments with the property owner. It was noted that the amended plans demonstrated the distances and the boundaries between the houses and the building of Tywyn and the line of sight stemming from the rear windows of plots 14, 15 and 16 toward Tywyn. The changes to the design of the houses on these plots that would reduce the number of openings on the first floor of the houses were highlighted and explained in order to overcome concerns. It was considered that these amendments would make the development more acceptable and that they addressed the neighbour and the Committee's concerns in terms of the impact on the amenities of the adjacent property.

It was noted that the planning officers had re-consulted with the neighbour regarding the amendments, and reference was made to his observations in the late observations form. It was highlighted that the neighbour was unsatisfied with the amendments, and was still expressing concerns with regard to overlooking. The officers were of the opinion that there were no reasonable grounds that could be considered to justify any further concerns about the unacceptable impact on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Full application to site 4 safari tents, 1 sauna building and other associated works

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Craig ab Iago

Link to relevant background documents

A full application to construct four 'safari' tents, one 'sauna' building along with associated work

          Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received

(a)       The Planning Manager noted that an agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, had requested that the discussion be deferred in order to allow the applicant to submit amended plans and additional information in response to the concerns noted in the report. Nevertheless, the officers did not see the need to defer; there had been no pre-application and a new application could be submitted in future, and the Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application. It was noted that this was a full application to site four safari tents, construct an associated building to use as a sauna along with other ancillary work including creating an access road, parking spaces, access paths, landscaping, service links and installing sewage treatment works.

It was added that the site was located among agricultural fields outside any defined development boundary in open countryside within an Special Landscape Area and the Dyffryn Nantlle Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. It was noted that access to the site led through the applicant's residential curtilage along the existing private access road that backed onto a detached residential house.

It was noted that the applicant, in submitting the application, had noted in the Planning Statement that Policy TWR 5 had been considered as the tents would not be permanent, because they would only have a temporary connection with the land. The planning officers were of the opinion that the most relevant policy was Policy TWR 3 as more permanent elements were proposed as part of the development. It was added that there had been no clear information or adequate reference submitted about the intention with the timber platforms and the likely steps to secure them to or into the ground.

It was considered that the proposal to install electricity and water connections for the individual tents, create an access road, construct a sauna building (despite its small size), footpaths and hard standings and install a series of lights created permanent elements as well as an excess of hard standings which were contrary to Policy TWR 5. Part of paragraph 6.3.85 of the explanation of policy TWR 5 noted: "They should only provide basic facilities for sleeping, seating and eating without installation of water services or provision of drainage facilities for WC, showers and washing. This ensures that such structures do not generate a level of permanence that could increase the level of landscape impact and site restoration should removal of the structures be required.” It would not be reasonable or practical to set up electricity, water and sewerage connections at the beginning of the holiday season and then remove them at the end of the season. With these elements being fixed or permanent, it would not be possible to agree with the agent's view that Policy TWR 5 was the relevant policy for considering this proposal. 

Consideration was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Non material amendment to approval C13/0288/03/LL in order to construct a smaller extension with white rendr instead of natural stone finish as approved.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Annwen Daniels

Link to relevant background documents

An unsubstantial amendment to permission number C13/0288/03/LL - to construct a smaller extension with white render rather than natural stone as approved

(a)       The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that it had been submitted to the Planning Committee as the applicant's wife was a Councillor. It was highlighted that the proposal was acceptable and complied with the relevant requirements of local and national policies.

(b)       It was proposed and seconded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.

RESOLVED to approve the application

1.         Five years.

2.         In accordance with the plans.

Application for the alteration of the roof at the front of the building in order to facilitate on extension to the existing property.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eric Merfyn Jones

Link to relevant background documents

Application to alter the roof at the front of the building in order to facilitate an extension to the existing property.

(a)       The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this was an application to extend the current two-storey house at the rear and to the front.   The extension would include making internal alterations including moving an existing bedroom to the new extension space and creating a bathroom in place of the former bedroom, as well as increasing the size of an existing bedroom on the first floor and extending the existing hallway on the ground floor.

It was explained that the application had been resubmitted as a previous application for the same proposal had been refused, and that it was a Local Member who was submitting the application to the Committee as he was of the opinion that a further assessment of the plans was required. It was highlighted that the applicant had refused to compromise and that the planning officers, although of the opinion that the proposal was acceptable, suggested that the design could be improved as the scale of the plan in question was unsuitable. It was considered that the extension created a dominant, top-heavy and alien feature which would neither improve its character nor respect its site context within the estate. It was reiterated that this would be contrary to Policy PCYFF 3 of the Local Development Plan

It was explained that the property stood in one of the farthest plots from the estate entrance. Despite this, its setting was visible from the entrance. Although the officers were of the opinion that the extension would be unacceptable from a visual aspect, it was not believed that it would have a detrimental effect on the neighbours' amenities or that it would cause them an unacceptable disturbance. Therefore, with regard to this aspect, it was not believed that it would be contrary to the relevant requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.

(b)       Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member read a letter on behalf of the applicant, who was unable to attend:

It was noted,

·           that the roof's height needed to be raised in order to overcome a lack of height in the bathroom.

·           that a number of the houses in the estate had been modified by the original developer, or had been modified after changing hands. 

·           that this application was for raising the roof level, and there was no application to extend

·           the change would barely be noticeable.

·           although the officers refused the application, it was highlighted that there was no public objection to the proposal.

         The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:

·         That a number of the houses in the estate had been adapted and, although the applicant had planned adaptations to houses numbers 11 and 12, he regretted that he had not adapted his house sooner.

·         That letters of support of the application had been received

·         That the estate was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4