Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

None to note

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

a)     The following Members declared that they were Local Members in relation to the items noted:

Councillor Rhys Tudur (who was not a Member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.1 (C25/0710/41/LL) on the agenda

Councillor Gareth Williams (who was not a Member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.2 (C26/0216/30/LL) on the agenda

Councillor Elwyn Edwards (who was a Member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.3 (C25/0273/04/LL) on the agenda

b)     The Chair highlighted that Committee Members and Planning Officers had received a letter from the applicant of application 5.1 (C25/0710/41/LL) on the agenda

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, 13^th July 2026, be signed as a true record.

The Chair accepted the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 13 July 2026 as a correct 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.

Erection of 20 affordable dwellings, creation of new vehicular access from the B4354, together with associated works

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

To delegate the right to the Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to a 106 agreement or a unilateral agreement for an educational contribution and play equipment on an open space, together with the following conditions:

1.         Time

2.         Development to comply with the approved plans

3.         A programme for providing affordable housing must be submitted and agreed

4.         The external materials including the roof slates must be agreed

5.         Removal of Permitted Development Rights

6.         Welsh Water/Drainage condition

7.         Highways Conditions

8.         Biodiversity/NRW conditions

9.         Building Control Plan

10.       A Welsh name for the housing estate and individual houses.

11.       Restrict the use to C3 use class only

12.       Complete landscaping

Note: Bat Licence

Erection of 20 affordable homes, creation of new vehicular access from the B4354 along with associated works

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

a)           The ⁠Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to erect 20 affordable homes along with the creation of a new vehicular access and associated developments. ⁠It was reported that the site had now been amended and was in its entirety on a site specifically designated for a T64 housing development within the Chwilog development boundary, with the number of houses proposed reduced from 25 to 20 to enable this.

It was explained that plots nos. 16-19 (Two 3 bed houses, one 2 bed house and one 2 bed bungalow) from the original plan had been deleted, and that plots 24 - 25 had been changed from two 1 bed flats to one 2 bed house. The proposal did not provide units outside the development boundary, providing 100% affordable housing with a mix of occupancy. The proposed plan included the provision of public open space and a sustainable drainage area.

Members were reminded that the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee on 27 April 2026, where it was decided to refuse the application on the grounds of one reason namely that it was contrary to the LDP's Tai 16 Policy  Exception Sites as it was not possible to demonstrate a need for the exempt land until the designated T64 site had been developed, and therefore the application had been referred to a cooling-off period. ⁠Since then, the application had been specifically amended in response to the above refusal reason. It was highlighted that several revised documents and plans had been submitted to reflect the change, and a period of full re-consultation, including public consultation, had taken place. As the proposal had been amended in response to the objection of the Planning Committee, the application was being resubmitted for a decision based on the amendments.

Reference was made to responses to the second consultation and to those numbers who had a five year connection with Gwynedd and wished to live in Chwilog, together with an update of the need figures for the whole of Gwynedd which confirmed that there were 2103 people on the Housing Options register for Social housing with a five year connection with Gwynedd and 882 on the Tai Teg register. ⁠ It was confirmed that the Housing Needs Report had been completed by the Rural Housing Facilitator and submitted as part of the application.

It was noted that the proposal would offer 100% affordable housing with the status of the village of Chwilog in the LDP meaning the expectation was for affordable units to serve the affordable need of Gwynedd (as was the case with other similar sites designated throughout the County). It was reiterated that the need had been proven and that the proposal complied with the requirements of the LDP's policies TAI 3, TAI 8 and TAI 15. It was emphasised that the proposal did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Change of use of an agricultural field to accommodate 10 seasonal touring caravan pitches additional to the main site, the erection of a toilet block, soft landscape improvements.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Williams

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse - reasons:

1.    This development would not be located in an unobtrusive location that would be completely screened by existing landscape features and landscaping proposals, it would be harmful to the quality of the landscape and it would not integrate appropriately to its location in open countryside. In addition, the proposal would not contribute to the maintenance, enhancement or restoration of the recognised character of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies TWR 5, PCYFF 4 and AMG 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

2. Insufficient information had been submitted as part of the planning application to enable the Local Planning Authority, as the competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project for the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau Special Area of Conservation. The proposal therefore does not show that the proposal would protect or improve the natural environment and therefore the application is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026. 

3. Insufficient evidence has been submitted as part of the planning application to demonstrate that full consideration has been given to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to the requirements of criteria 6 of Policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and advice provided in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales. 

4. The proposal as submitted entails the use of a sub-standard entrance and the use of a second entrance without restriction. It is considered that the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to the requirements of policy TRA 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan which confirms that proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the safe and efficient operation of the highway will be rejected.

5. No drainage statement has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore insufficient information has been submitted to be able to confirm that the proposal complies with the requirements of part 7 of TAN 15: ⁠Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) in terms of providing a sustainable drainage system.

6. The site is partially located within a C2 and C3 Flood Zone for surface water and minor watercourses as noted by the 'Flood Map for Planning'. No Assessment of Flood Consequences has been submitted as part of the application and the application means providing a new, very vulnerable development on ground floor level and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 6.1, 10.19 or 10.20 of Technical Advice Note 15: ⁠Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) that ensures that very vulnerable developments are not located within flood zones where they would cause a risk  ...  view the full decision text for item 7.

Erection of 8 no. shepherds huts, installation of foul water receptacle and soakaway and infrastructure to serve shepherds huts.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elwyn Edwards

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To Refuse

1.     The proposal would create new permanent alternative camping accommodation within a Special Landscape Area and is therefore contrary to point 1 of policy TWR 3 as well as PCYFF 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protects the Special Landscape Area from this type of development.

2.     The test of likely significant impact suggests that there may be a significant impact on the features of the Afon Dyfrdwy and Llyn Tegid SAC, due to the new sewage treatment works proposed and the proximity to the SAC. This means that an Appropriate Assessment is required but insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application for the Local Planning Authority to be able to complete an Appropriate Assessment in this case in accordance with the Authority's requirements under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is therefore concluded that there can be no assurance that the proposal will not have a significant or adverse effect on the SAC due to the lack of information and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 or the requirements of policies PS19 and AMG 5 of the Joint LDP or chapter 6 of PPW that deals with green infrastructure, net benefit to biodiversity, the protection given to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and trees and woodlands. 

3.     The site is partly located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 for surface water and small watercourses as set out in the 'Flood Map for Planning'. No Assessment of Flood Consequences has been submitted as part of the application and the application means providing a new, very vulnerable development on ground floor level and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 6.1, 10.19 or 10.20 of Technical Advice Note 15: ⁠Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) that ensures that very vulnerable developments are not located within flood zones where they would cause a risk to life.  ⁠

4.     No drainage statement has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore insufficient information has been submitted to be able to confirm that the proposal complies with the requirements of part 7 of TAN 15: ⁠Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) in terms of providing a sustainable drainage system.

Erection of 8 shepherds' huts, installation of foul water receptacle and soakaway and infrastructure to serve the shepherds' huts

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

a)     The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that it was planned to erect 8 shepherds’ huts as part of the Palé Hall Hotel business. The number of shepherds’ huts from the original proposal had been reduced from 10 to 8 following amendments to the application.

Three shepherds’ huts would be located in the northern part of the site closer to the hotel, with a further five located further to the south-west around an existing small lake. It was explained that the site was located within the grounds of the Palé Hall Hotel, a Grade II* listed Victorian country house, approximately 1km from Llanderfel and approximately 5.5km from Bala; the site was outside any development boundary and therefore in open countryside.

In terms of relevant planning restrictions, the location of the site was within the Dyffryn Afon Dyfrdwy Historic Landscape and the Bala Countryside Special Landscape Area; within the catchment area of the Afon Dyfrdwy and Llyn Tegid Special Area of Conservation (SAC); close to the Afon Dyfrdwy Site of Special Scientific Interest, partly within the Wern Dywyll Wildlife Site and the whole site was within the Palé Hall Parkland Tree Preservation Order; part of the site was also within Flood Zones 2 and 3 for surface water and small watercourses on the Flood Map for Planning.

The application was submitted to a committee as the site was larger in size than could be determined by delegated procedure.

In the context of an assessment of the relevant planning considerations, it was noted that the proposed creation of a new permanent alternative camping site within a Special Landscape Area had been considered under Policy TWR 3 of the LDP. It was noted that criterion 1 of policy TWR 3 stated that proposals for such new sites in Special Landscape Areas would be refused, and therefore the proposal was fundamentally contrary to the policy and to the requirements of policy PCYFF 1.

Reference was made to Natural Resources Wales' concerns regarding the potential impact on the Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegid SACs. Although information had been submitted regarding the foul drainage arrangements, the applicant had not provided hydrogeological evidence or a Groundwater Risk Assessment, as required. As a result, an adverse impact on the SAC could not be ruled out and sufficient information had not been received to enable the Authority to complete an appropriate Assessment.

In the context of flooding and drainage issues, although the site was partly located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, a Flooding Consequences Assessment had not been submitted as part of the application. With the proposal involving development that was a very vulnerable development, it was in breach of the relevant requirements of TAN 15: Development, Flooding and Coastal Erosion. In addition, a Drainage Statement had not been submitted to indicate how surface water would be managed on site and therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.