Creation of sacred healing acoustic research and enterprise centre including the erection of four new buildings, the formation of parking areas and erection of 2.3m high boundary wall (revised application to one previously withdrawn - C16/1158/16/LL)
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dafydd Owen
Minutes:
Creation of sacred healing acoustic research and
enterprise centre including the erection of four new buildings, the formation
of parking areas and erection of 2.3m high boundary wall (revised application
to one previously withdrawn - C16/1158/16/LL)
Attention was drawn to the additional observations
that had been received
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the
application's background. It was noted that the applicant had highlighted that
the description of the proposal was slightly different to what he considered to
be accurate. It was therefore highlighted that the wording of the proposal
would be amended to, 'Creation of a Research Centre which includes the
erection of four new buildings...' It was added that the plans were correct
and the description of the proposal in the report was correct, but the formal
description was slightly incorrect.
It was reported that this was an application to
create a new research centre that would research the use of sound for body and
mind healing. It was
noted that the site will consist of a main domed acoustic building connected,
via a corridor, to an entrance building which will consist of a greeting area
and office. There would be three further domed buildings, of a smaller size,
designed to resonate with specific sound wavelengths. It was explained that
this was an application for a small new rural enterprise that would offer
employment opportunities for between two and five people. It would also provide
an opportunity to diversify the local rural economy and would be a means of
using the previously used site for business purposes. It was considered that
the principle of the proposal met with the aims of Policy PS13.
With
the site of this application being in an isolated location in a mixed woodland,
it was reported that the buildings, because of their size and materials, would
be in-keeping with the site and would be hidden from distant vistas. It was
considered that the screening offered by the land formation and existing
vegetation would be sufficient to satisfactorily screen the site. No
significant harm to the quality of life for nearby residents was expected from
this low level of activity and, because of its distance from other dwellings,
it was not believed that any significant harm would derive from the site in
terms of matters such as overlooking or shadowing. It was considered that the
proposal, from the development's nature and scale, was acceptable for the
location. In response to concerns from local residents regarding the possible
impact of noise created by the facility's activities, it was expressed that
Public Protection had confirmed that they had no objection to the small
enterprise, but they had proposed appropriate conditions.
It was reported that the proposal was not contrary to
any material planning policy within the LDP and that the proposed development
was an appropriate use of the site.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant noted the following main points:
·
The building was sustainable, having
been built by hand
·
The enterprise would focus on
acoustic research, inspired by proposed methods that are central to healing a
brain injury
·
Two to five jobs would be created -
initial discussions with Bangor University, Hull University and other research
centres with regards to a PhD in innovative research
·
It would increase local sustainable
employment in construction by offering an apprenticeship or similar schemes
·
The development would have a low
visual impact, which would be in keeping with the environment
·
Specific acoustic features had been
encoded in the design
·
The application represented all
Sustainable Gwynedd core characteristics
·
It would create jobs for local people
·
It would increase health and
well-being and the ability to work globally
c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following
points:
·
That the site was outside the local
development boundary
·
A number of elements in the application
was subject to grants
·
The design was alien for the countryside
- an eyesore and a mindsore
·
Needed to consider what the building
would be used for if grants were not awarded
·
Anticipated that the enterprise would
impact the residents of the area
·
The road and the access was very narrow
·
The word 'enterprise' opened the door
for any activity
·
What was the significance of the impact
of wavelengths? Had this been investigated further? Had the applicant submitted
any information?
·
Would the wavelengths impact on horses?
There was a bridleway nearby
·
Concern that Bangor University did not
acknowledge the enterprise
·
The application was vague and
misleading.
ch) It was proposed
and seconded to approve the application.
d) An amendment was proposed and seconded to:
-
defer the decision as more information
about the observations of Public Protection and Bangor University was
needed.
-
carry out a site visit as questions had
been raised about the use of the narrow road.
During the ensuing discussion,
the following points were highlighted by individual Members:
·
The idea was
acceptable but more assurance was needed about the project's development
·
The opportunity seemed to be exciting
but it needed to be ensured that things were done properly
·
Needed to
consider the access concerns.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order
to
·
Carry out a site
visit to see the road network
·
Consider the
information from Public Protection
·
Consider the
information regarding the link with the University
Supporting documents: