Partly retrospective application to erect a building for use as a commercial garage, change building previously consented and used as a commercial garage at Gallt y Beren to agricultural use, together with proposed alterations to the junction from Hendre Wen to the B4415.
Local Member: Councillor Anwen J. Davies
Minutes:
A part
retrospective application to construct a building to be used as a commercial
garage, change of use of a building approved and used previously as a commercial
garage at Gallt y Beren to
agricultural use, along with proposed improvements to the entrance to the B4415
from Hendre Wen.
(a)
The Senior
Planning Service Manager elaborated on the background of the application. A report was submitted to the Planning Committee
on 27 April 2015 and the Committee’s intention was to approve the application,
contrary to the officers’ recommendation. The reasons that had been given by
the Committee for supporting the application had been that they considered that
the development conformed with policy D7 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development
Plan (Small scale Rural Workshops or Industrial/Business Units outside the
outside the development boundaries); that the development provided local
employment; geographical local need, and no similar business within reach of
the site.
Attention was drawn to the fact that one letter
had been received since publishing the report, supporting the application on
the grounds that the visual impact was considered to be acceptable; that there
were no alternative suitable sites and that there would be no impact in
relation to traffic.
(b)
Details of
the background of the application were given, noting that the retrospective
element of the application was to retain the building and use it as a
commercial garage with floor area of 264m2 near a dwelling known as Hendre Wen, together with improvements to the access to the
B4415 from Hendre Wen. Regarding the site’s planning history,
attention was drawn to the fact that an application to change the use of the agricultural
building in Hendre Wen into
a garage and MOT centre had been refused on 21 February 2013, and as a result,
an enforcement notice had been submitted to terminate the use and demolish the
building used as a commercial garage and remove all the materials associated
with that use from the site.
It was reported
that an appeal had been lodged against the enforcement notice and the planning
refusal, and both appeals had been refused in May 2014. The enforcement notice
was amended, in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s decision, to extend
the compliance period to the notice to 12 months. It was noted that the period
would end on 4 May 2015, but that no effort had been made to comply with the
requirements of this notice. It was highlighted that the applicant had acted
contrary to the Inspector's recommendation and had therefore committed a
crime. It was emphasised that the
application’s recent planning history clearly established the current planning
policy stance on this application, and that the application was wholly contrary
to the principles of the policy.
It was noted that
the development was industrial, and therefore it must be considered whether the
development had specific location needs under policy D5 of the GUDP. In this
case, there were no specific location needs to site the business on this
specific site in open countryside, especially bearing in mind that the
applicant had an established business in a shed on the family farm opposite the
current site. It was noted that units were available in areas such as Nefyn and Y Ffor, that may comply
with the applicant's needs and it was considered that the possibility of
adapting and using one of the units should be investigated rather than
retaining a new unit at a totally unacceptable location. It was also noted that
there were other businesses in the area providing this type of service and that
there was therefore no justification to accepting the proposal as a ‘special
local needs development’.
It was considered
that the proposal had an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and
there was no justification for locating the development on this site. It was
emphasised that the Planning Inspectorate’s decision on behalf of Welsh
Ministers to refuse the application supported the view of the Council in this
case to refuse an appeal against the refusal of the previous planning
application and enforcement notice. To this end, it would be very difficult for
the Committee to justify going against the appeal decision without causing
significant risks to the Council itself. It was emphasised that the proposal
was contrary to the guidance included in the national and local policies. It
was highlighted that the main risk to the Council would be for the Welsh Government
to formally intervene in the way the Council provides the Planning Service, that could ultimately totally or partly remove the
right to determine planning applications from the Council. Options to be
considered by the Committee were listed in the report, which emphasised that
the recommendation to refuse the application was clear and robust in
considering the recent planning history.
(c) The following main points were
made by the local member (not a member of this Planning Committee):-
·
The lack
of a decision on the application was a matter of concern for the family and the
local community.
·
It was a
successful business in the countryside
·
The
company offered a service for agricultural machinery, and therefore its scale
was appropriate
·
The business
employed 6 staff members. These were young, local families trying to build a
future for their children; they were valuable jobs in a rural area where there
weren’t many jobs;
·
The
business contributed considerably to the local economy;
·
The
applicant intended to change the colour of the shed.
·
Refusing
the application would lead to a loss of employment in the countryside, along
with the applicant’s family’s livelihood.
·
She was
supportive of the application.
It was proposed
and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation
and to suggest that the applicant discussed the possibilities with the Planning
Service in relation to the site at Gallt y Beren and other suitable alternative sites – option 5.1(ii)
of the report.
(ch) The following observations were noted in favour of the
recommendation:
·
Consideration
had to be given to the Planning
Inspectorate’s decision
·
The
inspector had supported the officers' decision and that the inspector's
decision could not be undermined;
·
That the
decision had to be made in accordance with the policies in order to ensure
fairness and consistency for all applicants.
·
Accept
that it was a difficult decision but that care had to be taken not to set a
dangerous precedent
·
Agree on
the need to support industry and employment in the countryside, but as the
appeal had been refused twice, the Committee must adhere to its policies
·
The
proposal was contrary to policy 7 of the GUDP;
(d) The
following observations were noted contrary to the recommendation:
·
The
business was a successful economic enterprise which was to be welcomed.
·
The
business had developed naturally, supported local farmers and demonstrated that
the service needed to remain on the site
·
Agricultural
buildings had existed on the site for a long period of time, and therefore
industry in the countryside had to be prioritised, and this had to be accepted
as an exception.
·
Customers
would have to travel further, possibly with tractors, which could mean an
increase in traffic levels on rural roads during the summer
·
There was
a need to safeguard jobs and support a company that supported the Welsh
language
·
The
applicant intended to improve the site through landscaping to make it less
visible
·
There were
no other suitable units nearby
·
If a
precedent was set in allowing this development it would send a positive message
that local businesses and young people were being supported.
(dd) In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the
following vote to refuse the application
was a registered vote:
In favour of the proposal to refuse the application, (8)
Councillors: Gwen Griffith, Anne T. Lloyd Jones, Dyfrig
Wynn Jones, June Marshall, Michael Sol Owen, Tudor Owen, Eirwyn
Williams and Hefin Williams.
Against the proposal to refuse the application, (7)
Councillors: Elwyn Edwards, Alwyn Gruffydd,
Dilwyn Lloyd, John Pughe
Roberts, Gruffydd Williams, Owain
Williams and Eurig Wyn.
RESOLVED to refuse the application in
accordance with the recommendation and to suggest that the applicant discusses
the possibilities with the Planning Service in relation to the site at Gallt y Beren and other suitable
alternative sites (option 5(ii)).
1. It is
considered that the proposal was tantamount to erecting a new industrial
building in open countryside and that it is not possible to consider the
application as one for the change of use of the existing building. There is no
justification for locating the development in open countryside and no special
location needs exist for this development. Therefore, the proposal is contrary
to policies D5, D7, D8 and C1 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
2. The building that has been erected due to its colour,
openings and finishes stands out as a prominent industrial feature that does
not respect and is not in keeping with its location in open countryside which
is designated as a Landscape Protection Area. In addition it is considered that
work to the access has a detrimental impact on the area’s character and
appearance. It is therefore considered
that the proposal does not comply with the requirements of policies B10, B22,
B25 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
Supporting documents: