Agenda item

Application for the remodeling and extension of the existing hotel and spa to together with the siting of 39 holiday lodges, formation of outdoor activity zone, reception, biomass plant unit together with temporary construction traffic road, car parking and landscaping. 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Beca Brown

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse the application based on excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel.

 

Application for the remodelling and extension of the existing hotel and spa together with the siting of 39 holiday lodges, formation of outdoor activity zone, reception, biomass plant unit together with temporary construction traffic road, car parking and landscaping.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that highlighted that the plan now did not include erecting a building for staff accommodation.

 

Some Members had visited the site on 26/02/24 to familiarise themselves with the site and its surrounding landscape.

 

a)         The Planning Manager highlighted that it was a full application for the redevelopment of the Llwyn y Brain site, namely the disused Seiont Manor Hotel. The proposal would include,

·         extensions and remodelling of existing hotel to include a bar and restaurant with accompanying terrace; provision of 61 additional bedrooms, on top of the existing 33 bedrooms, and provision of spa facilities.

·         provision of 39 holiday lodges on land to the north-west of the hotel; the plan had been reduced since the original presentation to remove some units due to the visual impact on the wider landscape. Plans to erect a building for staff accommodation had also been removed as there was no justification for such a development in the countryside.

·         2 laybys/passing places along the driveway that currently served the hotel. Provision of 43 additional parking spaces parallel to the hotel. Landscaping work, creation of amenity spaces, mitigation and biodiversity enhancement work.

 

It was reported that several technical reports had been submitted with the application with a number of documents and observations reflecting the applicant's willingness to collaborate with the Local Planning Authority to ensure that harmful impacts would not derive from the development and that it would be possible to control them.

 

Considering the principle of the development, it was explained that the legal use of the site in planning terms was a hotel and Policies PS 14 and TWR 2 were supportive of proposals which involved extending visitor attractions and improving and protecting the provision for existing serviced and self-catering accommodation. It was also noted that holiday units were a development that could be supported in the countryside under Policy TWR 3 and, therefore, it could be concluded that the principle was acceptable.

 

In the context of extending the current hotel, it was noted that the hotel structure was a mix of single-storey and two-storey structure and, although accepting that the alterations were modern and major, it was considered that it was a quality development.

 

In support of the application, a Landscape and Visual Assessment had been submitted which noted that the hotel was located within an undulating landscape running down
towards the river in the vicinity of the site, which had also been surrounded by banks, shrubs and trees/woodlands. Whilst it was inevitable that the development would have an element of impact on the local landscape, such an impact would not be considered substantial and significant considering the design, nature and scale of extensions and alterations to the existing hotel; that part of the hotel was a backdrop to the new extensions together with the fact that the work would be located within a site that already contained an established structure.

 

To ensure that the site was developed in an orderly rather than piecemeal fashion, a suggestion was made to impose a condition so that the development work could be carried out in stages so that the holiday accommodation element could not be developed separately from the development of the existing hotel and vice versa. It was noted that the applicant's agent had confirmed that the development was an integral part of the hotel site in its entirety and this would also ensure that the holiday unit element would form part of a wider tourism development that provided services beyond a holiday park alone, and better supported the local economy.

 

In the context of residential amenities, it was reported that other residential properties were dispersed in the vicinity, all in open countryside. Whilst it was inevitable that the development would have an element of additional impact on the tranquillity of the area, such impact would not be considered substantial or significant given the layout of the cabins within the landscape and that the site had been partially screened by existing vegetation as well as a proposal to strengthen the landscaping. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable based on the requirements of Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP that sought to protect the residential and general amenities of occupants of nearby properties.

 

In the context of transport matters, it was noted that the existing junction to the county road was suitable for increased traffic in and out of the site, and there was adequate provision of parking within the site for the needs of the development. Improvements outside the site to make it acceptable based on road safety would not be required and following the statutory consultation process, the Transport Unit had stated that the existing entrance was appropriate as the proposal included passing places, but it raised questions as to whether the parking provision for 43 cars was adequate for a 61-bedroom hotel. ⁠In response, it was noted that the site was considered an accessible site and it would be possible to extend and increase the number of parking spaces within the site if required - taking into account the area of land owned by the applicant, this could be ensured by imposing a relevant condition.

 

It was reported that biodiversity matters had been addressed at great length and, although the site had not been designated for any biodiversity importance, that landscape features, including trees and shrubs connected the site to the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). It was explained that Glynllifon had been protected because of its bat population and the surrounding landscape was crucial for the SAC's bat population. As a result, the agent had submitted a shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment as part of the application. In accordance with the Habitats Regulations, NRW was consulted on the conclusions of the assessment and a response was received noting that it agreed with the assessment's conclusions and that it was satisfied that the development could be managed with conditions. Despite this, the Council’s Biodiversity Unit continued to object to the proposal due to the proximity of the holiday units to the river and the potential impacts on trees along the access road.

 

The concern about the river corridor was acknowledged but there was no evidence of any negative impact arising from the current setting and it would be unlikely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of Glynllifon. It was reiterated that measures were in place to prevent light pollution with a 2.1m high wooden fence to the rear of the units, together with planting and then an agricultural fence to prevent access to the river - it was not considered justified to refuse the application on these grounds.

 

In response to the concern relating to trees along the existing access track, and the potential for construction traffic to harm the trees, it was noted that impact on trees was a material consideration when assessing an application, although they were not protected. Members were reminded that, until recently, the hotel had been in use and a variety of traffic was going to the hotel and this would have included lorry deliveries. Although it was likely that there was potential for the construction traffic to be greater than normal service vehicles, it was noted that it was possible to impose a condition to manage transport to protect the trees along the access road. These conditions would alleviate the concern of the Biodiversity Unit and, as a result, the development would meet the requirements of environmental policies.

 

Having assessed the proposal, all observations received from residents and consultants, no substantial harmful impact contrary to local planning policies and relevant national guidance was identified.  The proposal was considered acceptable subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·         Discussions with officers had been held over the past two years to ensure that the plan was acceptable.

·         Good collaboration had ensured that that several elements had been resolved, including the demolition of one building and the relocation of cabins.

·         Although the observations of local residents had not highlighted proximity concerns, there was concern regarding the scale of the development - welcomed a hotel, but not cabins.

·         A hotel would not be profitable based on the hotel and facilities alone.

·         It was proposed to create an events centre that would be of benefit to the local economy.

·         It was intended to employ at least 30 full-time posts.

 

c)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member, Councillor Beca Brown made the following observations;

·         That Llanrug was a large, popular, Welsh, self-maintained village, it was popular with visitors and that the success of local businesses and enterprises was evidence of those local people who understand their area.

·         That the developer had a jobs creation plan that raised concern of challenging jobs that already existed - this would undermine other businesses.

·         That local businesses were the backbone of the community - ensured that the benefit remained local.

·         There was no local commitment from a developer outside the local community.

·         Welcomed a hotel business - a boutique ⁠style would be acceptable

·         Should a hotel return, local businesses would be left alone to flourish.

 

ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member, Councillor Berwyn Parry Jones made the following observations:

·         That he agreed with the observations of Councillor Beca Brown.

·         That the proposal was contrary to Policy TWR - there was a need to comply with three criteria that included the need to prove that the development did not lead to an excess. Reference was made to the Planning Policy definition which noted that small / very small scale assimilated well with the environment, namely up to 10-25 cabins. ⁠This application was for 39 which was contrary to the policy's recommendation.

·         A Gilesby study had been carried out across Gwynedd, Anglesey and the National Park noting that there was guidance to consider and prove 'small or very small' - should 39 cabins be deemed as 'small', there would be a risk of setting a precedent.

·         That a one-man company was here (Caernarfon Properties Ltd) - a developer from Manchester who had been listed as the company Director, who also owned the Dragon Investments limited company, which was also managed by the same person.

·         That the application noted that income was needed from the cabins to develop the hotel - was there a business plan for this? Was there a condition to ensure the development of the hotel?

·         That extending the hotel was contrary to policy TWR - there was a need to comply with five criteria that included 'appropriate scale when considering location'. The former hotel had closed as it did not fill half the bedrooms, therefore, how could an extension and 61 bedrooms be filled considering that the economy had worsened? The scale of the development was inappropriate.

·         There was a local desire to see the hotel being developed but not with this plan.

·         Asked the committee to refuse the application on the grounds that installing 39 cabins was contrary to Policy TWR 3 - paragraph 1.1 - excess, and that developing the hotel was contrary to Policy TWR 2 - paragraph 2 - scale of the hotel was inappropriate.

 

d)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         That the scale of the plan was unreasonable - an over-development that would create a negative impact on the community infrastructure.

·         Contrary to the principles of the Council's Tourism Strategy of sustaining renewable, sustainable tourism.

·         There was a lack of housing locally for the employees.

·         A short-term increase in population would have an impact on the Welsh language.

·         The jobs would not be of good quality.

 

dd)   In response to the reasons, although accepting the concerns, the Assistant Head noted that it would be difficult to evidence some of the refusal reasons and, as a result, the Council would be open to substantial costs should the application go to appeal. He highlighted that it would be possible to consider 'excess' as a reason to refuse the application - impact of the cabins and the scale of adaptations to the hotel on the landscape.

 

e)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         39 cabins would have a significant visual impact on the area.

·         The access road was narrow and not fit for purpose.

·         The number of parking spaces was insufficient for the size of the development.

·         There was a number of other holiday locations in the area.

·         Good agricultural land would be lost as a result of the development.

·         Locally, the labour market was very tight in this field - doubted the number of jobs proposed and whether they would be quality jobs.

·         Policy TWR 3 supported small / very small developments - this number was much more - the report did not explain this deflection.

·         An unnecessary over-development - size and scale was inappropriate.

·         What was the history of the Caernarfon Properties Ltd and Dragon Investments companies? Was there a record of the successes of these companies or were they only big ideas? It would be fair to know whether the company was suitable.

 

f)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application based on excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse the application, which was contrary to policy TWR 2 and TWR 3 based on excess and scale; excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel.