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: 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.

 

Development of holiday and leisure park to include 173 holiday lodges;  51 new-build holiday apartments; change of use of building to 4 holiday flats; construction of leisure hub; reconfiguration and refurbishment of industrial units; provision for private water treatment works; and associated car parks, landscaping, access and internal access roads. 

 

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.