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
Link to relevant background documents
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 Officer Manager elaborated on the application's
background, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee
meeting held on 7 November 2016 in order to conduct a site inspection visit. Some members
had visited the site prior
to the meeting.
Attention was
drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
It
was noted that the applicant's wish to site the business on land within
his ownership and within convenient reach to the farm, was not considered to be sufficient justification for the location. The Council had not been convinced that there was a genuine need to establish such a mixed business on the application site without special
local needs or exceptional circumstances to justify granting the application in the countryside. It was added that
it appeared that no consideration
had been given to try and find a suitable
building / brownfield site within the village boundary or on a different
site. It was noted that the proposal to erect a mixed business building of this type on greenfield
land did not comply with the business location principles of policies C1, CH37, D5, D7, D8, D13 or
D30 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development
Plan.
It was deemed that
constructing a new building in such
an isolated and disjointed location would have a detrimental impact on the form
and character of the village and the landscape, that was designated as a Landscape Conservation Area.
It
was noted that the benefits in terms
of economic growth, rural enterprise and employment did not outweigh the harm which was likely to be caused to the character of the landscape and the area's appearance, and the need to ensure that new
development was located in a sustainable location. The proposal was considered to be contrary to the policies of the GUDP and therefore there was no option but
to recommend that the application was refused.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:-
·
That the application and the agent's additional
comments indicated how important the application was for the ice cream business
and the existing farm enterprise;
·
That milk prices were unstable and this development
was in order to develop the ice cream business further and to keep the farm
viable;
·
That the proposal created quality jobs for local
people;
·
It was understood that there was concern regarding
the location however it was not possible to site the application on the farm;
·
That schools would benefit from the educational
resource;
·
That it would provide a quality resource for
tourists as well as local people;
·
That they were willing to work with the Planning
Service to ensure that the proposal was acceptable with relevant conditions.
·
That they had a clear
vision and were enthusiastic;
·
The success and the
future of Glasu, existing jobs, new jobs and their
livelihood on the farm depended on the decision and therefore they requested
that the application be approved.
(c) The local member (a member of this Planning Committee), supported
the application and she made the following main points:-
·
That the proposal
would ensure the future of the family farm;
·
That a bespoke
building would enable the production and storage of more ice cream produce;
·
There was no
room on the Nefyn industrial estate and such an
estate would not be suitable for the enterprise that included an educational
and tourist resource;
·
It was not possible to locate the application on the farm;
·
The site
was not isolated - houses were located near
the plot and the applicant
was willing to negotiate regarding landscaping;
·
The unique
educational resource associated with the application was to be welcomed;
·
The proposal
would not create competition with the village shop;
·
The company
collaborated with small, artisan companies by selling
their produce locally;
·
There was no
site for the business within the development boundary of the village;
·
That a condition
may be imposed that the building was not to be converted into a house in the future;
·
Only three
objections had been received with two
letters of support and Nefyn Town Council supported the proposal;
·
The Transportation
Unit did not object to the application:
·
The enterprise
created local employment.
(ch)
The Senior Planning Service Manager noted
that the Council supported business enterprises if the location of the
application was acceptable. It was noted that
the location of the site was outside the development boundary and the Council
was not convinced that there was justification in terms of special location
needs in the countryside. It was highlighted that the internal layout of the
building indicated that the production element was ancillary and it was not
possible to impose a condition to tie what was sold in the shop/café and
therefore there would be no control in terms of long-term use. He noted that if
the Committee approved the application then he would refer the matter to a
cooling-off period.
The
Transport Development Control Officer noted that the proposal to invite schools
and colleges to visit the business together with the shop/café element meant
that eight parking spaces would be insufficient and it would be necessary to
re-consider the parking provision.
(d) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.
During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted:
·
That it was necessary to look at the application
objectively, more than half the building would be a shop and there would be no
control in the future regarding what could be sold;
·
The application was situated within a Landscape
Conservation Area;
·
Should the application be approved then a precedent
would be set:
·
It would be easier to support the application
without the retail element as businesses could be short-lived and a condition
could not be imposed in terms of future use;
·
That the proposal was contrary to eight policies
within the GUDP and the parking provision was insufficient;
·
Despite being a good plan, the location was
incorrect;
·
The location had a unique selling point and the
associated educational resource was to be welcomed.
·
There was three-phase electricity connection on the
site;
·
If approved, a landscaping condition could be
imposed to make the development less prominent in the landscape;
·
This was an opportunity to support rural folk;
·
The enterprise was an excellent example of
identifying a gap in the market and ensuring high quality;
·
That it was important to support the family who
were working hard to make the enterprise a success. As a resource for the
community it belonged to, the success of the business depended on local support
and the Committee's decision to support it;
·
There were a number of agricultural sheds in the
area and therefore the building would not be unusual at this location;
·
There was no space on the industrial estate and
there was no other suitable building for the business;
·
That a local family who created local employment
should be supported.
(dd)
A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the
application and it fell.
A
proposal was made, and seconded, to approve the application as there was no
other suitable location available and it was possible to place great weight on
the economic benefit.
The members voted on the proposal to
approve the application and it carried.
RESOLVED to approve the application,
contrary to the officers’ recommendation.
Reasons:
No
other suitable location available.
It was possible to place great weight
on the economic benefit.
The Senior Planning Service Manager noted his intention, in accordance with the Procedural Rules of this committee, to refer the application to a cooling-off period and to bring a further report before the committee highlighting the risks associated with approving the application.
Supporting documents: