Construct new
building to produce ice cream, ice cream and local produce shop/cafe,
educational resource, alterations to access, associated external works and new
agricultural access
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Sian Wyn Hughes
Minutes:
Construction of new building to produce ice cream, ice cream and local
produce shop/cafe, educational resource, alterations to access, associated
external works and new agricultural access
(a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the
background of the application and noted that this was a full application to
erect a new building to produce ice cream and would comprise a shop/café and
educational resource. As part of this application alterations would be required
to the access and the removal of a boundary hedge bank and associated external
work as well as creating a new agricultural access to the field. The
single-storey building would measure approximately 325m² with a grey coloured
box profile finish similar to an agricultural shed. The proposed use would be a
mixture of retail, food and light industry.
It was noted that the property was located on the
outskirts of the village of Edern, adjacent to the
class 2 county road and within the 30 mph zone. The site in question was
located outside the development boundary of the village of Edern
and within a Landscape Conservation area, namely a distance of two fields away
- therefore it was considered to be a countryside site. It was highlighted that
this was a re-submission of an application refused by delegated powers in 2015
(number C15/0409/42/LL) for exactly the same purpose. The only amendment in terms of the plans was
that more landscaping was shown on the boundaries.
It was reported that the applicant was a Dairy
Farmer on Bryn Rhydd Farm, a Cefnamwlch
Estate farm which was located near the application site, and that he had
extended his enterprise to establish an ice cream production business called 'Glasu' by using his farm produce. The proposal was to erect
a bespoke building to produce ice cream within easy reach of the farm on land
in the applicant's ownership and not on estate land.
There were currently open and unimpeded views over
the fields in the direction of the AONB coastline and it was deemed that the
proposal would stand out as an unusual visual feature at this location. The
proposed location would be inconsistent and would create a separate
relationship. In addition, it was highlighted that the site was located alone
and approximately 850m away from the existing farm buildings, and over 200m
away from the closest building on the same side of the road as the application site.
In this case, it was noted that the location of the existing dwellings opposite
this road was insufficient to alleviate the visual appearance of the proposal
in this case and it was considered that the road that led through the village
created a definitive physical boundary between the houses and the application
site. Three objections to the application had been received expressing concern
regarding the proposal based on concerns regarding road safety and
parking. It was considered that business
activity from the site was likely to cause disturbance to nearby residents.
It was noted that the applicant had not submitted
sufficient evidence to show that sufficient consideration had been given to
other sites, or assessments of units or existing sites in the area that could
be used. Although the policies in the GUDP generally supported applications for
small rural businesses; it was necessary for any proposal to comply with the
criteria of specific policies, in order to ensure that the sites proposed were
totally suitable before they could be approved.
It was expressed that the grounds of the
recommendation to refuse the application was the unsuitable location in the
countryside and its visual impact. It was explained that the policies of the
GUDP ensured that the development of business in the countryside should be
ancillary to current use and on sites that had already been developed and that
were very close to existing buildings, in order to safeguard the open
countryside. Therefore, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to the
GUDP policies and therefore there was no option but to recommend that the
application was refused.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member (a member of this Planning Committee), noted that she supported the
application for the following reasons:
·
That the applicant had succeeded in his business of
producing ice cream and he know wished to expand his venture
·
That the size of the existing equipment was
insufficient for the business of providing Ice Cream for local businesses
·
That the business had a successful shop in Pwllheli
·
That the enterprise created local employment
·
It was an important resource for Edern and North Llŷn which
was recognised as a deprived area
·
The educational resource associated with the
application was to be welcomed
·
The company collaborated with small, artisan
companies by selling their product locally
·
There was a gap in this type of market in Llŷn - reduced food miles
·
Used the farm's milk along with the special milk of
Llaethdy Llŷn nearby
·
Welcomed the fact that the Transportation
Department had no objection
·
That the applicant owned the land (but did not own
the land on the existing site), therefore he was restricted to use the land and
buildings of Cefnamwlch Estate.
·
The site was not isolated - houses were located
near the plot and it would not have a visual impact on the houses due to
landscaping and existing high cloddiau
·
If successful, the applicant was prepared to
collaborate with the planning officers
·
The majority of nearby residents considered the
venture as an existing one that would invigorate the village
·
The development boundary of Edern
had been extended to erect a dwelling near the application. The site would not look out of place
·
The new building would be in-keeping with the
landscape
·
No room within a local business estate
·
It would not cause any disruption to the village
shop - the shop owner was supportive of the venture and already sold Glasu Ice Cream
·
The opening hours were reasonable
·
Recommended considering approving the application
and support small rural enterprises
(c)
The Senior Planning and Environment Manager
emphasised that the Planning Department acknowledged the work and success of
this local business and that they were fully supportive of this type of
development. In the context of planning considerations, it was explained that
the application in question was contrary to fundamental policies due to the
proposed location and, consequently, the recommendation to refuse was
robust. It was suggested, as location
matters was the main consideration, to undertake a site visit before making a
decision.
(ch) A proposal to undertake a site visit was
made and seconded.
(d) In response to a question regarding the lack
of information regarding the reasons for supporting the application following
the consultation period, the Development Control Manager highlighted that
'support' was the only observation submitted and that no information or reasons
for the support had been proposed.
RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: