Venue: Meeting Room, Frondeg, Pwllheli, LL53 5RE.. View directions
Contact: Bethan Adams 01286 679020
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillors Gwen Griffith and Dyfrig Wynn Jones,
and Councillor Peter Read (Local Member). |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: The
following members declared that they were local members in relation to the
items noted:- ·
Councillor E. Selwyn
Griffiths, (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.3 on
the agenda (planning application number C15/1181/44/LL); ·
Councillor Eric M. Jones, (a
member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.6 on the agenda
(planning application number C15/1248/17/LL); ·
Councillor Anwen Davies, (not
a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.7 on the agenda (planning
application number C15/1356/40/LL); ·
Councillor Michael Sol Owen,
(a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.8 on the agenda
(planning application number C14/1118/45/LL). The members
withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the discussions 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. |
|
The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 1 February, 2016 be signed as a true record. (copy enclosed) Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 1 February 2016, as a true record and subject to adding under application
number C15/1281/11/LL - Coach
House, Belmont Road, Bangor
on page 11: RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions 1.
5 years 2.
In accordance with
the plans 3.
Slate roof 4.
Withdrawal of
permitted development rights involving any changes to the roof. 5.
A condition to
manage demolition work including the submission of demolition method management
plan prior to commencing the work and restricting working hours to 09:00-18:00
Monday - Friday, 09:00-13:00 on Saturday, and not at all on Sunday or Bank
Holidays. 6.
Demolition work
must take place following the recommendation in the ecological report 7.
A condition to
agree on boundary treatments. 8.
Agree on a waste
drainage and surface water drainage plan. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. (copy enclosed) 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 aspects of the policies. |
|
Application no. C14/1197/22/LL - Bryn Melyn, Nasareth PDF 780 KB Replace existing animal housing facilities with new
facilities to include dog kennels, cattery, parking spaces, cesspit
and associated facilities. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Craig ab Iago Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: (a) The Development Control Manager
elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
the principle of establishing
an animal shelter on the 'Freshfields' (Bryn Melyn) holding
had been established back in 1997. It was deemed that the scale of the proposal would not substantially impair the environment given the impact and setting of the existing structures on the landscape, together with the design and elevations/external materials of the new structures that would reduce
the visual impact within the local landscape and would
be an opportunity to improve the site's appearance. It was noted that the
main objection from nearby residents to the application was noise disturbance stemming from the site and
the noise that may emanate from
the proposal by increasing the number of dogs proposed to be accommodated on the site itself. It is considered that the proposed mitigating and sound insulation
measures would negate the noise disturbance stemming from the new kennels
building in order that the noise levels would
conform to the statutory noise levels, in
the hope that as a result there
would not be a significant or substantial impact on the residential
and general amenities of nearby residents. The development complied with the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan
(GUDP) for the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an
objector noted the following main points:- ·
That he
was speaking on behalf of all the residents of nearby dwellings to the application site; ·
That noise
disturbance had emanated from the site for
many years and increasing the numbers of dogs boarded there would
add to the problem;
·
Concern regarding
road safety, a litter bin area should be included on the site rather than on the road; ·
The applicant
had not discussed the application
with nearby residents prior to submission; ·
As a result of the applicant's behaviour over the years, the objector did not believe that he would
act in accordance with the planning permission; ·
Should the application
be approved, strict conditions must be imposed and the site should be monitored.. (c) It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application. A
Member noted that the Community Council's concerns should be considered
together with those of nearby residents. An amendment to undertake a site
inspection visit was proposed and seconded. RESOLVED to undertake a site inspection visit. |
|
Application no. C15/0215/40/LL - Land by Tan yr Eglwys, Abererch PDF 911 KB Construction of 9 new dwelling houses that includes 3 affordable dwellings along with an internal access road and internal pedestrian footway. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Peter Read Additional documents: Minutes: Members of the Committee had visited the site prior
to the meeting. (a)
It was reported
that amended plans had been received. It was noted that it was necessary to
re-consult and re-assess the application and therefore, it was requested that
the application be deferred. RESOLVED to defer the application. |
|
Application no. C15/1181/44/LL - Bryn Hyfryd, 25, Heol Merswy, Borth y Gest PDF 666 KB Application for the demolition of existing garage and erection of ancillary annexe. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor E. Selwyn Griffiths Additional documents: Minutes: (a) The
Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on
11 January, 2016, in order to undertake a site inspection visit and to confirm
the number of bedrooms in the existing property. Committee
Members had visited the site prior to the meeting and confirmation was received
from the applicant that there were three bedrooms on the first floor and one
bedroom in the attic. Attention was drawn to the fact that the applicant did not have to have planning
permission to convert the garage into an
additional room. It was noted that it
was recommended, if the application was to be approved, that it was proposed
to impose a condition that the use of the annex would only
be ancillary to the house. The development complied with
the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (a)
The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) made the following main points:- ·
He was grateful
to members for visiting the site; ·
It was noted that there was a strong objection to
the proposal from the residents of Borth y Gest as
well as the Town Council; ·
Concern regarding parking, bearing in mind that
parking problems already existed in the village; ·
The owner ran a business from the property; ·
That the annex
was not attached and his concern that it
would be a separate property. ·
That he
did not object to one extra room, however,
the proposed annex was more
like a studio flat; ·
This would create a precedent for the rest of the
terrace; ·
He asked the Committee to refuse the application, however, if it was approved that a condition be
imposed that only ancillary use would be made of the annex. (c) In
response to the observations
of the local member, the
Senior Planning Service Manager
noted: ·
That he understood the concerns, however, an application
could not be determined on the grounds of what may occur
in the future; ·
That the proposed annex was acceptable in terms of
size, setting and the relationship with the property; ·
It was recommended to impose a condition that only
ancillary/supplementary use would be made of the annex. The Senior Transport Development Control Officer
noted that the terraced house was fortunate to have a parking space and there
was a parking area in the village as well as parking on the street, although he
recognised that there was competition for parking spaces. He confirmed that there was no need for
additional or specific parking for the annex. In response to an enquiry from a member, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that in the case of this application, it would not be appropriate to impose a 106 Agreement to tie the use of the annex to the house as there was no concern regarding its size and it was within the development boundary. He stressed ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
Application no. C15/1199/16/LL - Penrhyn Quarry, Bethesda PDF 495 KB Install new zip wires adjacent to the existing zip wires, install associated equipment platforms to match existing, erection of a 4.5 metre acoustic bund, re-locate existing platforms and an existing shelter, alter levels, relocate existing paths and erection of a new shelter building. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwen Griffith Additional documents: Minutes: (a) The Development Control Officer
elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that
the Zip World enterprise was established within the quarry boundaries and part of the proposal would entail installing
two additional large zip wires
and two additional
zip wires near the smaller zip wire. It was noted that several objections
had been received to the proposal on the grounds of the impact of noise from the existing development and the fact that
this proposal would increase the impact. The applicant had agreed to limit the opening hours
of venture to between 08:00 and 20:00 daily and if the application was
approved, it was recommended to impose an appropriate condition. It was reported that observations had been received from
the Public Protection
Service stating that they had no objection
subject to conditions relating to controlling noise levels and
operational hours. It was noted that
it was recommended to impose an additional condition to what was stated in the
report, to agree on noise levels. The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:- ·
That the successful enterprise had been established
for two and a half years and it promoted Gwynedd as an area for tourists to
visit; ·
The applicant was
willing to restrict the opening hours of the enterprise; ·
Regarding concerns with
noise, the acoustic bund would improve the situation; ·
As the site was located
over 200m away from the nearest residential dwelling it was not considered that
there would be a loss of privacy; ·
The company did take
into consideration the impact on the amenities of residents. (c) It was noted that the Local Member supported
the application. Proposed and seconded to
approve the application. A member noted
that he welcomed
the employment created by the enterprise and he hoped
that they would employ local
people. In response to the comment, the Development Control Manager noted that
they had recently attended a presentation by the company and that the majority
of the staff were local. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1.
Time 2.
In accordance with the
plans 3.
Materials 4.
Biodiversity conditions 5.
Condition to restrict opening times to between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00. 6. Plan showing the location
where it was proposed to source slate waste to create the bund to be submitted and agreed
with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work on the development. 7. Agree on appropriate noise conditions. Notes: Archaeology and mineral matters |
|
Application no. C15/1238/42/LL - Cefn Edeyrn, Edern PDF 517 KB Creation of a touring caravan site for 27 units along with construction of a toilet / shower block and installation of a septic tank. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes Additional documents: Minutes: (a)
It was reported that the above
application had been withdrawn. RESOLVED to accept and note the above. |
|
Application no. C15/1248/17/LL - 35, Y Grugan, Groeslon, Caernarfon PDF 692 KB Application for the erection of a garage. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eric M. Jones Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: (a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that the application was to erect a new single garage on
a section of land outside the property's specific curtilage, in the far end of
an estate road. It was noted that a concrete foundation already existed on the
site which provided a parking space, with the foundation extending outside the
application site and providing approximately two additional parking spaces for
other houses. It
was reported that a number of objections had been received to the proposal
regarding the location of the garage in terms of land ownership, land ownership
dispute, access to maintain a section of property and use by the public of a
path running past the side of the garage. It
was noted that the proposal extended the existing concrete foundation to the
side (towards property number 23) and to the back with the plans submitted
indicating that the land was in the applicant's ownership. It was explained
that ownership issues were civil matters rather than planning matters,
therefore a land ownership dispute was not a reason to refuse planning permission. It
was noted that extending the foundation would impair upon the path that runs
between the proposed garage and property number 23 Y Grugan. It appeared that the path was in the
applicant's ownership, the application's agent had received written
confirmation from the Footpaths Unit stating that this was not a public
footpath and was not in the ownership of Gwynedd Council and had not been
adopted or maintained by the Council. It
was noted that the proposed garage would be erected totally on land located
within the applicant's ownership, and it was not considered to be an
over-development of the site and did not have a detrimental impact on the
privacy or amenities of any nearby person. It
was confirmed that the objections received did not outweigh relevant policy
considerations or material planning issues. The development complied with the
GUDP for the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:- ·
That he represented the
residents of Grugan; ·
That the proposed garage
would prevent him from parking in his current parking space; ·
The Committee should
consider conducting a site visit; ·
Impact on the path that
was used by a disabled person living in number 37; ·
That the garage would create an area for persons to
participate in anti-social and illegal activities. (c) The local member (a member of
this Planning Committee) made the following main points:- ·
That the application
had split the society; ·
That the concrete
foundation provided a parking area not a space for a garage; ·
That there
had been a verbal agreement between the occupiers of number 36 and the former owner of number 35 regarding parking arrangements. · That there were parking spaces for numbers 35, 36 and 37 and if the application was approved then a garage larger than the existing concrete foundation would impair ... view the full minutes text for item 5.6 |
|
Application no. C15/1356/40/LL - 1-3 Wenallt, Arddgrach, Llannor PDF 563 KB Revised application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling along with associated works. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen Davies Additional documents: Minutes: (a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application, and noted that the proposed new house would be set back in the
plot on a site where a zinc agricultural shed was currently located. It was noted that it was proposed to create a
new access on the site of the existing dwelling, to extend the track from the
side of the carriageway to the house and turning in the direction of the access
gate to the adjacent field. It was noted that the proposal did not comply with the
main criteria of the demolition policy and re-building in rural villages that
required new units to be located on the site of the original unit or as close
as practically possible to it. Due to its location and the angle of its setting,
it was considered that the proposal would create an
intrusive feature in the countryside that does not support the area's character or retain the general
development pattern of the street scene. The proposal was contrary to the principles of policy CH13 and B22 of the GUDP. It was highlighted that Policy CH5 of GUDP approved proposals for residential developments in suitable locations in rural villages
for affordable houses for local
community need only. It was noted
that the development did
not comply, as no affordable housing
was proposed for local community need and it
was not in accordance with the size requirements
of affordable housing as outlined in
the Supplementary Planning Guidance: The Council's Affordable Housing. Attention was drawn to the fact that no activity
survey formed part of the bats survey submitted with the application, as it was not the correct time of year and no
appropriate mitigation measures were proposed.
Therefore, the proposal was
contrary to policy A1 and policy B20 of the GUDP that state that
proposals which are likely to cause
disturbance or unacceptable damage to protected species and their habitats
will be refused unless any impact
can be reduced or effectively mitigated. It was noted although
there was potential to develop the site, it was considered that the second-submission before them was not acceptable and based on the plans
submitted it was recommended that the application be refused. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:- ·
That the ecologists commissioned by the applicant
had noted that it was common to approve planning applications subject to the
receipt of a mitigation scheme; ·
That the existing building was ugly and the
proposal offered a modern and sustainable house; ·
That it was proposed to improve the existing access
in order to comply with highway standards and therefore it was not possible to
locate the house on the existing location; ·
The design and layout of
the proposed house would not cause harm to the village street scene; · That criterion 3, policy CH13 of the GUDP supported applications where the new unit was located ... view the full minutes text for item 5.7 |
|
Application no. C14/1118/45/LL - Land by Ala Cottage, Yr Ala, Pwllheli PDF 761 KB Demolish existing buildings and erection of retirement living houses (30 units) along with communal facilities, landscaping and car parking. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Michael Sol Owen Additional documents: Minutes: The discussion on
the above application was chaired by the Vice-chair. (a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted from the information submitted that it was understood that the units
would be sold on a 125 year lease with the accommodation to be occupied by
persons over 60 years old, or in the case of a couple, where one person was
over 60 and the other over 55 years old. It was explained that policy CH6 of the
GUDP stated that consideration needs to be given to the fact that a percentage
(that will vary from site to site) of the units provided as part of the plan on
any site in Bangor, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Caernarfon, Porthmadog and Pwllheli will meet
a need for affordable housing, unless the Planning Authority can be satisfied,
after considering all relevant factors, that it would be inappropriate to
provide affordable housing on the site. It was noted that the information
provided by the Joint Planning Policy Unit evidenced that there was no doubt
that there was justification to request affordable housing unless other matters
such as feasibility prevented this. It was noted that the applicant stated that costs associated with
the development meant that it would not be viable to offer a contribution
towards affordable housing or any other planning provision. It was reported that an assessment of the
viability matters had been undertaken by the Joint Planning Policy Unit using a
computer package to evaluate the viability of developments. In addition to this, there had been many
discussions between officers and the applicant regarding viability issues. Initially, a contribution of approximately
20% had been sought towards affordable housing.
However, following undertaking the relevant viability assessments it
became evident that this type of contribution would not be viable for the
development. They had come to the conclusion, as a result of the assessments
made by the Joint Planning Policy Unit, that it would be possible to have a
contribution of 7%. This would be
equivalent to about two affordable units on the site or if it was a commutative
contribution towards affordable housing in the area it would equate to around
£94,000. However, it was noted that the applicant continued to argue that it
would not be viable to offer a contribution towards affordable housing as part
of the development. Nevertheless, in order to proceed they had offered a
commutative sum towards affordable housing of £40,000. The proposal in question would contribute to provision of retirement accommodation locally where these types of homes are not available. The proposal would also be re-use brownfield land which was currently untidy and an eyesore and it would also bring economic benefits in terms of work (site manager to run the site following completion and building work associated with the development) and wider within the community with the residents using local facilities. Therefore, as a result of the viability issues with the development it was considered to be reasonable to accept ... view the full minutes text for item 5.8 |