Development of a holiday and leisure park to include 173 holiday
lodges; 51 new-build holiday apartments; change of use of building to 4 holiday
apartments; a leisure hub building; re-configuration and renovation of industrial
units; provision of a private water treatment plant; and, associated car
parking, landscaping, access and internal access roads.
LOCAL MEMBERS:
Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith and Councillor Ioan Thomas
Link
to relevant background documents
Decision:
DECISION: To refuse – reasons
1. It is
not considered that sufficient information has been submitted as part of the
application to ensure that the proposal would not adversely affect the Welsh
Language and Culture. The proposal is
therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy PS1 of the Anglesey and
Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017, together with the Supplementary
Planning Guidance on Maintaining and Creating Distinctive and Sustainable
Communities and TAN 20 Planning and the Welsh Language.
2. Sufficient
information has not been submitted as part of the application which sets out
how the proposal complies with Policy CYF 5 Alternative Uses of Existing
Employment Sites, and therefore the proposal does not comply with the
requirements of the Policy. The proposal
must therefore be considered contrary to the requirements of Policies CYF 1,
CYF 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 together
with the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Change of use of community facilities
and services, employment sites and retail units.
3. The
proposal is situated on an open and visible coastal site which forms the front
elevation of extensive views of Snowdonia from the Anglesey AONB. This
particular development falls within the LCA01 (Bangor Coastal Plain) Landscape
Character Area and the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study notes that
within each area contributing to the National Park’s setting there is typically
no capacity for static caravan park / holiday lodge developments. However,
outside these areas there may be some capacity for small to very small holiday
lodges / caravan park developments that have been well designed and situated.
The Study defines very small developments as up to 10 units and small
developments between 10 - 25 units. The information on proposed landscaping is
sketchy and does not include sufficient detail to confirm that it would be
acceptable in terms of type and scale. To this end it is therefore considered
that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of criteria 1i) and1ii) of
policy TWR 3, point 3 of policy PS14 together with policies AMG 3 and PCYFF 4
of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 and the ‘Isle of
Anglesey, Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park Landscape Sensitivity and
Capacity Study’ (Gillespies, 2014) as the proposal would lead to an abundance
of static caravan sites or permanent alternative camping sites and would have a
detrimental visual impact on the Anglesey AONB and the local landscape.
4. The
Welsh Government’s Economy and Infrastructure Department has confirmed that it
has a holding objection to ensure that arrangements can be made whereby
vehicles will not accumulate on the A487 trunk road at peak times and the
Council’s Transport Unit is concerned about the same impact. To this end, the Local Planning Authority is
not convinced that the plan would provide a safe access to the proposal, and
therefore it does not comply with the requirements of criterion 1iii) of policy
TWR 3, nor policies TRA 1 and 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local
Development Plan 2017 which ensures suitable access and road safety.
5. The
leisure hub building which includes ancillary facilities to the holiday park,
which will also be open to the public, together with 51 holiday units is
substantial in bulk and height and would be fully visible above the existing
trees which largely conceal existing buildings. To this effect, therefore, it
is not considered that this part of the proposal complies with the requirements
of criterion ii of policy TWR 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local
Development Plan 2017.
6. It is
acknowledged that the proposed work on the Plas Brereton building is minimal
and includes closing openings on the ground floor. However, the building is
situated in the open countryside and the plan has been submitted to retain the
building and use it as self-contained holiday units, therefore it is considered
that it is appropriate to ensure the structural condition of the building
before it can be confirmed as suitable for conversion. To this end, this part of the proposal is
contrary to the requirements of criteria 3i and iii of policy CYF 6, point 4 of
policy PS14 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017
together with Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Replacement Dwellings and
Conversions in the Countryside’ and paragraph 3.2.1 of TAN 23 Economic
Development.
7. No
evidence or information was submitted regarding the impact of the new holiday
units within the Plas Brereton building and the leisure hub on the
accommodation already available in the area. The Local Planning Authority is
therefore not convinced that this part of the proposal would not lead to an
excess of such accommodation in the area. Therefore, the proposal is contrary
to criterion v of policy TWR2, point 3 of policy PS14 of the Anglesey and
Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 together with SPG: Holiday
Accommodation.
8. No
information has been submitted in relation to how the facilities in the leisure
hub that will be available to the public comply with Policy MAN 6 of the
Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 and in particular the
impact of the proposal on Caernarfon town centre. Therefore, to this end, it is
considered that it is not possible to confirm whether the proposal is
acceptable in this respect, nor with respect to point 6 of policy PS16 of the
Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017.
9. The
proposal as a whole is considered contrary to the requirements of criterion 7
of policy PCYFF 2, the principles of policies PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 of the
Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017, because the proposal
would have a detrimental effect on the characteristics of the local area, the
proposal does not add to or enhance the character and appearance of the site
and it does not respect its context, and because of the lack of suitable
landscaping.
10. There is
no noise assessment or information as to the effect of the proposal on the
amenities of the users of Lôn Las Menai and to this end, it is considered that
there is potential for a significant adverse effect to arise from the
development in terms of noise and increased use of the Lôn Las Menai path.
Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the requirements of
criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2, and criteria 4 and 10 of policy PCYFF 3 of the
Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017.
11. It is
not considered that sufficient current information has been submitted as part
of the application to ensure that the proposal would not adversely affect
biodiversity, protected species or trees on the site. Therefore, the proposal
is contrary to the requirements of policies PS19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and
Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 together with TAN 5: Nature
Conservation and Planning.
12. The
Council’s Biodiversity Unit has confirmed that it believes that insufficient
information has been provided to enable the Local Planning Authority to
undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and to determine the likely
impact on the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC and the Skerries SPA. HRA assessment requires information to
demonstrate, to a high level of certainty, that the proposal will not have any adverse
effect on the designated species and habitats of the site, and to this end, it
cannot be confirmed that the proposal does not comply with the requirements of
the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the proposal will not
adversely affect the SAC or SPA. The proposal is therefore contrary to the
requirements of policies PS19 and AMG 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local
Development Plan 2017.
13. There
are significant concerns about the visual impact of the proposal from the
Listed Park and Garden at Llanidan Hall, and there is insufficient information
in relation to the LVIA to ensure that the proposal will not have a significant
impact on the setting or views from the Park and Garden. It is therefore considered that the proposal
is contrary to the requirements of policies PS20 and AT1 of the Anglesey and
Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 on this matter.
Minutes:
Attention was drawn to
the late observations form.
a)
The Development Control Team Leader elaborated on the
background of the application, and noted that it was an application to develop
a holiday and leisure park. It was explained that the application had been
split into two sections - including the former Ferodo site and the Plas
Brereton site. It was noted that the sites had been located along the banks of
the Menai Strait between Caernarfon and Felinheli, with the Lôn Las Menai cycle
path running through them forming the existing pedestrian/cycle link between
both sites. It was reiterated that the upper part of the sites abutted the A487
highway running from Caernarfon to Felinheli.
It was reported
that the site abutted a C2 flooding zone on the banks of the Menai Strait as
defined on development advice maps in relation to TAN 15 Development and Flood
Risk. The site was partly within the Plas Brereton Regional Wildlife Site and a
number of trees on the site were protected by Tree Preservation Order TPO0137:
Ferodo, Caernarfon and TPO0078 Bangor Road, Caernarfon. It was noted that two
Grade II Listed buildings at Plas Tŷ Coch and Tŷ Coch Farm Brick Arch
were situated 60m south of the site, whilst Llanidan Hall Park and Garden
(grade II* listed) was situated opposite the former Ferodo site, on Anglesey.
The site was situated approximately 1km east of the Anglesey Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay Special Areas of
Conservation were situated immediately to the North East of the site.
The development on
the Plas Brereton site included the following:
·
Demolition of old stable and coach house buildings
·
Conversion of Plas Brereton to 4 holiday units (3 one
bedroom and 1 three bedroom)
·
Installation of 18 holiday lodges
·
Tree works and felling
·
Use of existing roads within the site and provision of
some new roads
It was noted that the 'boathouse' building, which was
the subject of a change of
use for a café, had now been removed from the application.
The development on the former Ferodo factory
site included the following:
·
Demolition of part of the existing factory buildings
·
Refurbishment of premises for the provision of 9 units
for commercial use (use was not entirely clear but it was understood that it
would fall within B1/B2 class uses) with associated parking
·
Erection of new three-storey leisure hub building
comprising 51 1 and 2 bedroom holiday units plus leisure facilities including a
water park, bowling facilities, children’s soft play area, restaurant, café,
fast food, shop and health and well-being zone.
·
Provision of 155 holiday lodges
·
Tree works and felling
·
Provision of new roads
·
Use of the existing car park for public use for
non-residents to use the new hub building.
Attention was drawn to the documents that had been
received supporting the application.
It was noted that the application had been the subject
of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that an Environmental Statement
had been subsequently submitted to the application itself. It was also noted
that no pre-application advice had been provided for the proposal and that any
discussions had been held in light of the need for an EIA and the contents of
the statement.
Reference was made to the response to the
consultations along with other observations received from consultees since the
report had been published in the late observations form. Late observations had
been received from the applicant's agent in response to the 13 reasons for
refusal. However, the information did not include any additional evidence and
the possibility of stipulating some matters was suggested. The Local Planning
Authority did not consider that this changed the assessment or the
recommendation to refuse.
It was reported that the proposal included a number of
development elements that needed to be considered under many planning policies
and environmental legislation. It was considered that the principle of the main
aspects of the development, which included the provision of commercial
buildings, holiday units and a leisure hub was unacceptable as submitted. As a
result, it was considered that the proposal in its entirety did not comply with
the requirements of policy PCYFF 1 or criterion 1 and 2 of policy PCYFF 2 of
the LDP which safeguarded open countryside from unsuitable developments.
Although many of the objections refer to the fact that
the proposed houses are three-storey, they are of a two-storey design. It was
not considered that sufficient information had been submitted on a number of
matters to ensure that the proposal in question did not have a detrimental
effect on the environment or the local area. It was also highlighted that the
proposal had been assessed under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and
it was considered that insufficient information had been submitted in order to
complete the assessment or confirm that the proposal was acceptable.
The proposed development would develop the dormant
site that had been designated for employment use and although economic benefits
had been acknowledged, there was insufficient information to ensure that the
proposal would not cause any harm to the Welsh Language.
It was considered that the visual and landscape
impacts were unacceptable and having a substantial detrimental impact on the
character of the AONB, the local landscape and coast and that there was
insufficient landscaping to mitigate the impact. It was also considered that it
was not possible to ensure that the impact on residential amenities in terms of
noise, and the amenities of Lôn Las Menai users was acceptable.
Insufficient information had been received to ensure
that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on biodiversity or
protected species or trees (some of which were protected) on the site and also,
insufficient information had been received to provide a Habitats Regulations
Assessment confirming that there would not be a detrimental impact on the
Special Conservation Area nearby.
The site was considered to be sustainably located, and
that it offered alternative methods of transport that placed less reliance upon
use of motor vehicles. It was suggested
that the highway network was suitable to serve the proposal, but there was
concern regarding the operation of dealing with vehicles that would use the
main entrance to the holiday park at peak times as a result of the priority
system. It was considered that it would be possible for this to have a
detrimental impact on road safety.
It was highlighted that the proposal had demonstrated
that the development would not cause any increase in risk to life nor any significant
risk to property in terms of flooding or coastal impacts. It was noted that it would be possible to
provide planning conditions in order to deal with and manage any impact as a
result of pollution from the site. It was now proposed to connect foul water
waste to the main sewer, and subject to conditions and agreement with Welsh
Water requirements in terms of capacity, this aspect of the proposal was
acceptable. It was explained that any archaeological remains may be managed in
an acceptable manner and recorded by the imposition of a condition requiring
further archaeological investigation prior to the commencement of development
work.
Having considered all the relevant planning matters,
including local and national policies and guidance, as well as the observations
received during the statutory consultation period, and from local residents and
the planning history, it was deemed that the proposal was unacceptable (reasons
included in the report).
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s agent noted the following points:
·
In 2016, the Member of Parliament, Hywel Williams had
to state the fact that the former Ferodo site, which had been empty since 2008,
was an 'insult' to all the workers who fought a long and heroic campaign for
their working rights and that the site was in a state of disrepair and going to
waste.
·
An investment opportunity as proposed by Maybrook did
not come along often, if not ever.
·
There was an opportunity here to redevelop and clean
up the site that would include clearing the asbestos (at no cost to the Council
or taxpayer). The developer was willing to pay at least £5 million to clean up
the pollution and the development as a whole was a direct benefit of over £70
million.
·
What was the future of the site if this development
would be refused? How much longer would the site remain empty, look untidy and
create an environmental concern? Advantage had to be taken of the site, this
investment and the local economic potential it offered, or we would be here
again in years to come.
·
There was certainly substantial support to the plan
during the public consultation, with 90% in support. This was also clear at the
committee meeting as nobody spoke against the application. Recent observations
on social media stated concern and disappointment that there was a
recommendation to refuse the application.
·
This was not a speculative development but a
comprehensive development by a company with a successful history of developing
and creating jobs in Gwynedd:
·
The same developer purchased the former Gelert site in
Porthmadog ensuring that the empty building was converted to create a home for
local companies such as Babi Pur and created 100 jobs once again.
·
The proposed development had been programmed to build
the industrial element in the first instance - which delivered the majority of
jobs.
·
The committee report highlighted matters such as the
loss of industrial land - this plan would specifically create 120,000 square
feet of industrial buildings where there was none today. Three companies were ready to move into these
units, which would create over 200 standard jobs along with over 80 jobs on the
leisure site.
·
Prior to making a decision - consider the opinion of
the public; the supportive opinion of the economic department along with the
observations recently received from Felinheli Community Council that sought to
ensure conditions that included
i.
No work on the rest of the development to be commenced
until the pollution is cleared.
ii.
The scheme would upgrade Lôn Las Menai.
iii.
That the industrial units would be completed before
the holiday park was completed.
iv.
Gwêl y Fenai Holiday Park should be used as holiday
units only.
·
This was the developer's intention. It was important
to state that all holiday units would be short-term holiday units to be rented
for a short period of time - not second homes
·
Concern about the impact on the Welsh Language - how
would creating over 300 standard jobs have an adverse impact on the language?
The developer had indicated its intention to support the language and culture
from the offset by giving the development a Welsh name and its willingness to
take further substantial action by agreeing to work with the Council and the
Hunaiaith Unit to develop a Language Strategy, which would ensure that the
Welsh Language and the proposal to create local jobs and apprenticeships was an
integral part of the development during its lifespan.
c) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the Local Members made the following points:
Councillor Ioan Thomas
·
Planning guidelines had to be followed in order to
ensure a viable development.
·
Holding discussions in advance to share the vision and
proposal with the Planning Service was advantageous.
·
Although the exhibition was held at Y Galeri and a
request was made for further contact, no contact had been made.
·
The reason for recommending to refuse was not a matter
of opinion, but a lack of submitting sufficient information - technical matters
were an essential part of the planning process.
·
The Plas Brereton development was reasonable - no
objection. The deterioration of the site and buildings caused concern, but
again he had to agree with planning officers that insufficient information had
been submitted.
Councillor Gareth Griffith
·
The application could not be supported based on the
information submitted.
·
Reiterated the concerns of Felinheli Community Council
regarding the impact of the development on Lôn Las Menai and to also ensure
that holiday units were in question and not residential units.
·
Accepted the need to clear the site and pollution and
to reorganise all of the buildings.
·
Supportive of an appropriate development for the site
but not of this specific application.
·
Although additional information had been submitted, no
sufficient evidence.
·
Submitting observations to the press undermined the
Planning process and placed additional pressures on Members to make a decision.
·
If an investment was to be made, it had to be ensured
that the application was right - there were many unanswered questions.
ch) It was
proposed and seconded to defer the application so that further discussions
could be held to seek an understanding of the situation. Accepted that there
were shortcomings in the application, but an opportunity was needed to
re-discuss the proposal.
In
response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Department highlighted that the
applicant had insisted for the application to be submitted before the earliest
possible committee meeting and that there was no intention to submit further
evidence to address shortcomings. He noted that the reasons for refusing were
technical matters with a fundamental lack of evidence submission - the
recommendation to refuse was robust and reflected the situation of the
discussions. The Monitoring Officer reiterated that the applicant had no desire
to discuss further and, although he accepted the logic for the proposal to
defer, his advice would be to reconsider this.
d)
During the ensuing discussion, the
following observations were made by members:
·
The proposal was an over-development - 224
units were substantial.
·
Site was not enormous, therefore,
cumulative impact needed to be considered.
·
The application was clearly defective - 13
reasons for refusal - this was uncommon.
·
Why not submit two separate applications?
·
Deferral would convey uncertainty.
·
This was not the best proposal in its
present form.
·
Why refuse a discussion? This highlighted
a lack of respect.
·
Insufficient explanation of what had been
included in the Leisure Park.
·
The development would destroy the banks of
the Menai Strait in future.
·
It was a major application - a positive
message needed to be sent on the need to submit accurate information so that it
would be possible to make a favourable decision on such an application.
·
A substantial investment in the area.
·
The site was an eyesore - no use for it at
present - what was its future?
·
Created work in the area - jobs were
needed. No sufficient opportunities for the youth of the area.
·
Refusing would be a great injustice to
Gwynedd.
·
A site visit was suggested as it was a
major application.
·
Deferral would 'leave the door open' -
some parts were acceptable.
dd) A vote
was taken on the proposal to defer the application.
The
proposal fell.
A
vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application.
RESOLVED to refuse the application
Reasons:
1. It was not considered that sufficient information had
been submitted as part of the application to ensure that the proposal would not
adversely affect the Welsh Language and Culture. The proposal was therefore
contrary to the requirements of policy PS1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint
Local Development Plan 2017, together with the SPG on Maintaining and Creating
Distinctive and Sustainable Communities and TAN 20 Planning and the Welsh
Language.
2. Sufficient information had not been submitted as part
of the application which set out how the proposal complied with Policy CYF 5
Alternative Uses of Existing Employment Sites, and therefore the proposal did
not comply with the requirements of the Policy. Therefore, the proposal must be
considered contrary to the requirements of policies CYF 1, CYF 5 of the
Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 together with the
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Change of use of community facilities and
services, employment sites and retail units.
3. The proposal was situated on an open and visual
coastal site which formed the front elevation of extensive views of Snowdonia
from the Anglesey AONB. This particular development fell within the LCA01
(Bangor Coastal Plain) Landscape Character Area and the Landscape Sensitivity
and Capacity Study noted that within each area contributing to the National
Park’s setting there was typically no capacity for static caravan park /
holiday lodge developments. However, outside these areas there may be some
capacity for small to very small holiday lodges / caravan park developments
that had been well designed and situated. The Study defined very small
developments as up to 10 units and small developments between 10 - 25 units.
The information on proposed landscaping was sketchy and did not include
sufficient detail to confirm that it would be acceptable in terms of type and
scale. To this end it was therefore considered that the proposal was contrary
to the requirements of criteria 1i) and 1ii) of policy TWR 3, point 3 of policy
PS14 together with policies AMG 3 and PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint
Local Development Plan 2017 and the ‘Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd and Snowdonia
National Park Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study’ (Gillespies, 2014) as
the proposal would lead to an abundance of static caravan sites or permanent
alternative camping sites and would have a detrimental visual impact on the
Anglesey AONB and the local landscape.
4. The Welsh Government’s Economy and Infrastructure
Department had confirmed that it had a holding objection to ensure that
arrangements could be made whereby vehicles will not accumulate on the A487
trunk road at peak times and the Council’s Transport Unit was concerned about
the same impact. To this end, the Local
Planning Authority was not convinced that the plan would provide a safe access
to the proposal, and therefore it did not comply with the requirements of criterion
1iii) of policy TWR 3, nor policies TRA 1 and 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd
Joint Local Development Plan 2017 which ensured suitable access and road
safety.
5. The leisure hub building which included ancillary
facilities to the holiday park, which would also be open to the public,
together with 51 holiday units was substantial in bulk and height and would be
fully visible above the existing trees which largely concealed existing
buildings. To this effect, therefore, it was not considered that this part of
the proposal complied with the requirements of criterion ii of policy TWR 2 of
the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017.
6. It was acknowledged that the proposed work on the Plas
Brereton building was minimal and included closing openings on the ground
floor. However, the building was situated in the open countryside and the plan
had been submitted to retain the building and use it as self-contained holiday
units, therefore it was considered that it was appropriate to ensure the
structural condition of the building before it could be confirmed as suitable
for conversion. To this end, this part of the proposal was contrary to the
requirements of criteria 3i and iii of policy CYF 6, point 4 of policy PS14 of
the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 together with SPG
‘Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside’ and paragraph 3.2.1
of TAN 23 Economic Development.
7. No evidence or information was submitted regarding the
impact of the new holiday units within the Plas Brereton building and the
leisure hub on the accommodation already available in the area. The Local
Planning Authority was therefore not convinced that this part of the proposal
would not lead to an excess of such accommodation in the area. Therefore, the
proposal was contrary to criterion v of policy TWR2, point 3 of policy PS14 of
the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 together with SPG:
Holiday Accommodation.
8. No information had been submitted in relation to how
the facilities in the leisure hub that would be available to the public comply
with Policy MAN 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017
and in particular the impact of the proposal on Caernarfon town centre.
Therefore, to this end, it was considered that it was not possible to confirm
whether the proposal was acceptable in this respect, nor with respect to point
6 of policy PS16 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017.
9. The proposal as a whole was considered contrary to the
requirements of criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2, the principles of policies PCYFF
3 and PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017,
because the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the characteristics of
the local area, the proposal does not add to or enhance the character and
appearance of the site and it does not respect its context, and because of the
lack of suitable landscaping.
10. There was no noise assessment or information as to the
effect of the proposal on the amenities of the users of Lôn Las Menai and to
this end, it was considered that there was potential for a significant adverse
effect to arise from the development in terms of noise and increased use of the
Lôn Las Menai path. Therefore, the proposal was considered to be contrary to
the requirements of criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2, and criteria 4 and 10 of
policy PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017.
11. It was not considered that sufficient current
information had been submitted as part of the application to ensure that the
proposal would not adversely affect biodiversity, protected species or trees on
the site. Therefore, the proposal was contrary to the requirements of policies
PS19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017
together with TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning.
12. The Council’s Biodiversity Unit had confirmed that it
believed that insufficient information had been provided to enable the Local
Planning Authority to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and to
determine the likely impact on the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC and the
Skerries SPA. HRA assessment required information to demonstrate, to a high
level of certainty, that the proposal would not have any adverse effect on the
designated species and habitats of the site, and to this end, it cannot be
confirmed that the proposal does not comply with the requirements of the
Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the proposal will not adversely affect
the SAC or SPA. The proposal was therefore contrary to the requirements of
policies PS19 and AMG 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development
Plan 2017. The proposal, therefore, was contrary to the requirements of
policies PS19 and AMG 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development
Plan 2017.
13. There were significant concerns about the visual
impact of the proposal from the Listed Park and Garden at Llanidan Hall, and
there was insufficient information in relation to the LVIA to ensure that the
proposal would not have a significant impact on the setting or views from the
Park and Garden. It was therefore considered that the proposal was contrary to
the requirements of policies PS20 and AT1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint
Local Development Plan 2017 on this matter.
Supporting documents: