Venue: Neuadd Dwyfor, Stryd Penlan, Pwllheli, Gwynedd, LL53 5DE. View directions
Contact: Bethan Adams 01286 679020
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillors Louise Hughes, Anne Lloyd Jones Eric M. Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd and Cemlyn Williams. |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters. Minutes: (a) No declarations
of personal interest were received from
any members present. (b) The following members declared that they were
local members in relation to the items noted: ·
Councillor Dewi W. Roberts (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to items 6.1 and 6.3 on the agenda, (planning application numbers C18/0715/39/LL a
C18/0865/39/LL); ·
Councillor Elin Walker Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 6.2 on the agenda, planning application number C18/0874/11/LL). ·
Councillor Elfed Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 6.4 on
the agenda (planning application
number C18/0640/18/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 Chair for consideration. |
|
The Chair shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 5 November 2018, be signed as a true record. Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 5 November 2018, as a true record. |
|
PARKING ORDER, Y FACH, ABERSOCH PDF 51 KB To submit the report of the Senior Property Manager. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi Wyn Roberts Additional documents: Minutes: The report of the Corporate
Property Senior Manager was
submitted in the context of issuing an Off-street Parking
Order, for parking spaces near y Fach, Abersoch near the
A499 main road. It was explained
that over the years motorists had parked on the verge
without any regulatory arrangements. It was noted that in 2017, the Council had invested
in a scheme that enabled people
to park and cross the road in a safer and orderly manner and the scheme had been welcomed locally. There was a need for regulatory
arrangements to ensure that the space was not misused by motorists or caravan users for
long periods and to promote a reasonable turnover during the day. It was noted that discussions had taken place with
the local member and the Community Council and they supported the proposal, namely, to introduce pay and
display arrangements during the holiday season only (March to October) and to prohibit use by caravans and motorhomes
between 10pm and 8am. It was noted that one objection had been received to this proposal during
the public consultation. Reference was made to the summary of the matters noted by the objector together with the Council's response highlighting that increasing the safety of motorists and pedestrians
was one of the main reasons
for creating this new resource. It was noted that this parking resource
had been created in response to the aspirations of the local community and that
the proposal had been advertised in accordance
with the statutory requirements and had received overall support with only one
objection to hand. It was recommended that the response to the individual points raised by the objector supports and justifies the intention to confirm the Parking Order. The local member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee),
noted that he supported the Parking Order, and there had been
some discussion locally on this
issue and what was proposed in terms of pay
and display arrangements during the holiday season only and the charge
for parking were acceptable. He added that the Community Council
had no objection to the proposal. RESOLVED to approve issuing an Off-street Parking Order, y Fach, Abersoch. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department. 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 |
|
Application No. C18/0715/39/LL - 68, Cae Du Estate, Abersoch, Pwllheli PDF 101 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 Dewi Wyn Roberts Link
to relevant background documents 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.
(a) The Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that
the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on
15 October 2018, in order to undertake a site inspection visit. Some members
had visited the site prior
to the meeting. It was noted that the applicant's agent had submitted further plans in response
to the objectors' concerns regarding the design, overlooking and parking. It was noted that objections had been received expressing concern about the scale of the extension, however, it was not considered unreasonable in terms of size and
scale and was not an over-development of the site as a reasonable amenity area was retained around the house. Given that
the design of the existing house was different to 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 landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Although the local member's concern and those of the objectors were acknowledged, it was considered that there were
no grounds to refuse the proposal in terms of design
and visual amenities. She expanded
and stated that objections had been received from
two neighbours regarding overlooking, privacy, noise and loss of light.
It was not considered that
the proposal would significantly make the situation worse, due to the angle of the layout of the property the new front windows would not directly face Cae Du Farm. It was noted that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design,
visual and general amenities and transport, and complied with
the requirements of relevant
policies. (b)
The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee)
objected to the application
and made the following main points:- ·
He thanked
the Committee for visiting the site; ·
There were
many holiday homes on the estate
with modifications made to houses in order to generate
profit at the expense of the Welsh culture and language; ·
Parking concerns
on the estate due to the number of visitors to one house; ·
Parties were
held on the verandas with food
and drink purchased beforehand. This would not benefit the local economy; ·
There was no
reference to privacy in the Joint Local
Development Plan. The proposal
would impact the privacy of the neighbours. · Reference was made to paragraph A29 of Policy PPS7 within the national addendum in terms of the distance between buildings in order to reduce overlooking and enable natural light in the buildings. Under paragraph A30 overlooking meant from a room into a neighbour's garden, namely the nearest 3-4 metres to the house. ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Application No. C18/0874/11/LL - 49, Trem Elidir, Bangor PDF 93 KB Change of use of dwelling (use class C3) into a home in multiple
occupation (use class C4). LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Elin Walker Jones Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of a
house (C3 class use) to a house in multiple occupation (C4 class use). (a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
Policy TAI 9 of the JLDP supports
the principle of converting
existing buildings into multiple occupation
housing within the development boundaries subject to meeting four criteria: 1. That the property was suitable for conversion - In considering the size of the building and its current
residential use, it was deemed that there
was no reason to believe that the building was not suitable to provide alternative living units to its existing use.
2. The proportion of houses
in multiple occupation in any
electoral ward should not exceed the specific threshold for the ward - 10% was
the current threshold for Glyder ward, with the current percentage of houses in multiple
occupation in the ward being 6.2%. Only 2 out of 13 houses with the same postcode
were houses in multiple occupation.
3. There would
be no detrimental impact on the residential
amenities of nearby properties - It was considered that the impact on amenities from
this development in itself would
not be significantly different
to what could occur under the current legal use
and therefore, it was not considered that approving one multiple
occupancy unit in the ward would have an
additional significant harmful impact on the residential amenities of close neighbours. 4. Ensure an
appropriate parking provision for the development - The Transportation
Unit had no concerns regarding the proposal. This development was not considered to be significant in terms of changing
the density of the site's use. It was noted that due to its location
in an existing
residential location, and that residential
use of similar density was proposed here, it was not considered that this development
would harm the amenities of neighbours or the area in general.
The development was acceptable
in terms of relevant local and national policies
for the reasons noted in the report. (b) The Local Member
(not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the following
main points:- ·
That local
residents and Bangor City
Council councillors objected
the proposal; ·
That the houses
in this area
were family three-bedroom dwellings with a small garden and a parking space
for one car. ·
Lack of parking
space on the street; ·
No need for
a multiple occupation house, with 6.2% of housing in multiple
occupation in the ward, adding to this number would be an over-development. ·
That University
accommodation was half empty; ·
Young people
would create more waste compared to a family, there were
already fly tipping issues in the area; ·
There would
be more nuisance to residents
and there was already a fairly high percentage of lawbreaking in the area; ·
The location
map was misleading; · The Committee was requested to refuse the application in order to enable the house to be rented by ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
Application No. C18/0865/39/LL - 4, Cae Du Estate, Abersoch, Pwllheli PDF 94 KB Extension and alteration to house including raising roof level and installing a rear dormer window (revised plan). LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dewi
Wyn Roberts Additional documents: Minutes: Extension and alterations to the
house to include raising the roof level and installation
of a rear dormer window (amended application). (a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that some
Members had visited the site prior to this meeting. She referred
to the consultations and noted that the Community Council objected due to over-development, the AONB Unit were
satisfied with the proposal and no
comments/objections were received during
the public consultation period. It was explained that the main change to the property's front elevation, namely the most prominent elevation, would be an increase of 0.42m to the height of the roof and the introduction of roof-lights to the front roof in order to provide
bedrooms in the roof space. She
noted that the four bungalows were currently fairly uniform, however, considering the small scale of the increase in height,
it was not considered that this would entail
a detrimental or significant
visual change in this built
context and was not bad enough to be refused. It was noted that
there was a hard standing area with
space for two cars to park
at the bottom of the front garden of the adjacent property and the estate road. She drew
attention to the parking spaces that were
also along the side of the estate road. The Transportation Unit had
no objection to the proposal, therefore the proposal was considered acceptable in relation
to road safety and parking policies.
It was recommended that the proposal was acceptable for approval in terms
of design, visual and general amenities,
landscape and transport, and that it complied with the requirements of relevant local and national policies
in accordance to what was stated in the report. (b)
The Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee)
objected to the application
and made the following main points:- ·
That the proposal
was an over-development of
the site and there would be overlooking; ·
Houses in
the area were used as holiday homes and caused
disruption to other residents; ·
Approval of the application
would set a precedent in terms of raising
the height of the roof; ·
Detrimental effect
on the estate residents and the local area in
terms of parking and litter; ·
That the Community Council objected the proposal; ·
House prices
were going beyond the reach of local people. (c)
In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted: ·
That it was difficult to state that the proposal was an over-development of the site considering the extensive garden at the back; ·
The extension would be at a lower level than the house at the back of the site and there
would be no unacceptable overlooking; ·
That Policy PCYFF 2 of the JLDP protects
amenities, there would be no significant
increase in the current impact; · Although concerns regarding litter were noted, this ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|
Application No. C18/0640/18/LL - The Bull Inn, High Street, Deiniolen PDF 118 KB Change of use of former public house into holiday
accomodation. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elfed W. Williams Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of former public house into holiday
accommodation. (a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee held on 5 November
2018 for officers to consult on the business plan and consider this as part of the assessment. It was explained that the application was to convert the derelict The Bull Inn public
house in Deiniolen into self-serviced holiday accommodation with eight bedrooms.
The development involved a considerable change to the internal layout of the building but there
would not be a significant change to the external appearance. It was noted that
the public house had been closed since
2016 and had been for sale for
over a year (between July 2016 and October 2017) and advertised at a low price (£75,000). Should the public house business be viable, it was considered that it would be reasonable to expect that new managers
for the business would have come
forward during that period. It had to be borne in mind
that another public house, namely
"The Wellington", was within 20m of this building. It was highlighted that Policy TWR 2 of the JLDP supports the development of permanent holiday accommodation by converting existing buildings provided that proposals
are of high quality. It was noted that there was justification to call the development
one of high quality. It was noted that
it was believed that the potential to cause detriment to amenities such as noise and
disturbance was more likely
from the authorised use, such as a public house, than there would be from self-serviced holiday accommodation as proposed here. Attention was drawn to the fact that the Transportation
Unit had no objection to
the proposal. In considering the authorised use of the building as a public house, it was not deemed that this
development would be likely to cause substantially worse difficulties than the authorised situation. It was noted that the Transportation Unit stated that public
parking was available in car parks and
on the street within a reasonable distance to the facility. Reference was made
to the business plan submitted
by the applicant that explained that the intention was to convert the public house into
high quality accommodation for up to 20 guests and stated that
there were no similar facilities
for large groups, and of this quality, available
locally. Attention was
drawn to the additional observations
received from the Tourism, Marketing and Customer Care Service together with the Council's Rates Unit. The development was acceptable in terms
of relevant local and national policies
for the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the
following main points:- ·
It was proposed
to provide high quality accommodation for groups at a competitive price; ·
The proposal
complied with the policies in the JLDP; · The change ... view the full minutes text for item 6.4 |