Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 12 bedroom hotel (3 storeys) with parking area, sewerage treatment plant and alterations to the existing access, the existing summer house and gatehouse would be used as ancillary buildings to the proposed hotel
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Peter A Garlick
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 12
bedroom hotel (three storeys) with parking spaces, sewage treatment tank and
alterations to existing access, the existing Summer House and Gatehouse to be
used as ancillary buildings to the proposed hotel.
The
Members had visited the site.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, reminding the members that it was deferred at
the Committee in January to allow a third party to talk at the Committee.
When considering the principle of the
development, attention was drawn to the Planning History, and specifically to
the refusal of application C10A/0556/19/LL due to its similarity to the
application in question. An appeal was lodged against the refusal and the
appeal was approved in January 2012. It was highlighted that the only
difference between both applications was the inclusion of a swimming pool in
the application approved on appeal in 2012. It was noted that the Planning
Inspector had allowed costs against the LPA as they had behaved unreasonably in
coming to a determination to refuse the application, as current policies supported
the type of development on the site in question.
It was noted that the policies listed
in the report were consistent, on the whole, with the objectives and
requirements of the Unitary Development Plan policies that were in force when
the appeal was determined. After adopting the Local Development Plan, it was
added that the relevant policies reflected each other, and that there was no
basic change in the type of policies used in 2012. In considering the decision
of the appeal, it was believed that the application complied with current
policies and planning guidance that continued to support the principle of
situating new, high quality holiday accommodation in the countryside by using a
suitable previously developed site and a site that was accessible to different
types of commute. It was noted that the Planning Inspector, in his appeal
decision, did not have any objection to the appearance, setting or scale of the
proposal and in that the plan had received the approval of the Wales Design
Commission.
In response to the statutory
consultation, the Transportation Unit had no objection to the development on
the grounds of road safety and parking facilities, subject to the inclusion of
appropriate conditions. It was also noted that matters relating to transportation
did not cause concern to the Planning Inspector and therefore there was no
change here.
In the context of floods, an Access
Report was submitted (on the grounds of flooding risk) as parts of the adjacent
county highway serving the site was located within a C2 flood zone. In response
to the report, it was expressed that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) confirmed,
within the context of the advice included within TAN 15: Development and Flood
Risk, that the applicant had satisfied their concerns regarding flooding risk
to the road serving the site. It was added that NRW were satisfied that the
hotel and parking spaces were higher than the exceptional flood outline and
therefore the proposal is acceptable on the grounds of flooding risk.
Reference was made to Policy TWR2,
noting that high quality hotels could bring substantial economic benefits to
the area of the plan. It was noted that the policy aimed to support the
principle of providing high quality holiday accommodation in sustainable locations.
It was elaborated that the Planning Wales document stated that planning
authorities should adopt positive approaches to proposals that used previously
developed land, and that such accommodation would add to the variety of hotels
that existed in Caernarfon.
Reference was made to the response to
the public consultation that had been included in the report.
Members were reminded that the
planning history of the application was key to the decision based on the fact
that the latest proposal reflected the details submitted with the original
application in 2012. It was noted that the Inspector had determined that the
principle of siting the development on the land was acceptable and had further
approved an application to award costs against the Local Government in
accordance with local and national planning policy requirements.
Although
these policies were operational under the joint development plan, it was noted
that the principle and objectives of the previous policies were incorporated
within the Local Development Plan policies and Welsh Government national
guidance. It was emphasised that
substantial pressure would need to be given to the decision of the Inspector to
approve an appeal, and although there had been a change in the Development Plan
since the appeal was approved, the nature of the policies for such applications
were still very similar, and it would be difficult to come to a different
conclusion.
It
was considered that this development was acceptable and complied with current
relevant local and national planning policies and guidelines.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the
following main points:
·
That the development
was located within rural village of Llanfaglan, and not Caernarfon Town
·
An extensive part of
the road lied within a C2 Flood Zone, as defined in TAN15 - the Inspector had
not investigated flooding concerns sufficiently
·
Approving would create
a dramatic impact on people's lives - additional demands on the emergency
services
·
The applicant had not
commenced the work. Years had gone by, legislation had changed in the field of
climate change - sea impact, greenhouse gas mitigation, managing coastal
erosion, reduce and mitigate the effects of climate change and adapting to
them, sustainable transport, etc.
·
A vast majority of the
road had eroded and no restoration work had been completed. In periods of high
tide, residents were unable to leave their houses - this created serious
problems
·
The Inspector had not
considered how workers would travel to work. No bus service and therefore
depended on a car
·
Ty Glan Menai was
referred to as a house on brownfield site. That was not true. This was a
domestic house, not a hotel. This opened the door to anyone from Wales to
convert their house into a hotel.
(c)
The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) noted the following main points:
·
Many considerations had
changed since the appeal period.
·
There was substantial
damage to the wall, and this seemed to be deteriorating - an investigation into
this was required.
·
Although the Coastal
Path did not run through the development, the path was in poor condition and
was damaged. Consequently, pedestrians would have to walk on the road, which
would create a dangerous situation
·
No public transport.
Aber Bridge was open at certain times only. It was presumed that the hotel
users would walk along the road, which was not an ideal situation, and although
a one-mile journey was noted from the town, it could mean a journey of
approximately three miles if Aber Bridge was closed, which often was the case.
This created a problem.
·
This was a development
in a rural parish. The development was substantial which would cause concerns
for local residents
·
It was completely clear
that the site had been noted within a flood zone. Regular flood incidents in
the area
·
Suggested that the
application should be refused
(ch) It was proposed and seconded
to refuse the application on the grounds of TAN 15, that 'access and egress at
all times' was required. It was suggested that the road was impacted by floods,
and therefore it was difficult to ensure access to residents and the emergency
services. A similar application by a local family in Felinheli had been refused
for similar circumstances.
(d) In response to a question regarding a
significant deterioration in the condition of the road and who was responsible
for maintaining it, the Senior Development Control Officer - Transport noted
that Gwynedd Council's Highways Department was responsible for the road, but in
terms of the deterioration of the seawall, there was no certainty unless the
road was holding the wall up or not.
In response to a question about the
differences between both applications, and if the decision was to refuse an
application that had previously won on appeal with costs, the Planning Manager
noted that the only difference was that the swimming pool was included in the
original application.
In response, a member noted that the
Local Development Plan had been adopted in the meantime, which was also a
'difference'.
In response to a question, whether
this part of the coast was included in the Shoreline Management Plan, it was
noted that there was no information.
The Senior Planning Manager added that care needed to
be taken when considering the decision, as the previous application was
approved on appeal. It was emphasised that the context of the application in
question needed to be considered along with the differences in policy context.
It was accepted that the new Local Development Plan had been adopted within
this time, but there had been no changes in the context of the policies in
question. In terms of flood concerns, NRW had no objection because the flood
element was one tide that would impact parts of the road at times, which would
be possible to manage. It was also noted that two roads led in and out of the
site. Nevertheless, he added that it would be wise to obtain a firm
interpretation from NRW of the TAN 15, and for the Committee to consider
deferring the decision in order to ensure clarity.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
No change to the plan
apart from a swimming pool, but that the condition of the road had deteriorated
·
Policies had not
changed, the plan was the same, therefore it would be dangerous to refuse since
the Council had already paid costs on appeal
·
Request for information and observations from NRW on the Shoreline
Management Plan
·
Floods were a cause for concern
·
More information was
required about who was responsible for the wall
·
Knowledge of climate
change had changed since 2012 - what were the implications of the plan in terms
of carbon footprint?
(e) It was proposed and seconded to defer the decision
RESOLVED to defer the decision in order to receive
further information from Natural Resources Wales about flood concerns
Supporting documents: