Contents · 2015-01-26 · Contents Agenda 4 - Minutes of previous meeting 1 - Brithdir,...

ContentsAgenda4 - Minutes of previous meeting1 - Brithdir, Rhosgadfan, Caernarfon

Plans2 - Gwilan, Manod Road, Blaenau Ffestiniog

Plans3 - Site of former L S Carpets Ltd, Maes yr Orsaf, Pwllheli

Plans4 - Tyddyn Cae, Boduan

Plans5 - Tu Hwnt i'r Ffrwd, Morfa Nefyn

Plans6 - 94 Ystad Cae Du, Abersoch

Plans

27

233136434859658295

102106111

Gwasanaeth DemocrataiddDemocratic Service

Swyddfa’r CyngorCAERNARFON

GwyneddLL55 1SH

Cyfarfod / Meeting

PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIO

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Dyddiad ac Amser / Date and Time

1.00pm DYDD LLUN, 2 CHWEFROR, 2015

1.00pm MONDAY, 2 FEBRUARY, 2015

Lleoliad / Location

YSTAFELL GYFARFOD, FRONDEG, PWLLHELIMEETING ROOM, FRONDEG, PWLLHELI

D.S Rhagflaenir gan ymweliad safle mewn cysylltiad â cheisiadau rhifau:(i) C14/1083/42/LL (Tu Hwnt I'r Ffrwd, Morfa Nefyn, LL53 8UP)(ii) C14/1218/33/LL (Plas Yng Ngheidio, Boduan, Pwllheli, LL53 8YL)

(nid yw’r cais yn cael ei drafod yn y pwyllgor hwn)(iii) C14/0885/33/LL (Tyddyn Cae, Boduan, Pwllheli, LL53 6DS)

Aelodau’r Pwyllgor i gyfarfod yn Frondeg, Pwllheli am 10.00am

N.B. To be preceded by a site visit in relation to applications numbers:(i) C14/1083/42/LL (Tu Hwnt I'r Ffrwd, Morfa Nefyn, LL53 8UP)(ii) C14/1218/33/LL (Plas Yng Ngheidio, Boduan, Pwllheli, LL53 8YL)

(the application will not be discussed at this meeting)(iii) C14/0885/33/LL (Tyddyn Cae, Boduan, Pwllheli, LL53 6DS)

Committee members to meet at Frondeg, Pwllheli at 10.00am

Pwynt Cyswllt / Contact Point

BETHAN ADAMS

01286 679020

[email protected]

Dosbarthwyd/Distributed 23-01-15

PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIO

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Aelodaeth / Membership (15)

Plaid Cymru (7)

Y Cynghorwyr/Councillors

Craig ab Iago Elwyn Edwards

Dyfrig Jones Michael Sol Owen

Tudor Owen Hefin Williams

Eurig Wyn

Annibynnol/Independent (3)


Anne T. Lloyd Jones John Pughe Roberts Eirwyn Williams

Llais Gwynedd (3)


Endaf Cooke Gruffydd Williams Owain Williams

Llafur/Labour (1)

Y Cynghorydd/Councillor

Gwen Griffith

Rhyddfrydwyr Democrataidd / Liberal Democrats (1)

Y Cynghorydd/Councillor

June Marshall

Eilyddion / Substitutes

Y Cynghorwyr / Councillors

John Wyn Williams (Plaid Cymru)

Eric Merfyn Jones (Annibynnol / Independent)

Dilwyn Lloyd (Llais Gwynedd)

Sion Wyn Jones (Llafur / Labour)

Stephen Churchman (Rhyddfrydwyr Democrataidd / Liberal Democrats)

TREFN SIARAD YN Y PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIO

Mae’r Cyngor wedi penderfynu rhoddi’r hawl i 3ydd parti siarad yn y PwyllgorCynllunio. Mae’r daflen hon yn amlinellu’r trefniadau gweithredol arferol ar gyfersiarad yn y pwyllgor.

1. Adroddiad y Gwasanaeth Cynllunio ar y cais cynllunio yn cynnwysargymhelliad.

2. Os oes cais wedi ei dderbyn gan 3ydd parti i siarad, bydd yCadeirydd yn gwahodd y siaradwr ymlaen

3. Gwrthwynebydd, neu gynrychiolydd o’r gwrthwynebwyr yn caelannerch y pwyllgor

3 munud

4. Ymgeisydd, gynrychiolydd yr ymgeisydd(wyr) neu Asiant yn caelannerch y pwyllgor

3 munud

5. Aelod(au) Lleol yn cael annerch y pwyllgor 10 munud

6. Cadeirydd y pwyllgor yn gofyn am gynigydd ac eilydd i’r caiscynllunio

7. Y pwyllgor yn trafod y cais cynllunio.

PROCEDURE FOR SPEAKING IN THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The Council has decided that third parties have the right to speak at the PlanningCommittee. This leaflet outlines the normal operational arrangements for speaking atthe committee.

1. Report of the Planning Service on the planning applicationincluding a recommendation.

2. If an application has been received from a 3rd party to speak theChairman will invite the speaker to come forwards.

3. Objector or a representative of the objectors to address thecommittee.

3 minutes

4. Applicant or a representative of the applicant(s) to address thecommittee.

3 minutes

5. Local Member(s) to address the committee 10 minutes

6. Committee Chairman to ask for a proposer and seconder for theplanning application.

7. The committee to discuss the planning application

RHAGLEN

1. YMDDIHEURIADAU

Derbyn unrhyw ymddiheuriadau am absenoldeb.

2. DATGAN BUDDIANT PERSONOL

Derbyn unrhyw ddatganiad o fuddiant personol.

3. MATERION BRYS

Nodi unrhyw eitemau sy’n fater brys ym marn y Cadeirydd fel y gellir euhystyried.

4. COFNODION

Bydd y Cadeirydd yn cynnig y dylid llofnodi cofnodion y cyfarfod diwethaf o’rpwyllgor hwn, a gynhaliwyd ar 12 Ionawr, 2015, fel rhai cywir (copi yma –papur melyn)

5. CEISIADAU AM GANIATÂD CYNLLUNIO

Cyflwyno adroddiad Pennaeth Adran Rheoleiddio (copi yma – papur gwyn).

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES

To accept any apologies for absence.

2. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST

To receive any declaration of financial interest or personal connection.

3. URGENT ITEMS

To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman forconsideration.

4. MINUTES

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the last meeting of thiscommittee, held on, 12 January, 2015, be signed as a true record (copyherewith - yellow enclosure).

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To submit the report of the Head of Regulatory Department (copy herewith –white enclosure).

PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIOPLANNING COMMITTEE

DYDDIAD:DATE:

02/02/2015 YSTAFELL GYFARFODFRONDEG MEETINGROOM PWLLHELI

EITEMITEM

CAIS RHIFAPPLICATIONNUMBER

CYMUNEDCOMMUNITY

LLEOLIAD A BWRIADLOCATION AND PROPOSAL

AELOD LLEOLLOCAL MEMBER

1 C11/1074/24/LL Llanwnda Brithdir, Rhosgadfan, CaernarfonCodi clawdd, lefelu tir a'i hadu, siedamaethyddol, man caled i barcio cerbydau achadw sied (cais rhannol weithredol) / Erectionof bund, level land and seed, agricultural shed,hardstanding for parking vehicles and retentionof shed (part retrospective application)

Aeron MaldwynJones

2 C14/0753/03/LL Ffestiniog Gwilan, Manod Road, Blaenau FfestiniogCais llawn i godi dau annedd unllawr arwahan/Full application to erect two singlestorey detached dwellings.

Linda A. Jones

3 C14/0769/45/LL Pwllheli Cyn safle / Site of former L S Carpets Ltd,Maes yr Orsaf, PwllheliNewid defnydd adeilad o ddefnydd A1manwerthu i ddefnydd cymysg o fwyty, barlolfa a bar dawnsio / Change of use of buildingfrom A1 retail use to a mixed use as restaurant,lounge bar and dance bar

Michael Sol Owen

4 C14/0885/33/LL Buan Tyddyn Cae, BoduanGosod a gweithredu fferm solar (4.9MW)ynghyd ag isadeiledd cysylltiedig yn cynnwyspaneli DV, fframiau gosod, gwrthdroydd,trawsnewidiwr, camerau CCTV ar bolyn,ffensys ac is-orsafoedd / Installation andoperation of a solar farm (4.9MW) andassociated infrastructure including PV panels,mounting frames, inverter, transformer, polemounted CCTV cameras, fences and sub-stations

Anwen Davies

5 C14/1083/42/LL Nefyn Tu Hwnt I'r Ffrwd, Morfa NefynNewid defnydd i ffurfio 16 carafan deithiolychwanegol yn cynnwys ffordd a lleiniau caled /Change of use to form 16 additional touringcaravans including road and hardstanding

Liz Saville Roberts

6 C14/1164/39/LL Llanengan 94, Ystad Cae Du, AbersochEstyniad cefn ar lefel llawr cyntaf gyda grisiaui'r lefel is ynghyd â chadw ffenestr gromen cefn/ Extension to rear first floor with stairs tolower level and retain rear dormer window

R.H. WynWilliams

PLANNING COMMITTEE 12.1.15

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE12.1.15

Present: Councillor Michael Sol Owen – ChairmanCouncillor Anne Lloyd Jones – Vice-chair

Councillors: Councillors Craig ab Iago, Elwyn Edwards, Gwen Griffith, Dyfrig Wynn Jones, DilwynLloyd (Substitute), June Marshall, W. Tudor Owen, John Pughe Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, GruffyddWilliams, Hefin Williams and Eurig Wyn.

Others invited: Councillors R. H. Wyn Williams, Llywarch Bowen Jones, John Wyn Williams,Anwen Davies and Seimon Glyn (Local members).

Also in attendance: Gareth Jones (Senior Planning Service Manager), Keira Sweenie (SeniorDevelopment Control Officer), Idwal Williams (Senior Development Control Officer), Dafydd GarethJones (Senior Planning Officer – Minerals and Waste), Dylan Wyn Jones (Traffic ImprovementsTeam Manager and Development Control), Rhun ap Gareth (Senior Solicitor) and Lowri Haf Evans(Member Support and Scrutiny Officer).

Apologies: Councillors Owain Williams and Liz Saville Roberts

1. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST

(a) The following members declared a personal interest for the reasons noted:

Councillor Gruffydd Williams in Item 5 on the agenda (application numberC14/0653/43/LL) as he was the applicant’s son; (application numbers C14/1065/42/LLand C14/1083/42/LL) as his father owned a caravan park that was located less than sixmiles from the site.

Councillor Michael Sol Owen in Item 5 on the agenda (application numbersC14/1042/11/LL and C14/1043/11/LL) as he was a member of the Board of CartrefiCymunedol Gwynedd (the application’s developers)

Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones in Item 5 on the agenda (application numbersC14/1042/11/LL and C14/1043/11/LL) as she was a member of the Board of CartrefiCymunedol Gwynedd (the application’s developers)

The Members were of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests, and they withdrew fromthe Chamber during the discussions on the items noted.

(b) The following members were local members in relation to the items noted:

Councillor R. H. Wyn Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation toitem 5 on the agenda, (planning applications C14/0638/39/LL and C14/0902/39/LL);

Councillor Llywarch Bowen Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relationto item 5 on the agenda (planning application C14/0653/43/LL);

Councillor John Wyn Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation toitem 5 on the agenda (planning application number C14/0745/25/HY);

Councillor Anwen Davies (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5on the agenda (planning application number C14/0885/33/LL);

Councillor Nigel Pickavance (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation toitem 5 on the agenda (planning application number C14/1042/11/LL andC14/1043/11/LL);

Councillor Seimon Glyn (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5on the agenda (planning application C14/1083/42/LL).


2

2. MINUTES

The Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 15December 2014 as a true record, subject to:

i. Amending the sentence in the English minutes, item 1.6 – Councillor Trefor Edwards(who was not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 6 on theagenda (planning application number C14/1011/19/LL) – to note CouncillorChristopher Hughes (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) in relationto item 6 on the agenda (planning application number C14/1011/19/LL).

3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the following applications for development.

Details of the applications were expanded upon and questions were answered in relation tothe plans and aspects of the policies.

RESOLVED

1. Application number C14/0638/39/LL – 132, Cae Du, Abersoch.

Extend the curtilage of the property, construct a two-storey side extension and extendpatio area.

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the application,explaining that the plan had been amended since it had first been submitted. It wasreported that the original plan showed a balcony on the first floor level of the extensionbut this had now been removed from the proposal. In terms of the principle of thedevelopment, it was noted in general that policies B22 and B24 of the UnitaryDevelopment Plan approved proposals to extend existing dwellings, provided theycomplied with associated criteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features andcharacter of the landscape and environment, together with the character and amenityvalue of the local area.

It was explained that the property was located within a high-density residential area andthat some overlooking was likely to exist regardless. The original plan had beenamended in response to the observations of the Transportation Unit, as they had beenconcerned that the balcony would be a form of distraction for drivers at a location closeto a turning. As a result, the proposal was considered acceptable in respect of policiesCH33 and CH36 and it was not believed that it would affect road safety or parking. Itwas not considered that the proposal would affect the area’s visual amenities or thecharacter of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the design of the extension was considered acceptable.

(b) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the applicationand he made the following main points:- Houses on the Cae Du estate were already located close together. He requested the Planning Committee to be more alert to applications for extensions

in this estate – 85% of the houses were holiday homes, and approving thisapplication would set a precedent.

He accepted that the plan had been changed, but the extension still had an impacton neighbouring residents’ privacy.

(c) It was proposed and seconded to undertake a site visit. The proposal fell. It was acceptedthat there was sufficient information in the report.


3

(ch) Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.

(d) During the discussion, the following observations were made: There was potential here for overdevelopment The views of the Community Council must be taken into consideration, and start

saying enough is enough.

(dd) The Senior Planning Service Manager noted that every application had to be dealt withon its own merits, and it was considered that the application before the Committeecomplied with the relevant planning policies.

Resolved: To approve the application subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement within five years.

2. In accordance with the revised plan.

3. Slates to match those of the existing property.4. The external walls of the extension and the wall around the patio to

complement the existing property in terms of colour and texture.

2. Application number C14/0645/22/MW – Dolbebin Slate Tip, Talysarn

Resubmission of a previously refused application for the removal of material from a mineralworking deposit and associated processing operations.

(a) The Senior Planning Manager – Minerals and Waste expanded on the background of theapplication, noting that it was a resubmission for the removal of part of a slate tip that hadbeen refused planning permission in January 2015. The proposal was to quarry an areaof 7,500m2 in part of the mineral working deposit measuring 3.16ha along with associatedprocessing operations. The plans with the application indicated a reduced footprint for theancillary processing area and site compound which had been submitted with the previousapplication (C13/1052/22/MW) – the Manager highlighted that the application had beenamended so that the site compound was formed within the area at the foot of the tip. Itwas intended to use the slate waste recovered during the construction of the compoundto create an access road which would serve the development directly from the B4418 aswas approved under planning permission C11/1140/22/LL.

It was also added that amended details for the current application included the removal ofall slate crushing activity, a revised noise assessment which had been undertaken inAugust 2014, a methodology for ecological mitigation and a restoration strategy, andlocating the site compound within the footprint of the tip.

It was noted that insufficient evidence had been submitted regarding noise and theimpact on nearby residents. It was believed that the applicant had failed to show that thedevelopment, in terms of impact and noise, could comply with the relevant guidelines.Members were also reminded that the Council’s Public Protection Service objected to theapplication, as approving it could create a statutory nuisance in the form of noiseresulting from the development.

With respect to the need for the development, reference was made to policy C15 of theGwynedd Unitary Development Plan, which stated that proposals to remove material froma mineral working deposit must comply with a series of criteria. The local market was


4

already served by working sites nearby, and there was not a strong enough argumentthat Dolbebin Tip had the capacity to supply slate that had different features, colour andtexture to the slate supply from operational sites, and in terms of the local or regionalneed. Therefore, there was no justification for approving a new slate extraction site inDyffryn Nantlle.

Attention was drawn to the additional observations.

(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the followingobservations:

The development caused concern and worry for the residents of Dyffryn Nantlle The committee had to consider the clear objection of local residents The development was bound to cause an adverse effect on the area The noise effect from the removal of minerals would be harmful to a quiet, rural area The development did not comply with local and national policies Local people’s quality of life must be protected Hundreds of local residents were pleading with the committee to uphold and

maintain the policies

There was no definite statement on employment in the application The ability of the planning service to scrutinise the situation thoroughly must be

considered and respected.

(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the agent representing the applicant made thefollowing observations:

An additional noise assessment had been undertaken along with two surveys tomonitor the situation

This was small-scale extraction. Only 4 – 6 loads a day would leave the site. Thiswas unlikely to create a harmful impact. Heavy lorries would not travel to the endof the track.

The proposal no longer included slate crushing. The minerals would now be removed from the bottom of the tip and not the top. The MT noise levels assessment should be accepted. As common practice, several mitigation measures had been introcuded.

(ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak the local member (who was a member of thisPlanning Committee) made the following main points:

A difficult application – supported both sides. A local family wished to diversify their business using a resource on their land – it

was difficult not to sympathise with them. The community, particularly those residents who lived around the quarry, were

concerned about the increased noise and dust that would result from the proposal. Planning policies were at hand to deal with the situation, therefore the member

recommended that the decision should be made based on those policies. Proposed the need to hold constructive discussions when considering similar

applications in the future – lessons should be learned in order to avoid a split insociety.

The Senior Planning Service Manager added that the relevant policies must be taken intoconsideration, and highlighted the importance of consistency in decisions, and givingconsideration to the observations of the Public Protection Service, which still objected tothe proposal because of the detrimental effect it would have on neighbouring residents'residential amenities. He also emphasised that the Planning Committee had refused a


5

similar application only 12 months ago, and the Committee had to consider whether thisapplication overcame the reasons for refusing the previous application. The main reasonfor refusing the application was the noise effect and the adverse effect on the area'svisual amenities, which had been the main reason for refusing the previous application.He stressed therefore that the current application had not overcome the main reason forthe refusal of the previous application, and if the application was approved contrary to therecommendation, the application would have to be referred to a cooling off period.

(d) Proposed – to refuse the application in line with the recommendation, and to have aregistered vote.

(dd) During the ensuing discussion the following observations were made:

Concern had been highlighted regarding the effect of noise, dust and transport inthe area, especially for the residents of Talysarn. Residents’ health and well-beingmust be taken into consideration.

The report was comprehensive and provided clear guidance.

There was enough slate aggregate in the area, therefore there was no demand formore.In response to a question, the Senior Planning Manager – Minerals and Wastenoted that 20 million tonnes of reserves in Gwynedd could be used as aggregate.He added that there was plenty of hard rock in reserve (which included slate).

The development was on a post-industrial site and was an opportunity to create abusiness and boost the local economy.

A new enterprise by a local farmer through diversification – the proposal must bewelcomed if it provided work for local people.

How could we be innovative if we refused businesses that would strengthen theeconomy?

The Dolbebin Slate Tip could not offer anything different to what was offered byother local sites.

The application must be weighed up carefully – we should not turn ourcountryside into a museum, but in this instance the effect on amenity outweighedthe economic effect.

One member made a request for confirmation that the Planning Service had notreceived a letter in his name.In response to the request the Solicitor confirmed that a letter had not beenreceived.

In accordance with Procedural Rule 22 (6), the following vote to refuse the applicationwas recorded:

In favour of the proposal to refuse the application, (10) Councillors: Endaf Cooke,

Elwyn Edwards, Gwen Griffith, Anne T. Lloyd Jones, Dyfrig Wynn Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd,

June Marshall, W Tudor Owen, Eirwyn Williams and Gruffydd Williams

Against the proposal to refuse, (3) Councillors: John Pughe Roberts, Hefin Williamsand Eurig Wyn.

Abstaining, (0)

RESOLVED to refuse the application


6

1. In terms of the local and regional need for the mineral, it is believed that there areenough slate reserves in Gwynedd and there is no obligation on the authority, interms of the regional apportionment, to secure further reserves or allocations ofslate waste. As a result, the development does not comply with National andRegional Planning Policy and Directive, nor does it comply with the requirements ofpolicies C9, C10 and C15 of the Unitary Development Plan. In order to minimise thevisual and environmental impact of mineral development in Dyffryn Nantlle, theauthority would first need to consider extensions to the existing sites.

2. In the absence of specific plans and drawings for a phased scheme of restoration,aftercare and after use, it is believed that the proposal will have a detrimental effecton the area’s visual amenities, both during the operational phase and onceoperations have ceased. To this end, the development does not comply with therequirements of policies B10, C9, C14 and C15 of the Unitary Development Plan orwith national planning policy directive.

3. It is believed that the proposal, on its own or in combination with other mineraldevelopment operations in the area, is likely to have a detrimental impact on thearea’s amenities and is contrary to policy B23 of the UDP (amenities) and policy C12(buffer zones).

3. Application Number C14/0653/43/LL – Gwynus Caravan Park and Golf Course, Pistyll

Upgrade an existing static caravan park and relocate it from part of field 472 to part of field470.

(a) The Senior Planning Service Manager expanded on the background of the application, notingthat the application had been submitted to a meeting of the Planning Committee on 24November 2014 where it was decided to approve the application contrary to the officers'recommendation. In light of the decision, there was a significant risk to the Council in respectof the decision to approve contrary to the officers’ recommendation, therefore the matter wasreferred to a cooling off period in accordance with the Committee’s standing orders. Thepurpose of reporting back to the Committee was to highlight the planning policy issues, thepossible risks and to offer options for the Committee to consider before reaching a finaldecision.

The Members were reminded that the proposal would involve relocating a static caravan siteto a new site, and exchanging the static caravans for twin static holiday caravans. It wasemphasised that the area of the site was 4.96 hectares (namely field no. 470), and thesurface area of the existing Gwynus caravan park which contained static and touringcaravans was 1.69 hectares. It was also highlighted that it was proposed to create a newentrance and that the site was located within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It was noted that in terms of the principle of the application, Policy D17 wassupportive of applications to upgrade static caravan sites through small extensions to the landarea and by relocating static holiday caravan units from prominent settings to less prominentlocations. The aim of this principle was to enable existing caravan sites which were located invisually prominent sites, especially within the AONB, to be relocated to less prominent sitesand thus reduce the visual impact on the landscape.

It was not considered that the current planning application was eligible to be considered as asmall extension, since the land area of the extension was 4.69 hectares compared with thecurrent 1.69 hectares (the touring and static caravans), and compared with 0.19 hectareswhich was the land area of the static caravan site. In addition to this the proposal would


7

relocate static caravans from concealed locations to much more prominent settings. It wastherefore emphasised that the application was unacceptable in principle and was completelycontrary to Policy D17.

It was noted that due to the size of the application site, the separate vehicular access etc., itappeared that the proposal was tantamount to creating a new static caravan park. It wasemphasised that this was contrary to the requirements of Policy D16 of the Gwynedd UnitaryDevelopment Plan which stated that proposals to develop new sites for static holiday caravanunits or holiday chalets would be refused. It must be noted that this policy had beenimplemented strictly within the Local Planning Authority since adopting the UDP.

It was emphasised that the site measured 4.96 hectares and was located within the AONB,and that it was the Committee's statutory duty to protect, maintain and enhance this area. Theapplication meant relocating static caravans to much more prominent locations within theAONB, therefore it was contrary to policy B8.

If the application was approved, this would undermine the Council’s policies, would createinconsistencies in how the Council operated and would set a possible precedent for othersites. It was noted that up to 200 other caravan parks were likely to be scrutinising thisdecision, and whilst every application must be determined on its own merits, there was also aneed to ensure consistency in terms of applying the planning policies.

Three options were proposed for the Committee to consider in determining the application.The officers’ firm recommendation was to refuse the application as it was completely contraryto the UDP.

(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the followingmain points:-

The existing site was established in the late 50s / early 60s. As the site was dispersed, it no longer met the appropriate standards, therefore the

site must be altered in order to ensure that residents continued to use the site. The golf course was no longer in operation, therefore this justified its consideration as

Brownfield land.

(c) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee), supported the application andhe made the following main points:-

The caravan park was a family park and had existed for over 60 years Field no. 472 was no longer suitable because of Health and Safety matters The size of the extension corresponded with Health and Safety requirements,

therefore this was the main reason for moving the 10 static caravans. In terms of the operation of the site, it was important to keep the static caravans

together. Only a part of field 470 would be used. Moving the caravans would mean that they were less visible from the road. 250 trees had been planted to landscape the site and to reduce the visual effect, and

to create a better environment for wildlife. The proposed colour of the twin caravans blended in better with the landscape. It would have been wise for the Committee to visit field no. 472 during their site visit. Upgrading the site would keep the benefit local by boosting the economy in an area

where unemployment was high. It was intended to use local resources and local constructors.


8

The Chairman reiterated that thorough and serious consideration must be given to thecontent of the report.

(ch) It was proposed to refuse the application and consider option 5.1 (ii), and to register thevote.

‘To refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation and suggest that theapplicant discusses alternative upgrade options which would meet the requirements of therelevant planning policies and include a small extension which incorporates the existingsite.’

(d) During the ensuing discussion the following observations were made by individual Membersand responses were provided where appropriate:

In response to a question regarding a transparent procedure for dealing withapplications from Councillors and members of the Planning Committee, the Solicitorexplained that this was a planning application before the Committee, and that theCommittee must make a decision based on the relevant planning considerations andthe relevant planning policies. He noted that the application raised significant concernsfor the planning service and that those concerns had been highlighted in the cooling offreport and in the Senior Manager’s verbal report. Should the application be approvedcontrary to the recommendation, the committee would have to provide appropriateplanning reasons, and it would be very difficult to have firm reasons to justify approvingthe application.

Local and national policies must be adhered to. There were sufficient appropriatereasons for refusal here.

The committee must consider the application, not the applicant. The report provided afull and adequate explanation to be able to assess the application.

Approving would set a precedent for other caravan sites.It appeared that the planning service had over-emphasised the size of field 470. Theapplication before the Committee was for relocating 10 caravans. In response, thesolicitor confirmed that the land area of the planning application site was 4.96 hectares,and emphasised that the applicant had submitted this particular application, and thiswas the application to be considered by the Committee.

Option 5.1 (ii) was proposed for considering the improvements required for the caravanpark.

In response to a question on what was meant by ‘alternative upgrade options’ whichwas incorporated in option 5.1 (ii), the Senior Planning Service Manager expressed thatthe site could be upgraded through a scheme which satisfied the policies and Healthand Safety conditions, but the applicant would need to hold discussions with the Servicebefore submitting a further application and act on the advice provided by the Service.

In terms of implementing option 5.1 (iii), the Senior Planning Service Manager stated that asection 106 agreement would be required in order to delete a planning permission thathad been granted recently for relocating and upgrading static caravans.

In response to a question regarding a decision being considered by the Ombudsmanbecause that decision had been made in order to seek advantage. It was noted that thiswas a risk that had been highlighted in the cooling off report, and it was also noted thatthe decision could be subject to a judicial review.


9

In accordance with Procedural Rule 22 (6), the following vote to refuse the applicationwas recorded:

In favour of the proposal to refuse the application, (11) Councillors: Craig ab Iago,

Elwyn Edwards, Gwen Griffith, Anne T. Lloyd Jones, Dyfrig Wynn Jones, June Marshall,

Michael Sol Owen, John Pughe Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, Hefin Williams and EurigWyn.

Against the proposal to refuse, (2) Councillors: Endaf Cooke and Dilwyn Lloyd

Abstaining, (0)

Resolved: To refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation andsuggest that the applicant discusses alternative upgrade options which would meet therequirements of the relevant planning policies and include a small extension whichincorporates the existing site.

1. The proposal would mean relocating the static caravan site in its entirety to a moreprominent and visible position in the landscape and it is not considered that the sitewhich is the subject of the application is a small extension to the existing site and,therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements ofPolicy D17 of the GUDP. Furthermore, and because of the size and the relationshipof the proposal in the context of the existing site, it is considered that the proposalis contrary to Policy D16 of the GUDP.

2. It is considered that the proposed location would be more visible than the existingcaravan site and consequently, it is not considered that the proposal would ensurethat the character of the AONB is protected, maintained or enhanced and thereforethe proposal would cause significant harm to the rural landscape of the AONBcontrary to the requirements of Policy B8 of the GUDP.

4. Application number C14/0745/25/HY – Land near Ffordd Penrhos, Penrhosgarnedd,Bangor

A part-retrospective application for installing two stack advertisement boards.

(a) The Development Control manager expanded on the background of the application, notingthat the description of the application had been amended following objections to delete a v-shaped board mounted on flag poles. It was explained that planning guidelines restrictedplanning considerations on applications involving signs to public safety (e.g. roads) and visualamenities. The Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal on the grounds of roadsafety and it was not considered that the proposal was likely to have a detrimental effect onsafety on roads and streets. It was also considered that the signs, given their location and thedevelopment they were advertising, were acceptable in respect of the visual effect.

It was explained that the proposal involved providing a stack advertisement board (measuring3 metres high and 3 metres wide) on both sides of the site entrance, advertising a housingdevelopment that had been permitted and which was being developed. It was noted that theapplicant was requesting permission to site the signs until 1.08.2019 and that considerationshould be given to including this as a condition.


10

(b) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following mainpoints:

A number of the development company’s actions had been contrary to custom, andtheir actions should be monitored, ensuring that they kept to their word.

The developers needed to improve their communication with the community. Accepted that the flag poles had been taken down One of the signs caused visual harm to a nearby property

(c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application with the additional conditions.

(ch) During the ensuing discussion the following observations were made: Need to ensure that the signs were bilingual Suggest permission for a year only Need to ensure that the company adhered to guidelines


1. The development to be completed in accordance with the plans submitted on14.10.2014

2. Advertisements must be maintained and they must be in a safe, clean and orderlycondition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

3. Temporary permission only – until 01.08.19

5. Application number C14/0885/33/LL – Tyddyn Cae, Boduan, Pwllheli.

Installation and operation of a solar farm (4.9MW) along with associated infrastructureincluding PV panels, mounting frames, an inverter, transformer, pole-mounted CCTVcameras, fencing and sub-stations.

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the application,noting that the proposal involved installing solar panels to create a solar park. The originalproposal had been to generate 9MW of electricity for the National Grid, but the application hadnow been reduced in size to generate 4.9MW of electricity. It was also noted that oneadditional letter of objection had been received.Reference was made to policy C27 of the Unitary Development Plan which related torenewable and sustainable energy schemes.

The site was located within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest, and the Boduan Historic Park and Garden was located approximately 250 metres tothe west. The Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was located approximately 1.5km to the north-west. It was explained that there were matures trees, hedgerows andcloddiau around and within the site, and it was not considered that the proposal would have asubstantial effect on the AONB. It appeared that the entire scheme was visible from oneplace, and because the proposal had been reduced substantially, it was consideredacceptable and suitable for the location in question.

It was noted that the buildings that were included as part of the application were to be locatednear the existing farm buildings. It was highlighted that some buildings were to be sited on thefields near the solar panels, and it was suggested that a condition could be imposed to ensure


11

that these buildings were green coloured and of a material that reflected the agriculturalbuildings seen around the area.

During the construction phase it was noted that there would be a notable increase in trafficflow, and the applicant had submitted plans to deal with this. Reference was made to theTransportation Unit’s observation that an assessment should be undertaken of the conditionof the road and the bridge, during and at the end of the work. The officer drew attention to theobservation by the Gwynedd Archaeology Planning Service which recommended a furtherevaluation before determining the application – the Service had identified the potential forarchaeological remains on the site.

It was suggested that additional conditions should be imposed – locate the panels inaccordance with the plans, a plan for controlling the flow and times of work-related traffic, andsubject to receiving favourable observations on Archaeology matters, it was considered thatthe development complied with the UDP.

(b) Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.

(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points: The application corresponded to national and local policies It was confirmed that the proposal’s capacity was 4.9MW, and not 9MW as in the

original application As a result of a substantial reduction in the size of the proposal, the layout had been

revised A reduction in size meant a reduction in the number of vehicles visiting the site

during the construction phase There was no loss of agricultural land – sheep would continue to graze on the land The archaeological evaluation would be received soon Commitment with the community had been good – only five objections had been

received There were good benefits available to the community

(ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main points: Concern about a substantial increase in vehicles over the construction phase Stone walls were a typical feature of the area Rural lanes were narrow and winding, which would be difficult for large vehicles to

navigate. A request by a family who lived nearby to move some of the panels which would

cause a visual impact A request to consider a new access from Pwllheli road

Need to reconcile information with regard to the size of the proposal. It must beensured that 4.9MW was advertised on the internet, not 9MW.

Include an additional condition to ensure that the company adheres to 4.9MW inaccordance with the application submitted.

Information must be obtained from the Archaeology Service in order to ensure thatthe application was complete and in accordance with policy B7.

Proposed that the Committee visited the site.

RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.

6. Application number C14/0902/39/LL – 75, Cae Du, Abersoch.

Demolish current garage and erect a new garage with balcony above, two-storey extension onthe north side, erect new retaining walls, alterations and renovation.


12

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of theapplication, noting that substantial improvements had been made to the plan since ithad been submitted. It was noted that planning permission already existed for a two-storey extension and for changing the use of the garage (the applicant had the right toimplement this permission until September 2016). Even so, it was noted that the aim ofthe application at hand was more suitable.

In terms of the principle of the development, it was generally noted that policies B22 andB24 of the Unitary Development Plan approved proposals to extend existing dwellings,provided they complied with associated criteria that aimed at safeguarding therecognised features and character of the landscape and environment, together with thecharacter and amenity value of the local area. It was not considered that the proposalwould affect the area’s visual amenities or the character of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the design of the extension was considered acceptable.

(b) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to theapplication and he made the following main points:- That the extension was likely to affect the amenities of residents who lived in the

neighbouring bungalows Concern of overdevelopment in the estate The residents who already lived there had to be considered The aim of the extension was investment

(c) Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.


1. Commencement within five years.2. In accordance with the revised plan.3. Slates to match those of the existing property.4. Agree on the finish of the external walls.5. Obscured glass in the window at the top of the stairs on the western elevation.6. Agree on local natural stone to face the new retaining wall at the front of the

property.

7. Application no. C14/1042/11/LL – Tŷ Cegin, Rhodfa Penrhyn, Maesgeirchen, Bangor

Construct five houses to include two semi-detached houses and three terraced houses andcreate a new vehicular access.

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the applicationand noted that the application site was located within the expansive Maesgeirchenestate on the outskirts of Bangor city, but within the city's development boundaries asdefined in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan. The site was considered suitable fordevelopment and the proposal was considered acceptable in terms of satisfying the localneed for housing.

In terms of the principle of the development, it was generally noted that the siteresponded to the requirements of policy C1 (promote development within developmentboundaries). In terms of policy B11, it was not anticipated that the proposal would causesignificant harm to open spaces as the site was not of ecological value nor did it add to


13

the visual range for local residents. It was noted that the open space was occasionallyused by Tŷ Cegin users for activities, but other nearby green open spaces had been identified which could be used.

It was noted it was intended to create a new access to the site and consequently therewas a need to move the traffic calming tortoise that was located on the highway andoutside the application site. It was reported that the Transportation Unit was satisfiedwith the location of the entrance but not with the proposed location of the traffic calmingtortoise. It was highlighted that discussions regarding the entrance were ongoing but itwas considered that the development conformed with the Unitary Development Plan.

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

That the application responded to housing needs in Maesgeirchen (specifically tothe need for two-bedroom houses)

That the development created a suitable location within the community The applicant had consulted with the community regarding losing green space,

but other specific green spaces were available closeby. That sufficient parking spaces were included in the plan. That the plan had received the support of Bangor City Council In terms of letting plans, the applicant would work with the community.

(c) Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.

Resolved: To delegate the power to the Senior Planning Manger to approve theapplication subject to receipt of further plans from the applicant and confirmation fromthe Transportation Unit that the new access is acceptable.

Conditions -

1. Time2. Comply with plans3. Slate4. Materials5. Landscaping6. Removal of permitted development rights7. Highways

8. Application no. C14/1043/11/LL – Tan y Bryn Road, Maesgeirchen, Bangor

To erect 6 new two-storey dwellings in the form of two blocks of three two-bedroom terracedhouses with associated gardens and parking spaces.

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the application,noting that it was a follow up to application C14/1042/11/LL; in a site located within Bangorcity's development boundaries and within the expansive Maesgeirchen estate. It wasnoted that the site had recently been cleared of structures that previously existed there,and therefore the principle of re-developing suitable sites like this was consideredacceptable and that it conformed to the requirements of relevant local and national policiesand guidelines.


14

It was explained that this proposal would involve a relatively traditional development interms of its form and layout with gardens to the front and rear. There was no uniformpattern to the houses in the neighbouring area and therefore it was not considered thatthere would be an impact on the nearby residents’ visual amenities. The brownfield sitewas considered suitable for development, and the proposal was considered acceptable interms of satisfying the local need for affordable housing.

Regarding transport and access issues, the Transportation Unit had requestedconfirmation of what was intended to be done to a part of Lôn y Parc, the road which ranpast the front of the site. The plan showed an intention to diverge part of the road, butsufficient information had not been submitted. It was considered that the applicationcomplied with the UDP.

(b) Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.

(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following mainpoints:

That the application responded to the need for two-bedroom houses inMaesgeirchen

That old garages existed on the site previously that had now been demolished asthere was no demand for them.

(ch) Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.

(d) During the discussion, the following observations were made: That the distribution of gardens seemed unfair That the plan responded to the needs of the Gwynedd Local Development Plan Was there a condition 106 on the houses?

(dd) In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that: CCG needed to consider the distribution of gardens when letting the houses The development was within the boundary of the Local Development Plan and

satisfied identified needs

Resolved: To delegate the power to the Senior Planning Manger to approve theapplication subject to receipt of further details from the applicant regarding thearrangements for Lôn y Parc and receiving confirmation from the Transportation Unitthat these arrangements are acceptable.

Conditions -1. Time2. Comply with plans3. Slate4. Materials5. Landscaping6. Removal of permitted development rights7. Highways

9. Application No. C4/1065/42/LL – Ty’n y Coed Touring Park, Morfa Nefyn, Pwllheli

Locate 7 new touring caravan pitches on the existing site and extend the site to locate 14touring caravan pitches along with improvements to the site entrance, landscaping andassociated works.


15

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the application,noting that the application had been submitted to the Committee as it was a developmentof 5 or more caravans. It was noted that no objection to the plan had been received.Reference was made to policy D20 which approved proposals to increase the number ofpitches, extensions to sites, relocation or exchange of pitches if the proposal ensuredenvironmental and visual improvements, and met other criteria regarding the impact of thedevelopment on the local area. It was highlighted that the site had been landscaped wellalong the boundaries with mature hedges and trees, and the additional landscaping wouldlead to environmental improvements which would contribute positively to its setting andappearance in the landscape.

It was believed that the site was also suitable to receive additional units, and it was notconsidered that there would be damage to nearby residents’ amenities in light of theapplication, bearing in mind that the site was close to a county road.

(b) Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.

(c) During the discussion, the following observations were made: That there was a lack of touring sites in Gwynedd Concern that the proposal was an over-development

(ch) In response to an observation regarding concerns of over-development, the SeniorPlanning Service Manager noted that the officers had weighed up this issue with all theother relevant planning issues, it was considered that the application conformed to theUDP.

Resolved: To approve subject to conditions:

1. Five years2. In accordance with the plans3. Restrict the numbers4. Restrict operation5. Time period / touring only6. Holiday only7. Keep a register8. Landscaping9. Protect public footpaths10. No storing

10. Application no. C14/1083/42/LL – Tu Hwnt i’r Ffrwd, Morfa Nefyn, Pwllheli

Change of use to include 16 additional touring caravans including a road and hard standings

(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the application,noting that the application had been submitted to the Committee as it involved adevelopment of 5 or more caravans. It was highlighted that the application was a re-submission of an application that was refused by the Planning Committee in October2013, as the extension would stand out as an obvious and intrusive feature in thecountryside.


16

It was noted that the field in question was adjacent to a field that had been grantedplanning permission for 14 touring units. The toilet blocks which formed part of thatapplication had already been erected, but the caravan use had not yet been implemented.As well as this, planning permission had been granted to site 11 touring caravans andhard standings on a field below. The 16 caravans included in the application at handwould therefore be in addition to the 25 caravans that have already been permitted on thesite, which would come to a total of 41 units.

It seemed that the applicant had commenced on the landscaping work since submittingthe application. This had not yet had the opportunity to mature and the field continued tobe open and visible in the landscape. It was highlighted that there was an intention tocreate new ‘cloddiau’ to separate the rows of caravans along with planting work in thecorners of the field. Concern was noted about the visual impact of the proposal, that wasclose to the Landscape Conservation Area and the Llŷn Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty designation, and there was no conviction that the proposal led to visualimprovements that would improve the site itself or the surrounding environment andtherefore the principles of policy D20 were not met.

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

That permission to a similar site had already been given That the site stood away from the B4412 and was not within a ‘sensitive’ area That the applicant had chosen to re-design the landscape by carefully considering

the plants The economic benefit should be adressed - the applicant had already invested

money in to the site using local builders and resources Tourism was the driving force for Gwynedd’s economy and therefore the application

should be addressed and appreciated.

(c) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following mainpoints:

That the applicant had been born and bred on the site That the applicant had already received conditions to applications in terms of

facilities that were needed to serve the site, but the applicant had not opened thecaravan site as he was keeping to the rules

The applicant had built a ‘clawdd’ over 6 foot tall that was not reflected in theslides/presentation. The ‘cloddiau’ were not built with twigs, but with indigenoushazel trees with seeds that were collected locally. Hazel trees were a species thatwere a special local feature to Llŷn’s hedges

The field was not visible as it was in a dip in the land Support for the enterprise by local businesses, aware that visitors would come to the

site and boost the local economy The applicant was a very responsible caravan site owner

RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.

The meeting commenced at 1.00 pm and concluded at 4.20 pm.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 02/02/2015REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICE MANAGER

PWLLHELI

Number: 1


PWLLHELI

Application Number: C11/1074/24/LLDate Registered: 12/12/2011Application Type: Full - PlanningCommunity: LlanwndaWard: Llanwnda

Proposal: ERECTION OF BUND, LEVEL LAND AND SEED, AGRICULTURAL SHED,HARDSTANDING FOR PARKING VEHICLES AND RETENTION OF SHED (PART

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Location: BRITHDIR, RHOSGADFAN, CAERNARFON, LL547ET

Summary of theRecommendation:

TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.

1. Description:

1.1 This is a part retrospective application to retain the existing bund and extend it byerecting a new bund, levelling and seeding the land, retaining a shed for storing logsand erecting a new agricultural shed on a plot of land on the holding of the propertyknown as Brithdir, a stone’s throw from Rhosgadfan. The shed will measure 15mlong, 12m wide and 5.8m high to the ridge. It will have a single door on the northerngable and two openings with roller shutter doors in the lower sections of thoseopenings to enable machinery to move in and out of the shed on the eastern gablewhich faces the drive that leads into the site and to the applicant's property.Externally, the building will have a dark green profiled steel roof and the highersections of the walls will also be of vented dark green profiled steel sheets in order toventilate the building. The lower sections of the shed will be made of clean concreteblocks, which is a common feature for such buildings. The shed’s location willreplace the footprint of the shed that was approved in 2005 (see below). Theapplication also includes retaining a small shed made of profiled steel which will beused to store logs for the applicant’s personal use. This shed is located on the vergeof a coppice located between the proposed agricultural shed and the applicant’sproperty.

1.2 The bund enclosing the northern part of the site has already been erected and it isproposed to extend the existing bund towards the proposed agricultural shed alongwith levelling, seeding and turfing this section of the application site. At present, thesite is used as a car park and for storing the applicant’s equipment and vehicles alongwith the vehicles of the employees involved in his business as a masonry contractor.No planning permission has been granted to carry out such a use on this particularsite, but this does not necessarily mean that planning regulations have been breached.The Enforcement Unit is investigating the case as a matter that is separate from thisapplication.

1.3 The application site and the applicant’s property are connected to the nearby thirdclass county road (which links Rhosgadfan and Waunfawr) by an unclassed countyroad which also serves other dwellings dispersed nearby with a junction to a privatedrive (which is also a public footpath) that serves the site itself along with theresidential property known as Bryn Crin. The site is located approximately 85moutside the development boundary as included in the Gwynedd Unitary DevelopmentPlan and to the north-east of the village of Rhosgadfan. Open agricultural land lies tothe north of the site and to the east lie the residential dwelling of Bryn Crin andmature trees and agricultural fields. The applicant's property is located to the southalong with a coppice and to the west lies open agricultural land which slopesdownwards to the third class county road below.


PWLLHELI

1.4 The application has been amended three times by the applicant’s agent since it wasoriginally submitted, not only to respond to the concerns of the Local PlanningAuthority and the objections from local residents, but also to reflect the currentsituation on the site.

1.5 When the original application was submitted, the size of the holding at the time was2.96ha, however, more recently the applicant has purchased additional land (CerrigSais) to the east of Brithdir and the size of the holding has now extended to 6.36ha(15.7 acres). There is no livestock on the land at the moment as the applicant is notprepared to purchase stock until shelter is available for them in the form of a newagricultural shed and this is why the agricultural holding was extended in order tokeep and breed sheep. As a result of the Local Planning Authority’s concernsregarding the application in its original form, the application was revised in order toreflect these concerns on grounds of:-

Reducing the shed’s surface area from 300m2 to 180m2;

Reducing the height of the shed from 6m to 5.8m

Changing the design so that it no longer looks like an industrial unit in thecountryside;

Changing the layout of the shed on the site to reduce its impact on the landscape; and Removing the hardstanding parking area and changing it to open turfed and seeded

land.

1.6 In accordance with the requirements of Technical Advice Note 12 “Design” (June,2009), an amended Design and Access Statement was submitted to complement thelatest amended plans and application form and it refers to the five statutory headings.

2. Relevant Policies:

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph2.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales emphasise that planning decisions should be inaccordance with the Development Plan, unless material planning considerationsindicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and theUnitary Development Plan.

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009:

POLICY B22 – BUILDING DESIGNPromote good building design by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimedat safeguarding the recognised features and character of the local landscape and environment.

POLICY B23 – AMENITIESSafeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood by ensuring that proposals conform to aseries of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised features and amenities of the local area.

POLICY B25 – BUILDING MATERIALSSafeguard the visual character of the Plan area by ensuring that only natural Welsh slates orslates that are similar in terms of their appearance, colour and weathering properties arepermitted, other than in circumstances in which the type of building or its particular setting, orthe sustainability benefits, are such that another material would be appropriate. In respect ofother parts of the building, development will be required to use high quality buildingmaterials that complement the character and appearance of the local area. Proposals thatintroduce substandard or intrusive materials will be refused.


PWLLHELI

POLICY B27 – LANDSCAPING SCHEMESEnsure that permitted proposals incorporate high quality soft/hard landscaping which isappropriate to the site and which takes into consideration a series of factors aimed at avoidingdamage to recognised features.

POLICY CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETSDevelopment proposals will be approved provided they can conform to specific criteriarelating to the vehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads network and trafficcalming measures.

POLICY D9 – FARM BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURESThe erection of buildings and structures for agricultural purposes will be approved if they arereasonably necessary for agricultural purposes and if they comply with specific criteriainvolving the impact of the development on recognised features.

2.3 National Policies:

TAN 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities, (2010)

TAN 12 Design, (June, 2009).

Planning Policy Wales (PPW), Edition 7 (July 2014), Chapter 3, Determining PlanningDecisions and Enforcing Them.

3. Relevant Planning History:

3.1 C05A/0521/24/LL – storage shed approved in September 2004 and includingconditions relating to ensuring that the use of the shed was for the applicant’s ownstorage use only along with restricting the use of the area around the shed to theapplicant's vehicles and to not to allow at any time the storage of skips, scrapvehicles, plant, machinery or any other similar equipment.

3.2 C01A/0183/24/LL – creation of wildlife pond and parking area approved in June,2001 including the condition that the hardstanding must be only be used for theapplicant's vehicles and not to allow at any time the storage of skips, scrap vehicles,plant, machinery or any other similar equipment.

4. Consultations:

Community Council: No response.

Transportation Unit: No objection – the proposal to erect a shed and create a parking areafor the existing use is not likely to increase or have any detrimentalimpact on the local roads network.

Natural Resources Wales: Not a full response due to workload, but did offer standard advice.

Public Protection Unit: No response.

Public Consultation: Notices were posted on site, and neighbours were informed throughletters of notification. The consultation period has ended andcorrespondence was received objecting to the application on groundsof material planning matters:


PWLLHELI

The proposed unit will have a multi-function use (accordingto the details submitted with the planning application)including the applicant’s agricultural use and business use asa construction and masonry contractor.

Question whether the building is for agricultural use given itsdesign and construction.

An explanation is needed of what kind of machinery will bestored within the units and whether such machinery will beheavy duty for the purposes of the applicant's business.

Question whether the design of the log shed is suitable forthis type of purpose as it is not ventilated.

The proposed agricultural shed is located on raised land andno structural surveys have been submitted with theapplication to show that the land it suitable for construction.

The applicant has erected another shed on the site withoutreceiving prior consent (i.e. the log shed that is not part ofthis application).

The access to the site is narrow and very close to theobjectors’ house. Transport will have a detrimental impact onthe amenities of the objectors on grounds of noise, danger tochildren and disturbance.

Can the nearby road network accommodate more transport? The application refers to seven parking spaces - why are

parking spaces needed for an agricultural shed? Risk that the public footpaths will be obstructed. Loss of privacy should this application be approved.

Correspondence was also received providing observations on theapplication that were not considered material planning matters:

If this application is approved, will the agricultural usedisappear from it?

A business use has been operated from the application sitesince 2001 (on a small scale involving one lorry) however thescale of the masonry contracting business has significantlyexpanded between 2009 and now.

The surface of the drive has been damaged over the years bythe combined movements of the applicant’s business andpersonal vehicles and the access to the Bryn Crin residentialproperty has also been damaged.

It must be noted that this is an application for an agriculturalbuilding (along with retention of existing shed and erection ofbund) and that the application needs to be assessed in thiscontext. Should there be any concerns that the development (ifapproved) is not being carried out in accordance with thepermission, it will be possible for the Enforcement Unit toinvestigate the matter at that time.


PWLLHELI

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

The principle of the development

5.1 The principle of erecting farm buildings and structures has been established in PolicyD9 of the GUDP which states that such applications will be approved provided theycomply with guidelines relating to the proximity of sites to existing structures, thatsuch developments will not impact on listed buildings, that such developments willnot harm biodiversity and that such developments are essential for agriculturalpurposes.

5.2 The proposed agricultural shed is located on a section of land that has been raised andlevelled over the years and is located to the north of an established coppice owned bythe applicant. The size, design and layout of the agricultural shed have been amendedsince it was originally submitted. It would measure 5.8m high to the ridge, and 15mlong which is a size that resembles similar modern agricultural buildings. On average,the height of such agricultural buildings for livestock shelters and storing machineryand hay is 5.8m with the minimum being 4m and the maximum being 7.5m. Thesefigures were taken from examples of recent permissions that have been granted foragricultural structures in this part of the County.

5.3 Based on its design, location, size and scale, it is believed that the building that is thesubject of this application is one that can be considered reasonably necessary formeeting the agricultural needs of a holding of this size. The applicant has confirmedto officers that a building of this type is needed for the agricultural needs of this 15.7acre holding, and no evidence has been submitted to the contrary. An agriculturalbuilding of this size is relatively common on small holdings, and therefore, based onthe above, it is believed that the proposal complies with the requirements of PolicyD9 of the GUDP. The advice contained in Planning Policy Wales, Seventh Edition(July, 2014), Chapter 3 states that imposing “conditions on a planning permission canenable many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise benecessary to refuse planning permission. Making appropriate use of conditions canimprove the quality of a development and gain the public’s confidence in theconclusions of the planning system.” In this context and in order to avoid any doubtsregarding the use of the agricultural shed, it is considered reasonable to ensure that acondition is imposed to restrict the shed’s use to agricultural use only.

5.4 Policy B22 of the GUDP states that proposals for new buildings will be refusedunless the Local Planning Authority can be satisfied that they comply with a series ofcriteria, including that any proposal respects the site and its surroundings in terms ofsize, scale, form, density, location, materials and aspect; that it does not have adetrimental impact on the form and character of the surrounding landscape or on thelocal natural or historic environment and that it does not have a detrimental impact onprominent views. Policy B23 states that proposals will be refused if they have adetrimental effect on the amenities of the local neighbourhood. Given the relevantpolicies noted here and the above assessment, it is believed that this part retrospectiveapplication is acceptable in principle.

Visual amenities

5.5 The site is located outside the development boundary of Rhosgadfan as containedwithin the GUDP in a rural area where a number of various structures are dispersed inthe landscape including agricultural holdings and residential dwellings. The proposedagricultural shed would be located adjacent to an established coppice which screens it


PWLLHELI

from the south and creates a backdrop for it from the north. Land to the east of thesite is open agricultural land and is located above the application site. Although thereis an open aspect to the site from the west, the shed would be located some distanceaway from the third class road below which assists in reducing the impact of thebuilding on the landscape. Given the size, design, materials and location of theproposed shed, it is believed that it would not create an incompatible or unacceptablefeature in the landscape.

5.6 It is believed the extension to the existing bund will not create an incompatiblefeature in the landscape as bunds are integral features in the rural landscape. It isbelieved that retaining the profiled steel shed for storing logs will not have anunacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the area, due to its size and hiddenlocation on the verge of the coppice located to the north-west of the applicant'sproperty. Given the above, it is believed that the different elements contained in theplanning application will not combine to have an unacceptable impact or a significantimpact on the visual amenities of this part of the landscape, and therefore, it isbelieved that the application complies with the requirements of policies B22, B23,B25, B27 and D9 of the GUDP.

General and residential amenities

5.7 As referred to in the above report, there are residential dwellings located near theapplication site and these dwellings include Bryn Crin which is located 45m to thenorth-east of the site along with Ty’n Llwyn (a grade II listed building) which islocated 123m to the north-west of the site. Concerns relating to this application weresubmitted by the occupiers of both of these dwellings on grounds of loss of privacyand noise disturbance from transport using the local roads network to reach the site.In the context of the former concern, it is assumed that transport related to theapplicant’s business as a masonry contractor is the source of this noise disturbanceand it is considered that this objection is a matter that is separate from the content ofthe planning application in question. To this end, it is not anticipated that there wouldbe a significant increase in the traffic flow serving the proposed agricultural shed orin the movements that can be typically expected for the existing agricultural holdingin Brithdir.

5.8 Although objections have been received on grounds of loss of privacy for theoccupants of Bryn Crin, should the application be approved, it is believed that thelocation and layout (i.e. based on distance and the presence of mature trees) of theagricultural shed in relation to Bryn Crin itself will mean that any current overlookinginto this particular property will not be intensified. The activities carried out insideand around the proposed shed will be agricultural activities, and such a situation isnot likely to create substantial overlooking or loss of privacy (if at all) for theoccupants of Bryn Crin. To this end it is believed that the application is acceptableand complies with the requirements of Policy B23 of the GUDP in terms of noisedisturbance and loss of privacy for the occupants of nearby dwellings.

Transport and Access Matters

5.9 The objectors have raised concerns regarding the suitability of the local roadsnetwork in accommodating an increase in the level of traffic linked to thisapplication. As referred to above, it is not believed that approving this applicationwould lead to a significant increase in the level of traffic serving the agriculturalholding and this observation has been reiterated by the Transportation Unit as it hasconfirmed that the proposal of erecting an agricultural shed is not likely to increase or


PWLLHELI

have any detrimental impact on the local road network and will not have adetrimental impact on any road or proposed road. To this end it is believed that theproposal is acceptable based on the requirements of Policy CH33 of the GUDP.

Response to the public consultation

5.10 As referred to above, objections were received regarding this proposal for differentreasons including observations that are not material to planning. It is believed that theobjections have received full consideration in the above assessment and there is nomatter that outweighs the policy considerations and the relevant advice noted.

5.11 It must be noted that this is an application for an agricultural building (along withretention of existing shed and erection of bund) and that the application needs to beassessed in this context. Should there be any concerns that the development (ifapproved) is not being carried out in accordance with the permission, it will bepossible for the Enforcement Unit to investigate the matter at that time.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 Having considered the abovementioned assessment, it is believed that the proposal assubmitted is acceptable on grounds of location, use, design, materials, visualamenities, residential amenities and road safety and it complies with relevant localand national planning policies and guidance.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve - conditions:-

1. In accordance with the amended plans.2. Restrict the use of the shed to agricultural use only.3. Cladding to be of a dark green colour.4. Complete the bund.5. Restrict the use of open spaces opposite the shed.6. Landscaping7. Submit a sample of the vented cladding to be agreed with the Local Planning

Authority.


PWLLHELI

Number: 2


PWLLHELI

Application Number: C14/0753/03/LLDate Registered: 03/09/2014Application Type: Full - PlanningCommunity: FfestiniogWard: Teigl

Proposal: FULL APPLICATION TO ERECT TWO DETACHED SINGLE-STOREY DWELLINGS

Location: GWILAN, MANOD ROAD, BLAENAU FFESTINIOG, LL414AE


TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS

1. Description:

1.1 This is an application to erect two detached single-storey dwellings on a plot of landto the rear of the Gwilan property that is located in the Manod area in BlaenauFfestiniog. The plot of land is fairly level and the level of the land drops 5.4mbetween the application site and the applicant’s dwelling, namely Gwilan. The twodwellings are similar in size and design, but are orientated differently. Externally, thewalls of the two proposed dwellings would be finished in stone cladding andpebbledash, with natural slate on the roof and doors and windows made of plasticwith double glazing. Internally, the dwellings would contain three bedrooms, a livingroom, kitchen, bathroom and a utility room. The proposal also means installing aseptic tank and an associated drainage system on the site to deal with sewage.

1.2 Access to the site would be provided from the current unclassified road (which isserved by the A470 trunk road) which will be extended towards the existing site. It isintended to locate six parking spaces as well as sufficient turning space to the front ofthe development, with large private gardens located at the rear of the development.

1.3 The application is brought to the Planning Committee as more than three objectionshave been received to the application.




POLICY B20 – SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS THAT AREINTERNATIONALLY AND NATIONALLY IMPORTANTProposals that are likely to cause unacceptable disturbance or harm to protectedspecies and their habitats will be refused unless they can conform to a series ofcriteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features of the site.

POLICY B22 – BUILDING DESIGNPromote good building design by ensuring that proposals conform to a series ofcriteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features and character of the locallandscape and environment.


PWLLHELI

POLICY B23 – AMENITIESSafeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood by ensuring that proposalsconform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised features andamenities of the local area.

POLICY B25 – BUILDING MATERIALSSafeguard the visual character by ensuring that building materials are of a highstandard and are in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area.

POLICY C1 – LOCATING NEW DEVELOPMENTLand within the development boundaries of towns and villages and the developedform of rural villages will be the main focus for new developments. New buildings,structures and ancillary facilities in the countryside will be refused with the exceptionof a development that is permitted by another policy of the Plan.

POLICY CH3 – NEW HOUSES ON UNALLOCATED SITES WITHIN THEDEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES OF THE SUB-REGIONAL CENTRE ANDURBAN CENTRESApprove the construction of houses on appropriate unallocated sites within thedevelopment boundaries of the Sub-regional Centre and the Urban Centres.

POLICY CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETSDevelopment proposals will be approved provided they can conform to specificcriteria relating to the vehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads networkand traffic calming measures.

POLICY CH36 – PRIVATE CAR PARKING FACILITIESProposals for new developments, extensions to existing developments or change ofuse will be refused unless off-street parking is provided in accordance with theCouncil’s current parking guidelines, and having given due consideration to theaccessibility of public transport, the possibility of walking or cycling from the siteand the proximity of the site to a public car park.


Planning Policy Wales, Edition 7, July 2014

TAN 12 Design, June 2009

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing 2009


3.1 C06M/0184/03/AM – CONSTRUCTION OF 2 DWELLING HOUSES ANDGARAGES (Approved 21/12/2006)

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: No objection to this scheme if the concerns of neighbouringresidents regarding access are resolved. One observation isoffered, namely how will the septic tanks be emptied i.e. interms of access as an example of how difficulties may arisefrom the development.


PWLLHELI

Transportation Unit:

Natural Resources Wales:

Biodiversity Unit:

Public Protection:

Welsh Water:

No objection and propose standard notes.

Low risk and standard advice applies.

No response

No response

No observations and proposed standard advice.

Public Consultation: A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents werenotified. The advertising period ended on 21/09/2014 andthree items of correspondence were received objecting to theapplication on the following grounds:

The back road is not suitable for large heavy lorriesto travel on.

The back road is narrow and there is no space fortwo cars to pass each other at present.

The parking situation is a problem. Neighbourscannot park or cannot gain access because cars areparked by their own houses.

Back walls along the road have been damaged morethan once as a result of large lorries turning.Increasing traffic along the road would increase thisrisk.



5.1 Policies C1 and CH3 are relevant to this application. Policy C1 relates to locatingnew developments, and the main focus of the policy is to support developmentswithin the development boundaries of the Sub-regional Centre or the Urban Centres.In this case it is considered that the application site is located within the developmentboundary of the Blaenau Ffestiniog urban centre, and it therefore complies with therequirements of policy C1.

5.2 Policy CH3 approves the construction of new housing on unallocated sites within thedevelopment boundaries of the Sub-regional Centre or the Urban Centres, providedthe proposal satisfies the criteria in the policy. Policy CH3 also states that affordableunits must be provided if the development involves erecting five or more units. In thiscase the proposal involves erecting two dwellings only, therefore it is not necessary toprovide a percentage of these units as affordable units. Therefore, it is considered thatthe proposal as it stands complies with the requirements of the criteria in policies C1and CH3 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.


5.3 Policy B23 is relevant to the application and relates to safeguarding the amenities oflocal neighbours. The proposal involves developing and extending an existing road inorder to create an access to a plot of land that is located to the rear of the Gwilanproperty. As a result, this development can be considered as a backland type ofdevelopment, where the development takes place on land to the rear of existing


PWLLHELI

buildings/dwellings. Regardless of this, it is not a reason in itself for refusing theapplication if the proposal is not otherwise detrimental.

5.4 It is considered that since the proposal is to be located to the rear of the existingbuilding, it will be unlikely to lead to any detrimental effect on the amenities ofneighbouring residents. There is a cemetery adjacent to the site, along with a narrowpath that separates the development site from the nearest dwelling. Altogether there issufficient distance between the site of the proposal and any residential dwellingslocated nearby. Given that the development in question is single-storey and that theground levels slope downwards, the proposed development is unlikely to have anyimpact in terms of overlooking.

5.5 It is acknowledged that there will be some degree of additional noise disturbanceshould the development be approved, based on daily movements in and out of thesite, however, it is not believed that this degree of noise would be unacceptable orsignificant given that there are existing residential dwellings in the area andconsidering the proximity of the site to the A470 which is a busy road.

5.6 In considering the objections received, it is not believed that any of the observationsrefer to issues of overlooking nor do they refer to the effects of loss of privacy andloss of light. Therefore, in respect of the above and also considering that it is abackland development, it is believed that the development is unlikely to cause anyimpact such as overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of light on any nearby residentialdwelling, including the applicant’s dwelling. Therefore the proposal in its currentform complies with the requirements of the criteria of Policy 23 (amenities) of theGUDP.

Visual amenities

5.7 Policies B22, B23 and B25 relate to protecting the character of the site throughfacilitating developments that have been designed effectively. The site is currentlyempty and is located to the rear of the Gwilan residential building. In this case it isconsidered that the development would be acceptable in respect of its scale and size,and the design and external appearances are also in keeping with the character of theexisting houses within the area. The development makes effective use of high-qualitymaterials such as natural slate for the roof and a pebbledash and stone cladding finishfor the external walls. This would enable the proposal to blend in effectively with thesite, thus retaining the character of the area.

5.8 Also, the proposal is located on land that is on a lower level than the adjacent houses.As a result it is likely that only a small percentage of the house will be visible fromthe houses located on higher ground. Taking this into consideration and the designand size of the building it is not believed that the proposal would be likely to causeany significant harm to the visual amenities of the local area. Therefore, it isconsidered that the proposal as it stands complies with the requirements of the criterianoted in policies B22 and B25 of the GUDP.


5.9 Policies CH33 and CH36 relate to transport matters that are relevant to the site.Policy CH33 protects safety on streets by enabling an acceptable roads network interms of providing access of a high standard into the site. In this case it is proposed tocreate access to the site by extending the current unclassified road that is adjacent to


PWLLHELI

the applicant’s property. This will mean that the applicant will lose his garage whichis located alongside the dwelling in order to make room for the roads network.

5.10 All the objecting observations that were received during the consultation period relateto site access issues. The proposal involves extending the single track in order to gainaccess to the site and concerns have arisen noting that the existing road is too narrowfor two cars to pass each other or for large lorries to travel along. The observationsalso note that large lorries travel along the unclassified road which raises concernssuch as damage to houses, noise pollution and damage to walls along the roadside.Taking into account that this unclassified road is a single track, it is obvious that ithas not been designed for a high density of cars that would allow room for two cars topass each other. Having said this, there is not a high density of cars travelling alongthis road and the proposed increase in traffic as a result of this application would beacceptable for the road. It is also important to note that the lorries would only betravelling on the road for a temporary period, namely during the construction period.This would be further managed through a condition, which would restrict the time fordeliveries in and out of the site to 8 – 6 on weekdays, 8 – 1 on Saturdays and nodeliveries on Sundays.

5.11 We consulted the Council’s Highways Officer on the proposal, who noted that he hadno objection to the proposal as a previous application had already been approved for asimilar access for a similar type of development in the past. Therefore it is believedthat as permission has already been granted to such an access in the past, and thatthere has been no major change in the policies since, it would be very difficult tojustify refusing the application on the basis of an access of a similar design. It istherefore believed that the existing unclassified road is acceptable for coping with asmall increase in the density of cars, which is likely if the application is approved.

5.12 The objections to the application state that the situation with the road is exacerbatedby cars parking along it. This is a private road therefore it is a private matter betweenthe landowners. Nevertheless, an increase in the density of cars travelling on the roadas a result of the proposal is unlikely to add to the current problem as adequateparking provision is included with the two proposed dwellings. It is thereforebelieved that the proposal is acceptable in terms of policy CH36 (private parking).

5.13 It is believed that all the above collectively respond to the main concerns of theobjectors in terms of access to the site. We can also confirm that the HighwaysOfficer had no objections to the proposal and that he considered the road acceptablefor the proposed application. Therefore, it is believed that the proposal as it standscomplies with the requirements of the criteria noted in policies CH33 and CH36.

Biodiversity matters

5.14 Policy B20 relates to protecting species and habitats of international and nationalimportance. In this case it is not considered that there are any concerns in terms ofbiodiversity arising from the development. Natural Resources Wales were consulted,and no observations were received objecting to the proposal, or any observationsrelating to the septic tank system. They noted that their standard advice applied to theapplication, and to consult with the authority’s internal ecology department forfurther comments. Therefore the Council’s Biodiversity Unit was consulted, and theyhad not observations to offer. Therefore it can be considered that the development isunlikely to affect biodiversity matters in the area. The proposal therefore complieswith the requirements of the criteria of Policy B20 of the GUDP.


PWLLHELI

Relevant planning history

5.15 There is relevant planning history on the site which was approved under outlineapplication number C06M/0184/03/AM, which involved erecting two dwellings andgarages. Although the proposal was only an outline application the content of theapplication was similar to this application in terms of the density and location of thehouses, as well as the proposed access along the unclassified narrow road. Transportmatters such as access to the site were the subject of objections to this application too,but the Council decided at the time that the access was acceptable for the proposal. Itis believed that the previous application has already been considered against thepolicies of the Unitary Development Plan as it was in 2006 (draft deposit). Since theUnitary Development Plan was adopted in full in 2009 it is not considered that therehave been any big changes in the policies since the previous application wasapproved. Therefore on the whole it is considered that the policies in question withthe previous application are material and similar to the policies that are consideredwith this application. Therefore, as has been mentioned above under the heading ofTransport and Access, it is difficult to justify refusing this application based on theaccess as it has already been approved under a previous application which related tosimilar policies, and which involved the same type of development.

Response to the public consultation

5.16 It is considered that the observations objecting to the application all related to thematter of access to the proposed site. It is believed that these objections have beendealt with under the ‘transport and access matters’ heading in this report.

5.17 Full consideration has been given to the observations received, but this has notchanged the recommendation.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 The objections from local residents have received full consideration as noted above.Based on the above assessment, and having considered all the relevant matters,including the objections, it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to the localand national policies and guidelines noted in the assessment, nor are there anymaterial planning considerations that state otherwise. Based on the above, it isconsidered that the proposal is acceptable to be approved subject to relevantconditions.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve – conditions

(1) five years(2) materials and external appearance(3) highways conditions (access and parking)(4) landscaping(5) removal of permitted development rights(6) a condition restricting delivery times to the site(7) comply with the plans

Highways notesStandard advice from Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales

PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 02/02/2015THE SENIOR PLANNING SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENT MANAGER’S REPORT

PWLLHELI

Number: 3


PWLLHELI

Application Number: C14/0769/45/LLDate Registered: 11/12/2014Application Type: Full - PlanningCommunity: PwllheliWard: Pwllheli North

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF BUILDING FROM A1 RETAIL TO MIXED USE WITH

RESTAURANT, LOUNGE BAR AND DANCE BAR

Location: FORMER L S CARPETS LTD, MAES YR ORSAF, PWLLHELI LL53 5HG


TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS

1. Description:

1.1 This proposal is for the change of use and adaption of a building for a mixed use witha restaurant, lounge bar and dance bar. The existing building use is as a shop (A1class use). The ground floor would comprise a lounge, dance floor, bar, area formobile stage, terrace, facilities such as toilets and food preparation and storage areas.On the first floor there would be a lounge, bar and storage, a terrace, toilets and plantroom. Externally it is proposed to clad the building with blue ‘colonial' coloured‘Fortex’ material and install windows with aluminium frames. On the western side itis proposed to close the open stairs within the building. It is not proposed to makeany changes to the building’s roof. It is proposed to construct a slate wall on theeastern elevation to create the ground floor terrace. This wall would be built near thecanopy proposed to be installed on the building above the main entrance. The mainentrance would therefore by set on the eastern side of the building where the site’sexisting car park is situated. It is proposed to install stainless steel handrails withglass panels to the front of the terraces on the ground and first floor. There would benine parking spaces available on the site and one of these would be for the disabled.

1.2 The site lies within the Pwllheli development boundary. North of the site is therailway station and the taxi rank. To the west are dwelling houses and a bus station.There is a mixture of businesses with residential units above to the north west. Eastof the site is a car park and north east is a row of dwelling houses. The PwllheliConservation Area is situated north of the site. South is a section of the harbour. Thesite forms part of the North Quay area designated in the Unitary Development Plan asa redevelopment site. A C1 flooding zone borders the site to the south. Currently,the site consists of an empty shop with an associated car park.

1.3 A design and access statement, noise assessment, flooding consequences assessment,community and linguistic statement and a code of conduct for responsible retailinghave all been submitted as part of the application.

1.4 The application is submitted to Committee as it deals with a commercial, industrial orretail proposal that is over 500 m³ and also as three or more observations have beenreceived that are contrary to the recommendation.




PWLLHELI


POLICY A2 – PROTECT THE SOCIAL, LINGUISTIC AND CULTURALFABRIC OF COMMUNITIES - Safeguard the social, linguistic or cultural cohesionof communities against significant harm due to the size, scale or location ofproposals.

POLICY B4 – DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OR AFFECTING THE SETTING OFCONSERVATION AREAS – Ensure that proposals within conservation areas, orwhich affect their setting, are refused unless they aim to maintain or enhance thecharacter or appearance of the conservation area and its setting.

POLICY B20 – SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS THAT AREINTERNATIONALLY AND NATIONALLY IMPORTANT – Refuse proposalswhich are likely to cause disturbance or unacceptable damage to protected speciesand their habitats unless they conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguarding therecognised features of the site.POLICY B22 – BUILDING DESIGN - Promote good building design by ensuringthat proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognisedfeatures and character of the local landscape and environment.

POLICY B23 – AMENITIES - Safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhoodby ensuring that proposals must conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguardingthe recognised features and amenities of the local area.

POLICY B24 - ALTERATIONS AND BUILDING EXTENSIONS WITHINDEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES, RURAL VILLAGES AND THECOUNTRYSIDE - Ensure that proposals for alterations or extensions to buildingsconform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the character and amenity value ofthe local area.

POLICY B25 – BUILDING MATERIALS - Safeguard the visual character byensuring that building materials are of a high standard and are in keeping with thecharacter and appearance of the local area.

POLICY B29 – DEVELOPMENT ON LAND AT RISK OF FLOODING - Managespecific developments in the C1 and C2 flood zones and direct them towards suitableland in zone A unless they conform with a series of criteria relevant to the features onthe site and to the purpose of the development.

POLICY B33 – DEVELOPMENTS THAT CREATE POLLUTION OR NUISANCE- Protect public amenities, health and the natural or built environment from highlevels of pollution.

POLICY C1 - LOCATING NEW DEVELOPMENT – Land within town and villagedevelopment boundaries and the developed form of rural villages will be the mainfocus for new developments. New buildings, structures and ancillary facilities in thecountryside will be refused with the exception of a development that is permitted byanother policy of the Plan.

POLICY C3 – RE-USING PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED SITES - Proposals thatgive priority to reusing previously developed land or buildings and which are locatedwithin or adjacent to development boundaries will be permitted provided the site orthe building and use are appropriate.


PWLLHELI

POLICY C4 – ADAPTING BUILDINGS FOR RE-USE – Proposals to adaptbuildings for re-use rather than demolish them will be approved provided that specificcriteria can be met. These relate to the suitability of the building for the proposeduse, visual considerations and that the design respects the original building and thesurrounding area. Buildings in the countryside must be permanent and structurallysound. Their conversion should be possible without the need for substantialconstruction work. They should not disperse activities on such a scale as to harm thevitality of towns and villages.

POLICY C5 – REDEVELOPMENT SITES - Development proposals on sitesidentified on the Proposals Maps as redevelopment sites will be permitted providedthey are consistent with the relevant development brief and/or any master plan for thesite approved by the Local Planning Authority.

POLICY CH30 – ACCESS FOR ALL – Refuse proposals forresidential/business/industrial units or buildings/facilities for public use unless it canbe shown that full consideration has been given to the provision of appropriate accessfor the widest possible range of individuals.

POLICY CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETS - Development proposalswill be approved provided they can conform to specific criteria relating to thevehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calmingmeasures.

POLICY CH36 – PRIVATE CAR PARKING FACILITIES - Proposals for newdevelopments, extension of existing developments or change of use will be refusedunless off-street parking is provided in accordance with the Council’s current parkingguidelines. Consideration will be given to the accessibility of public transportservices, the possibility of walking or cycling from the site and the proximity of thesite to a public car park. In circumstances where there is an assessed need for off-street parking and where the developer does not offer parking facilities on the site, orwhere it is not possible to take advantage of the existing parking provisions,proposals will be approved provided the developer contributes to the cost ofimproving the accessibility of the site or providing the number of necessary parkingspaces on another site nearby.

POLICY D10 – CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS FOR INDUSTRY OR BUSINESSUSE - Proposals to change the use of buildings to small scale industrial or businessuse will be approved provided that the chosen location can be justified and theyconform to specific criteria regarding the scale and nature of the development, andthe relationship of the development with nearby buildings/uses.

Strategic Policy 16 – Employment

Strategic Policy 18 – Service Centres

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Development Briefs Llŷn Dependency Catchment Area – November 2009

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning and the Welsh Language – November2009

2.3 National Policies:Planning Policy Wales (Issue 7, July 2014)Technical Advice Note 11 - Noise (1997)


PWLLHELI

Technical Advice Note 12 - Design (2014)Technical Advice Note 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004)Technical Advice Note 20 – Planning and the Welsh Language (2013)Technical Advice Note 23: Economic Development (2014)


3.1 2/25/462 – Extend a shop and additional parking spaces - Supermarket, StationSquare, Pwllheli - Approved 3 June 1985.

3.2 2/25/462A – Amusements arcade, bingo and restaurant – Old Co-operative Shop,Pencob, Pwllheli – Refused 28 June 1989.

3.3 2/25/462B – Modify a shop into a nightclub - Old Co-operative Shop, Pencob,Pwllheli – Refused 17 October 1989.

3.4 2/25/462C – Adaptations to create a restaurant, shop and workshop – Old Co-operative, Shop Pencob, Pwllheli – Approved 18 January 1990.

3.5 2/25/462D – Modify a shop into a nightclub - Old Co-operative Shop, Pen Cob,Pwllheli – Refused 22 December 1989.

3.6 C97D/0237/25/R3 – Scheme to redevelop the North Quay, Pwllheli – Approved 18July 1997.

3.7 C97D/0314/25/R3 – Detailed application – redevelopment scheme – North Quay,Pwllheli – Approved 15 September 1997.

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: With a majority vote it was resolved to recommend approval.

Transportation Unit: No objection to the proposal. The site is central within the town andclose to many car parks, bus and train stations and opposite the taxirank therefore I presume that it will have no detrimental impact on thenetwork of local roads.

Welsh Water: Suggest that conditions should be imposed on any planningpermission.

Natural Resources Wales: Protected species issuesRecommend we contact the Council’s Biodiversity Unit to see if asurvey of protected species is required.

Flooding mattersThe flooding consequences assessment (Cadnant Planning December2014) submitted to support the application was considered. Theflooding consequences assessment has considered climate changeover a period of 75 years that is acceptable in terms of thedevelopment's lifetime. Based on this information it is advised that ifthe recommendations and mitigation measures are implemented thenit is considered that the flooding consequences can be sufficientlycontrolled. Therefore, we have no objection to the development onthe grounds of flooding risk.


PWLLHELI

Biodiversity Unit: No observations to submit.

Public Protection Unit: Further to the above application and to the additional informationprovided following my original response dated 29 August 2014. Bynow we have had an opportunity to examine the additionalinformation provided in the form of a report by ADC Acoustics andfollowing further discussion with the report’s author we have clearedsome technical points.

The property nearest to this development is 20 metres across the roadon the western side of the building. In order to protect the residentsof the nearby property, we have already stated that we desire andrequire assurance that noise from the development will not be heardfrom inside the nearby property.

The applicant and his representatives in turn have provided a noisereport that states that this will be possible by a combination ofundertaking insulation work on the building and strict control ofentertainment noise levels that will emanate from the development.

Having discussed and received the report, I wish to propose theenclosed conditions in order to control noise from the development.The noise conditions set a strict level for noise from the developmentwhere noise levels will not increase outside any nearby residentialproperty as a result of noise from the development. As well as thismain noise condition the conditions also include the need to install adevice to control entertainment noise levels within the development’ssound system and also the need for an independent third partycompany to undertake an assessment of the noise levels to confirmthat they comply with the main noise condition.

As an additional step to safeguard local residents, we alsorecommend that the open air terrace use on the development’s firstfloor closes at 23:00 hours to prevent customers’ voices impairing onnearby property.

Food Health and Safety Team,Public Protection Unit

The development needs to comply with all the requirements oflegislation dealing with health and safety in the workplace and foodhygiene and safety regulations. We notice that the plan indicates afood preparation kitchen and we are of the view that the space shownis small. The applicant has to ensure that the space provided for foodpreparation is sufficient for the type of food that will be prepared inorder to comply with current Food Safety regulations. If successful,the applicant is advised to contact the department to discuss thematters further.

Economy and CommunityDepartment:

The proposed plan would include a private sector investment torestore an empty building in a prominent location creating economicactivity and accompanying jobs. The application site is locatedwithin a redevelopment area and contributes to the range of facilitiesin the centre of Pwllheli. The Economy and Community Departmentsupport the application.


PWLLHELI

Public Consultation: A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were notified.The consultation period expired on 28 November 2014 and ten letters/ items of correspondence were received objecting to the applicationon the following grounds:

Number of residential properties available near the site and thepossibility of disturbance very likely.

Not a suitable use and not in keeping with an area that is now aresidential area.

Matters concerning noise levels until the early hours of themorning – music, people gathering outside, coming and going toparking areas located directly opposite dwelling houses, peopleconvening to smoke outside.

The main entrance should be located on the western side of thebuilding rather than the eastern side as there is a wide pavement,another public house/restaurant over the road and the street isunder the supervision of safety cameras with one house nearbyrather than eight.

Considers that there are errors in the Noise Report submitted.

Risk of anti-social behaviour.

In addition to the above objections, objections were received thatwere not valid planning objections which included:

Health and safety issues as a result of the proximity of thepremises to the harbour wall and the possibility that a drunkperson could fall into the harbour.

Risk of causing damage to property and vehicles nearby. Impact on the value of property in the vicinity. The development in question should not have an impact on

other important developments taking place in Pwllheli e.g. inthe Marina, Plas Heli, Travelodge.

63 letters/ items of correspondence were received supporting theapplication on the grounds of:

This is now only empty building in the town and anydevelopment on the site would be good.

Will improve the appearance of the area and make it moreattractive to visitors.

The proposal will renovate an unsightly building butdeploring the fact that the roof will not be changed.

Use of a derelict building in a key location in the town.

Good location for the proposal. Need to look at re-developing all the way down from this

building towards the Marina. The development would benefit the economy. Offering employment Giving the town a boost Attracting additional visitors Offers a resource that would compete with other towns and

attract people throughout the year. This development with other developments in the town are


PWLLHELI

encouraging and a means to invigorate the town centre. This development with other developments in the town are

encouraging and a means to invigorate the town centre. The area has no entertainment resource of high quality for the

younger generation and also for people who are looking for aplace to relax and unwind.

I visit the area on holiday often and there is not much to do atnight and a development of this type would be good for this.

The proposal would be an asset and addition to the local areaand would be used by local people and visitors alike.

Pen Cob has shown that the people of Pwllheli need meetingplaces for entertainment.

Good to see something for the town's youth and not for themarina people.



5.1 The site is located within the Pwllheli development boundary, as indicated on the GUDPproposal maps. Policy C1 of the GUDP states that land within town and villagedevelopment boundaries and the developed form of rural villages will be the main focus fornew developments. Furthermore, the policy states that new buildings, structures andancillary facilities in the countryside (i.e. outside development boundaries and outside thedeveloped form of rural villages) will be refused with the exception of development that ispermitted by another policy of the Plan.

5.2 The site is also considered to be one that has been previously developed. Policy C3 of theGUDP states that proposals that give priority, wherever possible, to reusing previouslydeveloped land or buildings that are located within or near development boundaries, ratherthan using Greenfield sites, will be approved provided that the site or building and theproposed use are suitable and conform to the Plan’s objectives and development strategy.The site is allocated as land for re-development in the GUDP and the development briefpromotes plans that provide work opportunities. The proposal would therefore makeacceptable use of previously developed land.

5.3 When converting buildings into any use, it must also be considered under Policy C4 of theGUDP. This policy states that proposals to convert buildings for re-use rather than fordemolition will be approved provided that all the criteria contained in the policy can becomplied with. Criterion 3 requires that the design respects the structure, form andcharacter of the existing building and its surroundings and that it retains any inherenttraditional, historic or architectural features of merit in the building. The proposal wouldmake alterations to the building’s appearance and it is not considered that the building hasany traditional, historic or architectural features of value as it stands. Full attention will begiven to the external alterations further on in the report. However, on the whole it isconsidered that the proposal in principle complies with Policy C4 of the GUDP. It is alsoconsidered, from the aspect of Policy C4, that the proposed use is acceptable for thebuilding and the use as a holiday unit is economically suitable for the area. It is, therefore,considered that the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy C4 of the GUDP.

5.4 As noted above, the site also forms part of the wider North Quay area designated as landfor re-development in the GUDP. Policy C5 deals with redevelopment sites and states thatdevelopment proposals on sites identified on the Proposals Maps as redevelopment siteswill be permitted provided they conform to the development briefs prepared for the sites.


PWLLHELI

The development brief of the North Quay site refers to the fact that land uses should reflectthat the site is near the centre of the town and in a prominent site at the side of the harbour.It is noted that the activities may include some that are associated with the uses of sailing /seaside activities, leisure and commercial and offices. Therefore in terms of principle it isconsidered that the proposal would create a leisure / commercial facility that wouldcorrespond with the development brief and is therefore acceptable in principle in terms ofPolicy C5.

The economy

5.5 The proposed development would make use of an unit that has been vacant for some timeand would therefore be a positive contribution to the town’s economy. The Design andAccess Statement states that the development would lead to significant improvements inthe building’s fabric, improve the area’s character and would invest 1 million in theenterprise during the first year and create 20 jobs targeted to local people. The proposalwould also give the town a new attraction that would be of benefit to the tourism andleisure sector as well. Many letters have been received in support of the proposal on thegrounds that the enterprise would invigorate the town and give a boost to the economy,tourism and create new jobs. It is considered that the proposal agrees with strategicpolicies 16 and 18 of the GUDP that encourage a wide range of facilities and activities,shops, commercial, employment, transport, entertainment, leisure and culture inappropriate locations.

Visual amenities

5.6 The proposal would entail making alterations to the external appearance of the existingbuilding. This would include cladding the building with blue ‘colonial' coloured ‘Fortex’material and the installation of windows with aluminium frames. On the western side it isproposed to close the open stairs within the building. It is proposed to construct a slatewall on the eastern elevation to create the ground floor terrace together with the installationof a canopy above the main entrance. It is also proposed to install stainless steel handrailswith glass panels to the front of the terraces on the ground and first floor. It is notproposed to make any changes to the building’s roof. These alterations would thereforechange the appearance of the building situated in a prominent site within the town.Although the proposal would change the building’s appearance it should be noted that theexisting building is fairly insignificant in terms of its design and does not have any obviousarchitectural features that should be retained. It is considered that the alterations proposedto the external appearance of the building would improve the building's look in the streetscape and the type of cladding and colour proposed are suitable for its location near theharbour. It is therefore considered that the proposed alterations to the building areacceptable and a means to improve the area’s visual appearance. Therefore, the proposal’sdesign is considered acceptable together with the proposed materials and the proposal isacceptable in terms of Policies B22 and B25 GUDP.

5.7 The site is situated opposite the conservation area. It is considered that the proposedexternal alterations to the building would not impair on the character of the conservationarea and that the proposed alterations would in reality contribute to enrich the appearanceof the conservation area and views in and out. It is, therefore, considered that the proposalis acceptable in relation to Policy B4 of the GUDP.


5.8 Policies B23 and B33 are the relevant policies to assess the impact of the development onamenities. One dwelling house stands 21m west of the site, north west of the site are amixture of businesses with residential units above and to the north east is a row of dwelling


PWLLHELI

houses and therefore consideration has to be given to the impact of the development ontheir amenities. Due to the nature of the proposed use, the main issue would be the noisepotential, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and concern about the worry these concernshave raised in the objections. No problems arise with losing privacy.

5.9 The Environmental Health unit was consulted and they expressed significant concern interms of the impact of entertainment noise on the nearest dwelling and consequently anoise report was requested. The noise statement states that it will be possible via acombination of insulation work on the building and strict control of noise levels, toovercome the concerns. It is therefore suggested that strict noise control conditions areimposed whereby the noise level should not increase in any nearby residential propertytogether with the installation of a noise level control device on the sound system. It is alsoconsidered appropriate, as an additional measure, to control the time the terrace is used upto 11 at night in order to keep the possible noise level within the building during unsocialhours.

5.10 As this is a site in the town centre the same degree of peace cannot be expected as in atotally residential neighbourhood and visitors to the town centre have the right to expectreasonable entertainment facilities to be available in the evening, therefore a degree ofnoise and disturbance would be expected. Although several objectors have expressedconcern regarding the potential of the development of another public house, in addition toPen Cob Tavern, leading to anti-social behaviour there is no evidence that current problemsexist or certainty that the situation would exacerbate. It should be borne in mind that this isa central site near a bus station, train station and taxi rank where people gather at the end ofthe night. It is not considered that the proposal would exacerbate the existing situation tothe extent that it would lead to the refusal of the application on this basis only. Therefore,it is not considered that there is any policy grounds to refuse the application on the basis ofan increase in use considering the location in the town centre.

5.11 We are of the opinion that via the proposed strict conditions that the proposal is acceptablein terms of policy B23 and B33 of the GUDP.


5.12 The site is situated close to the town centre. Car parks, a taxi rank, a bus station and a trainstation are located within a stone’s throw of the site and therefore it is a central andconvenient site that can be reached using various types of transport. The TransportationUnit was consulted on the proposal. In their comments they support the fact that it is acentral site within the town and close to car parks, a bus station and train station andopposite a taxi rank. The Transportation Unit did not consider that the proposal wouldhave a detrimental impact on the local road network, and they had no objection to theproposal. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in respect of PoliciesCH33 and CH36 of the GUDP.

Biodiversity matters

5.13 When we consulted with Natural Resources Wales on this proposal they recommended thatwe should contact the Council’s Biodiversity Unit to see if a protected species survey wasrequired. We consulted the Biodiversity Unit and they had no observations to make on theproposal. It is therefore considered that the proposal has no implications in terms of impacton biodiversity. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy B20 of the GUDP.

Flooding matters

5.14 The site lies directly nearby a C1 flooding zone. Following the initial observations ofNatural Resources Wales, a flooding consequences assessment was submitted as part of the


PWLLHELI

application and NRA were re-consulted regarding that assessment. Confirmation wasreceived from NRA that they considered that the flooding consequences could becontrolled sufficiently if the recommendations and mitigation measures are implementedand therefore they had no objection to the development on the grounds of flooding risk.Therefore it is considered that there are no flooding concerns stemming from the proposaland that it is acceptable in terms of Policy B29 and TAN 15 Development and FloodingRisk.

Relevant planning history

5.15 It is noted from the previous planning history that an application for a nightclub wasrefused in the 80s, under application 2/25/462D on the grounds that the development wascontrary to policy at the time, impairing on road safety and having a detrimental impact onnearby property. The policy situation has changed significantly since then with theadoption of GUDP in 2009, therefore there are different policy considerations to beconsidered. The attached document with the current application indicates that the proposalcould be operated without having an unacceptable impact on the amenities of nearbyresidents. The fact that the previous application has been refused for the same use does notjustify the refusal of the current application and this application is assessed on its ownmerit.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 Having weighed up the proposal against the responses to the consultations, publicobservations and relevant policies, it is considered that the change of use of the building toa mixed use of restaurant, bar lounge and dance bar is acceptable for approval subject tothe proposed noise conditions. The site will make use of the existing derelict buildingwithin the development boundary, will benefit the local economy and improve the look ofthis prominent site in the town centre. The issues concerning design, visual amenities,transport, flooding are acceptable. Via the proposed strict noise conditions the Council canbe satisfied that the noise levels produced on the site will be controlled and monitoredappropriately and therefore the application is suitable for approval.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve – with conditions

1. Five years2 In accordance with the amended plans3 Finish to be agreed4 Noise level conditions5 Complete a noise monitor assessment prior to building use6 Install a noise control device in the noise system prior to building use-{}-7 Restrict the hours to use the terrace up to 11pm at night8 Welsh Water conditions


PWLLHELI

Number: 4


PWLLHELI

Application Number: C14/0885/33/LLDate Registered: 08/09/2014Application Type: Full - PlanningCommunity: BuanWard: Efailnewydd/Buan

Proposal: INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A SOLAR FARM (4.9MW) ALONG WITH

ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING PV PANELS, MOUNTING FRAMES,INVERTER, TRANSFORMER, POLE MOUNTED CCTV CAMERAS, FENCING AND

SUB-STATIONS

Location: TYDDYN CAE, BODUAN, PWLLHELI, GWYNEDD, LL536DS


TO DELEGATE THE RIGHT TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.

1. Description:

1.1 The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 12 January 2015 in orderto hold a site visit.

1.2 The application involves erecting PV solar panels to create a solar park along withancillary work including structures and fencing.

1.3 The application site measures approximately 20.2 hectares and comprises grade 3band 4 agricultural land located on a gentle slope. The site is located in opencountryside. There are mature trees to the west, east and south of the site andhedgerows and trees separate the fields within the site. The woodland towards theeastern boundary of the site is a semi-natural ancient woodland. There are also treesto the north of the site on the boundary with the third class road. To the north of thethird class road there is a Landscape Conservation Area and the Llŷn AONB is approximately 1.5km to the north-west. The site is located within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and the Boduan HistoricPark and Garden is located approximately 250 metres to the west. The Tŷ Newydd mound and bailey castle monument is located 260 metres to the east of the site.There are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity – in Boduan to the west and inthe area of Bodfel Hall to the south-east. The first class road, the A497 is locatedapproximately 260 metres to the south of the site.

1.4 The proposal involves installing solar panels to create a solar park. When theapplication was submitted originally the proposal had the capacity to generate 9MWof electricity for the National Grid. However, the application has now been reducedin size and the proposal now has the capacity to generate 4.9MW of electricity. Theproposal has been reduced by:- Removing the two fields of solar panels on the eastern side of the site. Remove 12 rows of solar panels from the south-wester field along with reducing

the length of other rows within the field. Rows of solar panels have been removed and reduced in the north-western field. The solar panels that were in the field directly to the south of Tyddyn Cae have

been removed from the proposal. The number of rows of solar panels in the field to the south of the buildings /

sheds of Tyddyn Cae has been reduced.

1.5 The application contains the following elements:

Install pv panels to face the south. The panels vary in height from the ground aswell as the gap between the rows as a result of the topography of the land. All


PWLLHELI

the panels will be installed 0.6 metres from the ground at their lowest edge;however, their highest edge will vary from 1.8m to 2m in height from the ground.The gap between the rows will vary from 2.4 metres to 3.0 metres.

6 inverter stations measuring 6.7 metres by 1.6 metres and 2.3 metres high. Thestructure is in the form of a cabin and will be green in colour. The inverterstations would form part of the sub-stations that are proposed for the site.

3 transformers measuring 2.7 metres by 2.5 metres with a height of 2.1 metres.

It is proposed to locate two gear changing sub-stations on the site to operate asafety method for the solar farm to safeguard against any defects in the gridconnections or vice-versa. One sub-station would operate to close off the gridfrom the solar farm (DNO sub-station) and the second to close off the solar farmfrom the grid (the client sub-station). The sub-stations would measure 6 metresby 2.4 metres and would rise to a height of 2.9 metres.

One communications building measuring 3.6 metres by 3 metres and rising to aheight of 3 metres.

One storage shed in order to store equipment etc. and to maintain the site. Thisbuilding will measure 2.5 metres by 3.0 metres and increases to a height of 2.6metres.

A two metre high security fence around the site. The fence would be in the formof a timber post and wire fence. It is proposed to include small gates for animalssuch as badgers, foxes and small mammals here and there in the fence.

CCTV cameras mounted on a pole measuring 3m high around the entire site.

It is also proposed to widen two accesses between fields within the applicationsite from 2 to 3 metres. It is also proposed to create an access road and circulatearound the site.

1.6 The following documents have been submitted as part of the application: Planning, Design and Access Statement A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan Flood Consequence Assessment Ecological Assessment Construction, decommissioning and traffic management Cultural Heritage Desk-based Assessment Agricultural Land Classification Assessment Geophysical survey Statement of community involvement. Glint and glare study Photomontage of the site.

1.7 This proposal has already been screened under reference C14/0679/33/SC and it wasconfirmed that no Environmental Impact Assessment was required in this case.

1.8 The application is submitted to the Committee in light of receiving three or moreobjections to the proposal.




PWLLHELI

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009:STRATEGIC POLICY 9 – ENERGY - Development proposals to provide energyfrom renewable sources will be approved provided they do not significantly harm theenvironment or the amenities of nearby residents.

A1 – ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHER IMPACT ASSESSMENTS - Ensure thatsufficient information is provided with the planning application regarding anyenvironmental impacts or other likely and substantial impacts in the form of anenvironmental assessment or assessments of other impacts.

A3 – PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE - Refuse proposals if there is any possibilityof serious or irreversible damage to the environment or the community unless therelevant impact assessment can show beyond doubt ultimately that the impact can beavoided or alleviated.

B7 – SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE - Refuse proposals whichwill damage or destroy archaeological remains that are of national importance(whether scheduled or not) or their setting. It also refuses any development that willaffect other archaeological remains unless the need for the development overrides thesignificance of the archaeological remains.

B8 - THE LLŶN AND ANGLESEY AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) - Safeguard, maintain and enhance the character of the Areas ofOutstanding Natural Beauty by ensuring that proposals conform to a number ofcriteria aimed at protecting the recognised features of the site in accordance with thestatutory requirements of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

B10 – PROTECTING AND ENHANCING LANDSCAPE CONSERVATIONAREAS – Protect and enhance Landscape Conservation Areas by ensuring thatproposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at avoiding significant damage torecognised features.

B12 – PROTECTING HISTORIC LANDSCAPES, PARKS AND GARDENS -Safeguard landscapes, parks and gardens of special historic interest in Wales fromdevelopments which would cause significant harm to their character, their appearanceor their setting.

B16 – PROTECTING NATIONALLY IMPORTANT NATURE CONSERVATIONSITES - Refuse proposals that are likely to cause significant harm to natureconservation sites of national significance unless they conform to a series of criteriaaimed at protecting, enhancing and managing the recognised features of the sites.

B20 – SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS THAT ARE INTERNATIONALLYAND NATIONALLY IMPORTANT - Refuse proposals that are likely to causedisturbance or unacceptable harm to protected species and their habitats unless theycan conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features ofthe site.

B22 – BUILDING DESIGN - Promote good building design by ensuring thatproposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised featuresand character of the local landscape and environment.

B23 – AMENITIES - Safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood byensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting therecognised features and amenities of the local area.


PWLLHELI

B25 – BUILDING MATERIALS - Safeguard the visual character by ensuring thatbuilding materials are of a high standard and are in-keeping with the character andappearance of the local area.

B27 – LANDSCAPING SCHEMES - Ensure that permitted proposals incorporatehigh quality soft/hard landscaping which is appropriate for the site and which takesinto consideration a series of factors aimed at avoiding damage to recognised features.

B29 – DEVELOPMENT ON LAND AT RISK OF FLOODING - Manage specificdevelopments in the C1 and C2 flood zones and direct them towards suitable land inzone A unless they can conform to a series of criteria that are relevant to the featuresof the site and to the purpose of the development.

B34 – LIGHTING AND LIGHT POLLUTION - Ensure that proposals do notsignificantly impair the amenity of neighbouring land uses and the environment.

C1 – LOCATING NEW DEVELOPMENTS – Land within town and villagedevelopment boundaries and the developed form of rural villages will be the mainfocus for new developments. New buildings, structures and ancillary facilities in thecountryside will be refused with the exception of a development that is permitted byanother policy of the Plan.

C27 – RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SCHEMES – Proposals forrenewable energy and sustainable energy management schemes will be approvedprovided that a series of criteria relating to the impact on the visual quality of thelandscape and environmental and social factors can be met.

C28 – SAFEGUARDING AGRICULTURAL LAND - Proposals which would leadto the loss of grades 1, 2 or 3a agricultural land will be refused unless it can be shownthat there is an overwhelming need for the development, and proved that there is nopreviously developed land available and that there is no land of lower agriculturalgrades available apart from land of environmental value which outweighs agriculturalconsiderations.

CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETS – Development proposals will beapproved provided they comply with specific criteria relating to the vehicularentrance, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calming measures.

Final Report of the Anglesey, Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park LandscapeSensitivity and Capacity Assessment (March 2014)


Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014)Technical Advice Note 8: Renewable Energy (2005)Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2014)

3. Relevant Planning History:3.1 C14/0679/33/SC – Application for a screening opinion for the proposal. It was

concluded that the development did not require an Environmental ImpactAssessment.

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: Support but ask in general whether the existing networkneeds to be strengthened.


PWLLHELI

Transportation Unit: The swept path analysis plans indicate that the rural road will need tobe widened in a number of places. The work of widening the roadmust be undertaken under a 278 agreement before undertaking anyother works and primarily before commencing any haulage to thesite. There will also be a need to include notes on the permissionrelating to an extraordinary traffic agreement.

More recent observations were submitted referring to a bridge thatwould have to be crossed and the need for the road condition surveyto also include a full assessment of this arch bridge before and duringthe work and after its completion.

Natural Resources Wales: No objection to the proposal but present the following observations:-

Protected speciesNRW is satisfied that the Ecological Survey (Hyder Consulting,August 2014) has been undertaken to an acceptable standard. Thereport provides details of the habitats and species present on the siteand nearby that may be affected. NRW agrees with the findings ofthe report, namely that if the mitigation measures referred to in thereport are implemented, the project is unlikely to have a significantadverse effect on any statutory protected species in the area.

NRW welcomes the inclusion of hedgerow planting / strengthening.It is recommended that the developer submits a further plan beforethe development commences providing details of the restorationwork required e.g. which hedgerows need to be improved, whichspecies to plant, the annual management regime to be followed etc.

Need to keep the use of lighting for the project to a minimum.

Protected SitesThe site is located approximately 500 metres from theMoelypenmaen Site of Special Scientific Interest which has beendesignated due to its geological interest. Due to the nature and thescale of the proposal NRW consider that it is unlikely that theproposal would have a negative impact on any features of theprotected site.

Flood RiskNRW has considered the flood consequence assessment (Hyder,Tyddyn Cae Solar Development 4/9/14) that was submitted tosupport the application. Based on the information, it can be advisedthat the flood consequence assessment has indicated that the floodconsequences could be managed provided a Surface Water DrainageStrategy is submitted. Therefore, we have no objection to theproposal; however conditions should be included on the planningpermission to introduce a surface water management system and notto install buildings, structures or increase the ground level within 7metres of the banks of any water course.

Welsh Water: No observations.

AONB Unit: Not received.


PWLLHELI

Public Protection: Not received.

Biodiversity: A very comprehensive ecological report has been submitted with theapplication (Lightsource Tyddyn Cae Solar Development EcologicalAssessment, August 2014). I am satisfied with the recommendationsin the report and I would like to include a condition that mitigationmeasures are followed in accordance with the measures that areincluded in section 4 of the report. A management plan has beensubmitted with the application (Lightsource Tyddyn Cae SolarDevelopment Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan).Again, I would like to include a condition that the site be managed inthe future in accordance with the measures proposed in this report.

Trees: Not received.

Welsh Historic Gardens Trust: Not received.

CADW: Original observations requested additional information for theproposal including information about the impact of the proposal onGarn Boduan, on parkland of Boduan / Bodegroes / Bodfel and onthe Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest.

Further observations were received in light of changes to the plan.Although the additional information is not what was requested, therevised layout represents a substantial reduction in the scale of thedevelopment on the site and therefore appears to have a smallerimpact on the scheduled ancient monuments, the listed parks andgardens and on the landscape in general and is therefore unlikely tobe significant.

Gwynedd ArchaeologicalPlanning Service:

The geophysical survey report satisfies professional standards but anumber of observations were submitted on the Cultural HeritageDesk-based Assessment which are yet to be addressed.A development of this scale and nature has the capacity to have asignificant effect on the historic landscape, in this case by changingthe character of the landscape and as a physical imposition separatingtwo historically and physically associated places. It is consideredthat the reduction in the development’s footprint lessens theproposal’s potential impact to an appropriate level i.e. that theprevailing estate character of the historic landscape is retained andhistorical connections remain legible.The geophysical survey identified the potential for buriedarchaeology across much of the site. Whilst the features anticipatedto be more significant have been excluded from the scheme furtherinformation about the buried archaeological resource in theremainder of the site is required in order to assess the potentialimpacts of the proposed scheme. The survey was impeded by wetground conditions and the reliability of the data needs to be verified.Further evaluation is required in order to establish the presence orabsence of archaeological remains on the site and to obtain adequateinformation about their nature and significance. The archaeologicalevaluation should comprise a programme of trial trenching and thisarchaeological evaluation should take place prior to thedetermination of the application.


PWLLHELI

Scottish Power/Manweb: Submit information on the location of electrical equipment in thearea.

Ministry of Defence: Not received.

The Welsh Government’sLand Use Planning Unit:

The latest report of the Agricultural Land ClassificationAssessment indicates that not all the site constitutes the best andmost multi-purpose agricultural land. It is confirmed that theAgricultural Land Classification Survey prepared by Rob Askewwas completed in compliance with the Revised Guidelines andCriteria for Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land (MAFF1988) and therefore the Welsh Government believes that it is areliable reflection of the quality of agricultural land across the site.

Public Consultation: A notice was posted on site and in the press and nearbyresidents were informed. A second period of consultation hastaken place after additional information was received. Fourcorrespondences were received objecting to the proposal onthe following grounds:

Size of the development. No details of the location of the power stations. The transmission of electricity to the national

grid should take place underground and notthrough pylons which would have an impact onthe landscape.

Concerned that the road leading to the site isunsuitable.

This proposal does not offer any benefits locallyto the people and the economy of Gwynedd.

Reduces the capacity of the national grid locallyso that local developments are prevented in thefuture.

Not enough community contribution comparedwith similar projects in other areas.

Does not make use of the local supply chain. The company does not comply with the ethos of

measuring sub-structures which givescommunities or individuals the right to purchaseshares in local renewable energy developments.

Need to consult more extensively on theapplication.


PWLLHELI

In addition to the above, two correspondences were receivedsupporting the proposal on the grounds of:-

The location having a minimal impact on the localarea.

Confirmation of the Landscape and Visual ImpactAssessment's findings although the photomontagesfail to provide a realistic indication of how thesolar panels would look.

The site is already screened with woodland andhedgerows but this reduces during the wintermonths.

Do not consider that there would be a significantimpact on views into and out of the AONB.

Impact on dwellings appears to be minor. Although in support of the proposal, recommend

removing a row of solar panels to the east ofTyddyn Cae from the proposal and that theboundaries within the site are reinforced.

This proposal will have little visual impact asopposed to the possible harm caused as a result oferecting a 74 metre high wind turbine on thenearby field.

The project would make a valuable contribution tothe local supply of renewable energy.


The principle of the development5.1 Policy C1 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to locating new developments,

and states that land within town and village development boundaries and thedeveloped form of rural villages will be the main focus for new developments. Newbuildings, structures and ancillary facilities in the countryside will be refused with theexception of a development that is permitted by another policy of the Plan.Developments to generate renewable energy that use natural resources arespecifically noted as developments that could be suitable if approved by anotherpolicy in the Plan; therefore, it is considered that the proposal complies with therequirements of the policy in this way. Nevertheless, the policy proceeds to state thatnew buildings, structures and ancillary facilities in the countryside will be strictlycontrolled and that a good visual relationship between them and existingdevelopments should be ensured wherever possible. This is assessed in accordancewith those relevant policies below.

5.2 Policy C27 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to renewable and sustainableenergy schemes, and proposals for renewable energy and energy managementschemes will be approved provided that a series of criteria relating to the impact onthe visual quality of the landscape and environmental and social factors can becomplied with.

5.3 Criterion 1 of the policy notes that no proposal should lead to the siting of a schemewith a higher capacity than 5MW within the Llŷn AONB, or that no plan located outside the Llŷn AONB causes any significant harm to its setting or to the setting of the Llŷn/Anglesey AONB or Snowdonia National Park. In this case, the proposal is not located within the Llŷn AONB; however, it is located within 1.5km of the AONB. The proposal is located on fields with a gentle slope and is surrounded mostly by


PWLLHELI

mature trees and there are also mature hedgerows, trees and cloddiau within the site.It would be possible to see parts of the proposed development from more elevatedpoints within the AONB, however this would be from a distance and it is likely thatthey would be mostly visible during the winter months when the leaves have fallenoff the trees. However, it is not considered that the proposal would cause asignificant impact on the AONB. It is considered that the proposal complies with thiscriterion of policy C27.

5.4 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that the type, scale and design of the proposeddevelopment should be appropriate in terms of the site, the location and the impact onthe landscape. The proposal is for the provision of solar panels on land that extendsfor 20.2ha. Recent work undertaken by Gillespies on behalf of the Council hasassessed the sensitivity and capacity of the landscape to cope with specific types ofdevelopments. According to the work undertaken, the application site is locatedwithin the G10 Canoldir Llŷn Landscape Character Area and the work proceeds tostate that the capacity within this area, outside the AONB, is for well-placed micro tosmall-scale developments. However, it is important to note that this assessment alsohighlights that sensitivity varies locally within the Landscape Character Area and thatconsideration should be given to the evidence submitted to support the applicationtogether with the case officer’s assessment following a site visit, before decidingwhether or not the nature of this specific site means that a development on a largerscale than what is recommended in the work carried out by Gillespies can beaccommodated.

5.5 In this case, the applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment(LVIA) for the proposal, including photomontages. The landscape within the site,particularly the mature vegetation that is associated with the cloddiau and the fieldboundaries along with the pattern of mature woodland to the west and east of the site,assists in integrating the development with the surrounding landscape. In light ofthis the LVIA concludes that the impact of the proposal on the character of the locallandscape would be minor, including the Landscape Conservation Area and that theresulting impact of the proposal on the character and setting of the AONB would benegligible. In terms of the impact on views, including views relating to the AONB,in the majority of cases the LVIA considered that the impact is either negligible orminor. It considers that the impact on Bryn Moelyn which is located on an elevatedsite to the west of the A497 would be moderate during winter months. Considerationwas also given to the cumulative impact of the proposal with the 74 metre windturbine that has received permission on a field to the south-east of the site. TheLVIA concludes that it would be possible to see both developments together.However, due to the scale and height of the turbine in relation to the proposeddevelopment, the turbine would form the main focus of those views. Therefore, theLVIA concludes that the solar panels would only make a negligible or smallcontribution to the cumulative impact. Once again, they state that it is likely that theBryn Moelyn property would suffer a moderate cumulative impact on views duringthe winter months. The LVIA also refers to mitigation measures. This would bedone in the form of additional landscaping including closing openings in the existingcloddiau, reinforcing existing planting, underplanting in the cloddiau along with themaintenance and improvement of the existing cloddiau. Further information on themethod for managing the cloddiau and the vegetation on the site is included withinthe Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan that was submitted as part of theapplication.

5.6 Since the application was submitted, the proposed development has been significantlyreduced. It is considered that the site which is on a gentle slope is significantly


PWLLHELI

landscaped by existing mature trees, cloddiau and hedgerows and that these elementswould be a way of reducing the impact of the proposal on the landscape. As part ofthe application, it is also intended to reinforce the existing vegetation and an outlineof the proposal in terms of maintaining and managing vegetation on the site has beensubmitted. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal complies with therequirements of criterion 2 of policy C27.

5.7 Criterion 3 of the policy notes that any associated ancillary equipment should bedesigned and located in a way that would alleviate the visual impact on the landscape.In addition to the solar panels themselves, it is also proposed to construct ancillarystructures such as a sub-station, transformers, inverter stations, a communicationsbuilding and a storage shed. The buildings vary in size; however, they are notconsidered excessive. The nucleus of these buildings would be sited in the vicinityof the existing Tyddyn Cae buildings / sheds and it is considered that locating thebuildings in this spot would ensure that at least the nucleus of the buildings is locatednear existing buildings / structures. However, some buildings/ structures would needto be installed on the fields near the solar panels. A green colour has been noted forsome of these buildings / structures and it is considered that a condition could beimposed that all the buildings / structures must be coloured green and of a materialthat reflects the agricultural buildings that can be seen in the area. It is also proposedto erect a security fence to a height of two metres around the site along with CCTVcameras mounted on 3m high poles. The fences are high, but will be constructed of asuitable material, namely wire and timber posts. It is not considered that the fence orthe cameras would contribute substantially to the visual impact and again, a conditioncan be imposed on the colours so that they are better in-keeping. On these grounds, itis considered that the ancillary equipment is suitable and that it is not likely to have asubstantial impact on the landscape; thus the proposal complies with the requirementsof criterion 3 of policy C27.

5.8 Criterion 4 notes that no associated overhead cables or pipes should cause anysignificant harm to the visual quality of the landscape. In this case, it is proposed toinstall an underground electricity cable to link to the National Grid, and a planningcondition will be imposed on any planning permission to ensure this. It is thereforeconsidered that the proposal complies with the requirements of this criterion of PolicyC27.

5.9 Criterion 5 of the policy notes that the proposed development should not lead to anunacceptable increase in noise, odour, dust or gas levels. The nature of thisdevelopment means that there will be no increase in noise, odours, dust or gases. It ispossible that there will be a period of local disturbance during the construction phase;however, this is not considered to be substantial. It is therefore considered that theproposal complies with the requirements of criterion 5 of Policy C27.

5.10 Criterion 6 of the policy notes that the proposal should not cause any unacceptabledamage to hydrological systems (ground water and surface water), thus harmingbiodiversity. A flood consequence report has been submitted and Natural ResourcesWales has stated that a condition would be required to submit details of a surfacewater regulation system. An ecological report and a landscape and biodiversitymanagement plan have been submitted with the application. Natural ResourcesWales and the Council’s Biodiversity Unit have confirmed that there is no objectionto the proposal based on these assessments; however, they have suggested conditionsfor the work to the completed in line with the mitigation measures. Therefore, onthis basis it is considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of criterion6 of policy C27.


PWLLHELI

5.11 Criterion 7 of the policy notes that a development shall not produce unacceptabletraffic levels considering the quality of the roads and the nature of the surroundingarea. In this case, it is only the traffic during the construction phase that is relevant,and a construction, decommissioning and traffic management method statement hasbeen received along with swept path analysis plans. It is intended to gain access tothe site from the third class county road near the site. It is understood that therewould be a need to widen the rural road in a number of places and the TransportationUnit has noted that this widening work requires a 278 agreement. The TransportationUnit also considers that an assessment should be undertaken of the condition of theroad and the bridge on this road prior to, during and after completion of the work.The proposal would generate traffic during the construction phase, however, as soonas it is operational, the traffic levels would not be significant and therefore it is notconsidered that the development would cause unacceptable traffic levels, and theproposal therefore complies with the requirements of this criterion. TheTransportation Unit is satisfied with access being gained through the third class roadwhich serves the site; however, it has been given to understand that the Unit has alsocontacted the applicant directly to see whether it was possible for them to considerusing a temporary access through nearby fields during the construction phase. Theapplicant’s response to this request is awaited. Therefore on this basis, the proposalcomplies with all the requirements of policy C27.

5.12 Policy C38 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan relates to the safeguarding ofagricultural land and proposals which would lead to the loss of grades 1, 2 or 3aagricultural land will be refused unless it can be shown that there is an overwhelmingneed for the development, and proved that there is no previously developed landavailable and that there is no land of lower agricultural grades available apart fromland of environmental value which outweighs agricultural considerations. In this case,a report submitted as part of the application confirms that the land is classified as 3band 4. Confirmation has been received from the Welsh Government’s Land PolicyUnit that the report has been produced to an acceptable and recognised standard andthat it is a reliable reflection of the quality of the agricultural land across the site. Itis therefore considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of policyC38 above.

5.13 On this basis, it is therefore considered that the principle of the proposal is acceptableand that it is also consistent with the Strategic Policy relating to the provision ofenergy from renewable sources.

Visual amenities5.14 Policy B8 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan relates to the Llŷn and

Anglesey Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and it safeguards, maintainsand enhances the character of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty by ensuringthat proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognisedfeatures of the site. The site is not located within an AONB area; however, it islocated approximately 1.5km from the Llŷn AONB. Due to the distance between the site and the AONB and the fact that there are mature trees, hedgerows and cloddiauaround and within the site, it is not considered that the proposal would have asignificant impact on the AONB. It is also proposed to reinforce the existingvegetation on the site and a plan was submitted to manage this vegetation. It is notconsidered that the proposal is likely to cause significant damage to the AONBlandscape and therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of policy B8.

5.15 The application site abuts the Landscape Conservation Area. As referred to already,the site is surrounded by mature trees, hedgerows and cloddiau and therefore it is not


PWLLHELI

considered that the proposal would stand out prominently in the landscape. It is alsoproposed to reinforce the existing vegetation on the site and in the site’s vicinity and aplan has been submitted to manage this vegetation. In light of this, it is notconsidered that the proposal is likely to cause significant damage to the landscapeconservation area and it is therefore considered that the proposal complies with therequirements of policy B10.

Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens5.16 Policy B12 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan relates to the safeguarding of

landscapes, parks and gardens of special historical interest in Wales fromdevelopments which would cause significant damage to their character, theirappearance or their setting. In this case, the Boduan Historic Park and Gardens arelocated approximately 250 metres to the west, although the essential setting of thehistoric garden is located immediately by the site. The proposal is also in the vicinityof the Bodegroes Historic Park and Garden. CADW was consulted on the applicationand in their observations on the original plans they required more information inorder to fully assess the proposal. In light of substantially reducing the proposal,CADW is of the opinion that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact onthe historic parks / gardens. The site is located near the setting of the gardens;however the existing trees and hedgerows would assist to retain the setting of theBoduan historic garden. The policy notes that proposals on sites that are visible fromhistoric parks and gardens should be refused if they lead to a significant impact ontheir character, appearance or setting. It is not considered in this case that the impactis significant or that it would cause significant harm. The site also lies within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. The landscape in thisarea is typically a parkland landscape. The fact that the development has beensignificantly reduced in size is a way of ensuring that the existing pattern of park landremains and that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on this historiclandscape. In accordance with the above and in light of reducing the size of theproposal, CADW was of the opinion that the proposal is unlikely to have a significantimpact on the listed historic landscape. It is therefore not considered that the proposalwould have any greater impact than any local impact on the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. In light of the above, it is considered thatthe proposal complies with policy B12.

Design and Materials5.17 Policy B22 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan promotes good building

design by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protectingthe recognised features and character of the local landscape and environment. Inaddition to the solar panels themselves, it is also proposed to construct ancillarystructures such as a sub-station, transformers, inverter stations, a communicationsbuilding and a storage shed. The buildings vary in size; however, they are notconsidered excessive. The nucleus of these buildings would be sited in the vicinityof the existing Tyddyn Cae buildings / sheds and it is considered that locating thebuildings in this spot would ensure that at least the nucleus of the buildings is locatednear existing buildings / structures. However, some buildings/ structures would needto be installed on the fields near the solar panels. A green colour has been noted forsome of these buildings / structures and it is considered that a condition could beimposed that all the buildings / structures must be coloured green and of a materialthat reflects the agricultural buildings that can be seen in the area. It is also proposedto erect a security fence to a height of two metres around the site along with CCTVcameras mounted on 3m high poles. The fences are high, but will be constructed of a


PWLLHELI

suitable material, namely wire and timber posts. It is not considered that the fence orthe cameras would contribute substantially to the visual impact and again, a conditioncan be imposed on the colours so that they are better in-keeping. On these grounds, itis considered that the ancillary equipment is suitable and it unlikely to have asignificant impact on the landscape. On these grounds, it is therefore considered thatthe buildings and structures that are ancillary to the PV panels are suitable, and willnot have a significant impact on the landscape; thus the proposal complies with therequirements of policy B22.

5.18 Policy B25 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan relates to safeguarding thevisual character by ensuring that building materials must be of a high standard thatcomplement the character and appearance of the local area. The plans do not confirmthe proposed materials or finishes for all the buildings / structures; however, it isconsidered that it is possible to agree on the use of materials that reflect theagricultural buildings and the rural nature of the site. On this basis, it is consideredthat the proposal complies with the requirements of policy B25.

Landscaping5.19 Policy B27 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to ensuring that permitted

proposals incorporate soft/hard landscaping of a high standard which is appropriatefor the site and which takes into consideration a series of factors aimed at avoidingdamage to recognised features. The proposal includes a proposal to retain thenetwork of existing hedgerows and cloddiau, new planting along existing cloddiau,allowing the area beneath the solar panels to be grazed, plant wild flowers betweenthe security fence and the site. A landscaping scheme was received to indicate thisand the method for maintaining and managing the landscaping has been included inthe landscape and biodiversity management plan submitted with the application. It isconsidered that the landscaping details are acceptable and it should be ensured thatthe measures noted in the management plan are implemented. It is thereforeconsidered that the proposal complies with the requirements of policy B27 above.

General and residential amenities5.20 Policy B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan relates to safeguarding the

amenities of the local neighbourhood. The criteria of this policy refer to ensuringreasonable privacy for the users of nearby properties, ensuring that the developmentwill not lead to an overdevelopment of the site, ensuring that the proposal will notadd to traffic or traffic-related noise, that the plan reduces opportunities forindividuals to behave antisocially and creates an environment where people feel safeto walk, cycle and play, and that the external design and lay-out of the developmentconsiders the needs of all its potential users.

5.21 A Glint and Glare Study was submitted as part of the application. This report statesthat four residential properties in the vicinity of the application could experiencesome glare in the early morning between 05.40 and 7.10 between March andSeptember. Due to screening from tress and the distance between the developmentand the road it is considered that the glint and glare matters would not affect the A497or the road to the east. Reflections would be possible on a section of the road to thenorth-west of the site. However, the report also states that the development wouldbe screened out of sight in part due to trees and buildings located along the road. It isalso noted that any reflections would coincide with direct sunlight which is moreintense than solar panel reflection. The report also states that the solar panels are nodifferent to the reflections of still water or glass surfaces and it is considered that it isunlikely that the proposal would cause a significant impact. Responses to theconsultation from the Transportation Unit confirm that it is possible to secure


PWLLHELI

effective traffic flow management. Although this is a vast site, it is not consideredthat the proposal will lead to an overdevelopment of the site in this case, and it isconsidered that only parts of the site will be visible from outside the site. Therefore,it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy B23 above.

5.22 Policy B34 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to light pollution and lightingand it ensures that proposals do not have a significant impact on amenities, on nearbyland use or on the environment. This policy specifically relates to lighting plans,however, the policy explanation also refers to the impact of glare. As above, andbased on the information submitted as part of the application, it is not considered thatthe impact of glare will be significant or harmful in this case. In addition, a planningcondition will be imposed on any planning permission to ensure that the materialsused will minimise the impact of glare. It is therefore considered that the proposalcomplies with the requirements of policy B34 above.

Transport and Access Matters5.23 Policy CH33 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan relates to ensuring safety on

roads and streets. In this case, there will only be an increase in traffic during theconstruction phase and the applicant has submitted a construction, decommissioningand traffic management method statement along with swept path analysis plans. It isintended to gain access to the site from the third class county road near the site. It isunderstood that there would be a need to widen the rural road in a number of placesand the Transportation Unit has noted that this widening work requires a 278agreement. The Transportation Unit also considers that an assessment should beundertaken of the condition of the road and the bridge on this road prior to, duringand after completion of the work. The proposal would generate traffic during theconstruction phase, however, as soon as it is operational, the traffic levels would notbe significant and therefore it is not considered that the development would causeunacceptable traffic levels. The Transportation Unit is satisfied with access beinggained through the third class road which serves the site; however, it has been givento understand that the Unit has also contacted the applicant directly to see whether itwas possible for them to consider using a temporary access through nearby fieldsduring the construction phase. The applicant’s response to this request is awaited.On these grounds, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to cause a detrimentalimpact on the safety of roads and streets; therefore, the proposal complies with therequirements of policy CH33.

Archaeological Matters5.24 Policy B7 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to sites of archaeological

importance and it refuses proposals which will damage or destroy archaeologicalremains which are of national importance (whether scheduled or not) or their setting.It also refuses any development that will affect other archaeological remains unlessthe need for the development overrides the significance of the archaeologicalremains. The Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service has identified the potentialfor archaeological remains on the site; and consequently, it has ensured that researchwork is undertaken on the site in the form of a geophysical survey, in order to furtherconfirm any potential for archaeology on the site. The results of the survey show apotential for further archaeology on the site, therefore the Gwynedd ArchaeologicalPlanning Service has recommended that a further evaluation is required beforedetermining the application. This further archaeological evaluation should include atest excavation. Details of the location of the proposed test excavation and a writtenplan for the investigation were received. The Gwynedd Archaeological PlanningService was contacted for these additional details and its response is awaited.However, as things stand at present, the Gwynedd Archaeology Planning Service


PWLLHELI

requires additional archaeological evaluation work before the application isdetermined and therefore, for the time being until this additional evaluation has beencompleted, it is not considered that the proposal complies with Policy B7.

Flooding matters5.25 A flood consequence report was received as part of the application which assesses the

site and the development in terms of the impact on surface water. Natural ResourcesWales agrees with the outcome of the report but it was eager to include conditions onthe planning permission. It is considered, with conditions, that the proposal complieswith the requirements of policy B29 of the UDP.

Biodiversity matters5.26 An ecological report and a landscape and biodiversity management plan have been

submitted with the application. Natural Resources Wales and the Biodiversity Unithave confirmed that the ecological report is comprehensive and has been produced toan acceptable standard. They agree with the conclusions of the report and there is aneed to comply with the mitigation measures included in the ecological report. Acondition could be included on the permission to ensure that the proposal isdeveloped in accordance with the mitigation measures included within the ecologicalreport. A condition could also be included to ensure that the proposal is implementedin accordance with the measures proposed in the landscape and biodiversitymanagement plan. In light of this, it is not considered that the proposal would have adetrimental impact on protected species or their habitats and the proposal is thereforeacceptable in terms of Policy B20.

5.27 The site is located approximately 500 metres from the Moelypenmaen Site of SpecialScientific Interest which has been designated due to its geological interest. Due to thenature and scale of the proposal NRW considers that it is unlikely that the proposalwould have a negative impact on any features of the protected site. It is thereforeconsidered that the proposal complies with Policy B16.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 The proposal has been reduced significantly since it was first submitted and in lightof this the proposal is considered acceptable and suitable for the location in question.The site is surrounded to a vast extent by mature trees, hedgerows and cloddiau and itis intended to undertake landscaping within the site and in its vicinity in order toreinforce and add to the existing vegetation. Consequently, it is not considered thatthe proposal would have a detrimental effect on the landscape including thedesignated landscape of the AONB and the Landscape Conservation Area.Therefore, as a result of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal isacceptable subject to receiving an additional archaeological evaluation and receivingfavourable observations from the Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service on thatevaluation.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application,subject to receiving a further archaeological evaluation and receiving favourableobservations from the Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service in response to thatevaluation - conditions

1. Five years2. Complete the development in accordance with the amended plans


PWLLHELI

3. The panels must be located in the locations shown on the amended plans.4. Agree on the external materials of all buildings5. Agree on the materials/colour of the frames and anti-glare covers6. Agree on the location and colour of the camera poles7. Undertake the work in accordance with the landscaping plan8. Complete the development in accordance with the mitigation measures of the

ecological report9. Complete / implement the development in accordance with the measures in the

landscape and biodiversity management plan10. Highway conditions11. Work traffic flow and timing management plan.12. Archaeological conditions13. Any electricity cables from the development to the electricity connection should be

installed underground, and this should be agreed beforehand with the Local PlanningAuthority

14. If the solar panels approved in this application remain unused for the purposes ofgenerating electricity for 12 months, they must be permanently removed from the siteand the site should be restored to its original condition

15. Submission of surface water management system details16. No building, structure or raising of ground levels within 7 metres of the bank of any

watercourse17. Agree on a lighting system for the site.


PWLLHELI

Number: 5


PWLLHELI

Application Number: C14/1083/42/LLDate Registered: 06/11/2014Application Type: Full - PlanningCommunity: NefynWard: Morfa Nefyn

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE TO INCLUDE 16 ADDITIONAL TOURING CARAVANS INCLUDING A

ROAD AND HARD STANDINGS

Location: TU HWNT I'R FFRWD, MORFA NEFYN, PWLLHELI, LL538UP

Summary of theRecommendation: TO REFUSE

1. Description:

1.1 The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 12 January 2015 in orderto hold a site visit.

1.2 This is an application to change the use of a field in order to site 16 touring caravanson it that would form an extension to the site of Tu Hwnt i’r Ffrwd, which has alreadyreceived planning permission for a touring caravan site. The proposal also includesengineering work to create pitches and a ‘bodpave’ road around the field along withan element of additional landscaping to create new ‘cloddiau’ and to reinforceexisting hedges. The field in question is adjacent to a field that was granted planningpermission under number C12/0862/42/LL for 14 touring units. The toilet blockwhich formed part of that permission has already been erected, but the caravan usehas not yet been operated. The field in question is approximately 50m from thesecond class county road, namely the B4412 to Morfa Nefyn.

1.3 Planning permission has also been approved to site 11 touring caravans and hardstandings on another field below the existing agricultural shed on the same holdingunder application number C12/1564/42/LL. The 16 caravans that are the subject ofthis application would therefore be in addition to the 25 caravans that have alreadybeen permitted in Tu Hwnt i’r Ffrwd and would make a total of 41 units on the site.

1.4 This is a re-submission of an application refused by the Planning Committee inOctober 2013, namely application number C13/0758/42LL for a 16 touring caravansite. The application was refused as it was considered that the extension to the sitewould stand out as a prominent and intrusive feature in the countryside.

1.5 The site is two fields away from, or approximately 260m, an area that has beendesignated a Landscape Conservation Area, and is also within 230m of the CorsGeirch Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A public footpath runs alongside theaccess road to the site.

1.6 The application is submitted to the Committee as it involves a development of five ormore caravans.




PWLLHELI


POLICY A2 – PROTECT THE SOCIAL, LINGUISTIC AND CULTURALFABRIC OF COMMUNITIES - Safeguard the social, linguistic or cultural cohesionof communities against significant harm due to the size, scale or location ofproposals.

POLICY B10 – PROTECT AND ENHANCE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATIONAREAS - Protect and enhance Landscape Conservation Areas by ensuring thatproposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at avoiding significant harm torecognised features.

POLICY B16 – PROTECTING NATIONALLY IMPORTANT NATURECONSERVATION SITES - Refuse proposals which are likely to cause significantharm to nature conservation sites of national significance unless they conform to aseries of criteria aimed at protecting, enhancing and managing the recognisedfeatures of the sites.

POLICY B23 – AMENITIES - Safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhoodby ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting therecognised features and amenities of the local area.

POLICY B27 – LANDSCAPING SCHEMES - Ensure that permitted proposalsincorporate high quality soft/hard landscaping which is appropriate to the site andwhich takes into consideration a series of factors aimed at avoiding damage torecognised features.

POLICY CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETS - Development proposalswill be approved provided they can conform to specific criteria relating to thevehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calmingmeasures.

POLICY D20 – SITES FOR TOURING CARAVANS, CAMPING AND TOURINGUNITS – EXTENSIONS, ADDITIONAL PITCHES, RELOCATION ANDEXCHANGES - Proposals for increasing the number of pitches, extensions to sites,relocation or exchange of pitches will be approved if the proposal includes a plan toensure environmental and visual improvements, and meets other criteria regardingthe impact of the development on the local area.

Supplementary Planning Guidance, Gwynedd Council: Holiday Accommodation(July 2011)

Supplementary Planning Guidance, Gwynedd Council: Planning and the WelshLanguage (November 2009)

2.3 National Policies:Planning Policy Wales 2014Technical Advice Note 13 – TourismTechnical Advice Note 18 – TransportTechnical Advice Note 20 – Planning and the Welsh Language

3. Relevant Planning History:C13/0758/42/LL Create a site for 16 touring caravans including hard standings:Refused 17 November 2013.


PWLLHELI

C12/1564/42/LL Change of use to create a site for 11 additional touring caravansincluding hard standings: Approved 11 February 2013.

C12/0862/42/LL – Establish a site for 14 touring caravans, erection of a toilet block,alterations to access and creation of new access track (Revised application toC11/0576/42/LL): Approved 05.09.12.

C11/0576/42/LL – Application to establish a site for 13 touring caravans,construction of toilet block, changes to the access and creation of a new access track:Approved 22 December 2011.

C10D/0112/42/LL – Application to establish a site for 33 touring caravans, 33 hardstandings, construction of a toilet block, track and improvements to the existingaccess. Refused May 2010 on the grounds of visual amenities.

C09D/0270/42/LL – Establish a site for 33 touring caravans, 33 hard standings,construction of toilet block, track and improvements to the existing access. Theapplication was withdrawn in September 2009 to give the applicant an opportunity toprepare a landscaping scheme and to plant trees.

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: Not received

Transportation Unit: I refer to the above application and wish to state that I do not intendto submit a recommendation as it is supposed that the proposeddevelopment would not have a detrimental impact on any road orproposed road.

Public Protection Unit: To submit observations in relation to compliance with the sitelicence.

Footpaths Unit: Not received

Welsh Water: Not received

Fire Service: No observations to submit.

Public Consultation: A notice was placed on the site and the nearest neighbour wasinformed. The advertising period has ended and one letterwas received in support and correspondence was receivedobjecting to the application.

The objections were based on: Landscape – an open elevated site, visible from the

road, impact on the visual amenities of the area,Landscape Conservation Area and visible from theAONB.

Landscaping – insufficient to conceal the site Over-development – unsuitable site Cumulative effect – too many in a small area Previous application on the same field was refused –

continues to be relevant


PWLLHELI

Questioning the economic benefit arguments noted inthe Statement

Two previous permissions not implemented – it isdifficult to assess the impact of these and questioningthe justification for a further extension

Impact on nearby nature conservation sites

The application was supported on the grounds of:

Stating there was no objection



5.1 Policy D20 of the GUDP approves proposals to increase the number of pitches onexisting touring caravan sites by means of an extension provided the proposal formspart of a plan that will secure environmental and visual improvements in terms of thelocation, layout, design and appearance of the site, and its position in the surroundinglandscape. Furthermore, it is a requirement that the proposed development will notexceed the reasonable capacity of the immediate locality to accommodate such adevelopment, taking into account the cumulative impact of existing touring caravansites.

5.2 The application to hand is an extension to a site that has extant permission for 11touring units below the agricultural shed and 14 touring units on the field that isadjacent to the application site. It is proposed to extend into the field in question andprovide 16 additional pitches, creating hard standings and a road of ‘bodpave’material, erection of ‘cloddiau’ and landscaping. The field is in close proximity tothe roads network and approximately 50m from the B4412 county road leading fromthe Bryn Cynan roundabout to Morfa Nefyn. The field is fairly open and level innature. The proposal would use the toilet facilities that have already been constructedon the adjoining field.

5.3 The previous application, C13/0758/42/LL was refused for 16 touring caravans on thefield because it was considered that the proposal would stand out as a prominent andintrusive feature in open countryside and would have an adverse effect on thelandscape and visual amenities of the area as a result of its location, lay-out and scale.Therefore, it must be assessed whether the latest application will be different in anyway.

5.4 Since the previous application, it appears that the boundaries of the field have beencleared and the boundary ‘cloddiau’ have been raised somewhat. Plants have alsobeen grown atop the ‘cloddiau’. It is shown in this application that it is proposed toconstruct ‘cloddiau’ internally to divide the rows of caravans, along with plantingwork in the corners of the field but this work has not yet been implemented. Thistime the application shows the proposal to install a ‘bodpave’ surface on the pitchesand the access road, rather than a surface of fine slate, and this would be a visualimprovement as it would be material that maintains the appearance of grass. The lay-out of the pitches is also an improvement and has been divided into smaller rows.Although there are efforts to introduce environmental improvements withimprovements to the boundaries and landscaping having already taken place, theplanting has not had any opportunity to establish and the field continues to be openand visible in the landscape. There is no certainty that the planting will take hold orsurvive here and it is likely that they will take years to establish as thick hedges.Even afterwards, because of the nature of the land, they are unlikely to assimilate or


PWLLHELI

conceal the proposed 16 units into the landscape or from the adjacent B4412 countyroad.

5.5 Because of the scale and flat and open location of the site, the proposal would notcontribute positively to the visual amenities of the area. The objectors haveexpressed concern regarding the visual effect of the proposal which is in closeproximity to a Landscape Conservation Area designation and to the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We are not convinced that the proposal before thecommittee will lead to visual improvements that would enhance the site itself or thesurrounding area. One objector states that the visual impact of the site and the currentpermission cannot yet be seen or appreciated as the use has not commenced.Approving this application would give a total of 41 units on the site. Some state thatthe development would be an unsuitable overdevelopment and they question whetherthere is a real justification for extending the site when the caravan use has notcommenced. There are also concerns about the cumulative impact of thedevelopment as there are several touring sites in the locality but it is not consideredthat there are any within the same visual context.

5.6 It is stated in the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation,Gwynedd Council (2011) that the aim of policy D20 is to encourage developmentsthat will lead to visual improvements and upgrading existing sites, and not promotean increase in the size of a business in terms of the number and size of units on thesite. It elaborates to state that applicants will need to be able to demonstrate, to thesatisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that the proposal is essentially a schemeto make visual, environmental, ecological or economic improvements. The Designand Access Statement notes that the development would contribute substantially tothe local economy and then presumes the likely expenditure of the 16 units. It isnoted also that the applicant has already invested substantially to develop facilities onthe site and there is a need for more units to justify the expenditure. Despite theinvestment and economic advantages, the proposal before the committee does notsatisfy the requirements of the policy regarding safeguarding the visual amenities ofthe area which is one of the reasons why visitors visit the area in the first place.

5.7 It is not considered that there has been any significant change on the site to thecircumstances of the previous application and the proposal continues to be contrary tothe main principles of policy D20 of the GUDP in the sense that the extension of 16caravans does not form part of a scheme that would enhance the site and itsappearance in the landscape.

5.8 General and residential amenitiesWith the exception of the Bryn Cynan Inn, there are no residents near this field;therefore there is no significant concern that the proposal would have an impact onthe amenities of nearby residents in this case. The proposal is not contrary to policyB23 of the GUDP. Nevertheless, there are concerns regarding the impact of theproposal on the area’s visual amenities, which have been already discussed.

5.9 Transport and Access MattersImprovements to the vehicular entrance were authorised in the previous applicationsfor a caravan site and the work involving widening the entrance beside the countyroad has been implemented. The site in question is very close to the roads networkwhich is of a suitable standard to cope with the increase in traffic. TheTransportation Unit has no objection to the application. Therefore, the proposalcomplies with the requirements of policy CH33 relating to road safety. It is notconsidered that the proposal would affect the public footpath which runs parallel tothe holding’s vehicular track.


PWLLHELI

5.10 Language MattersPolicy A2 of the GUDP states that proposals that would cause significant harm to thesocial, linguistic or cultural cohesion of communities, due to their size, scale orlocation, will be refused. As the proposal involves a tourism development and willcreate ten or more holiday units there is a requirement for a Language andCommunity Statement to be prepared in order to comply with the SupplementaryPlanning Guidance: Planning and the Welsh Language. The same Language andCommunity Statement that was submitted on the previous application has beenresubmitted and the same policy observations are relevant which note that it is notbelieved that the nature or scale of the development is likely to have an impact on theWelsh language. On the basis of the response, it is considered that the proposal isacceptable in the context of policy A2 of the GUDP.

5.11 Relevant planning historyThere is extant permission for 25 touring units on the holding, and although the workof erecting the toilet block has been completed, the caravan use has not yet beenimplemented. Generally, the locations of the previous applications were on fields thatare less prominent and less open than the field in question, where there is establishedlandscaping and where the units could be integrated into the landscape in anacceptable manner. Every application must be considered on its own merits, and inthis case it is considered that the proposed extension is unsuitable and intrusive in thelandscape, and does not offer improvements that would be positive for theenvironment or the visual amenities of the area. It is noted that the committee reportfor the previous application, C12/1564/42/LL, stated that it would not be appropriateto extend the site that had already been approved due to the more open nature of thelandscape.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 The Council is not convinced that any significant visual change has occurred on thesite to justify approving this resubmitted application. Although some modificationsare proposed and the work of clearing the boundaries, constructing ‘cloddiau’ andplanting has taken place, the field continues to be open and prominent in thelandscape. It is considered that 16 additional caravans here would be an intrusivefeature in the landscape and would lead to an unacceptable harmful effect on thearea’s visual amenities which is located very close to a Landscape Conservation Areadesignation. It is questioned whether there is a real justification for extending the siteconsidering that the previous permissions have not been implemented yet. Whilst itis noted that there are no concerns based on highways or local amenities, the mainprinciples of policy D20 are not met, as the proposal does not form part of a schemethat would lead to environmental and visual improvements in respect of the location,layout, design and appearance of the site in the landscape. This proposal thereforecontinues to be contrary to policy D20 of the GUDP and the SPG: HolidayAccommodation.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To refuse -

The proposed extension to the caravan site, because of its location, scale, layout andappearance in the landscape, would stand out as a prominent and intrusive feature inopen countryside and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and on thevisual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D20 of theGwynedd Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance:Holiday Accommodation.


PWLLHELI

Number: 6


PWLLHELI

Application Number: C14/1164/39/LLDate Registered: 27/11/2014Application Type: Full - PlanningCommunity: LlanenganWard: Abersoch

Proposal: EXTENSION TO REAR FIRST FLOOR WITH STAIRS TO LOWER LEVEL AND RETAIN

REAR DORMER WINDOW

Location: 94, YSTAD CAE DU, ABERSOCH, PWLLHELI, LL537DE


TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

1. Description:

1.1 The application is for the erection of a rear first floor extension with external stairsalong with retaining a rear dormer window which is in the process of being built. Theextension would have a flat roof which would measure 2.10metres deep and3.6metres wide and would be placed on columns with external space underneath.External stairs would lead to the rear garden from it. It is intended to finish theexternal walls of the extension with white render to match the existing property. Thewindow will be finished with slates on the walls.

1.2 The property is located within a row of terraced houses on a hill in the middle of CaeDu, estate which is within the development boundary of Abersoch. The site is alsolocated within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are open plan stylegardens to the rear of the terrace with a footpath serving them. A mature hedgeencloses the rear gardens and a private track backs onto them.

1.3 During the site inspection, internal work was being carried out on the property. Sincethen, objections have been received to the proposal and it was noted that the work oferecting the dormer window had started. The builders were advised to suspend workuntil the application has been determined.

1.4 The application is submitted to the Committee following receipt of three objectionsto the proposal.



2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009:B8 - THE LLŶN AND ANGLESEY AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) - Safeguard, maintain and enhance the character of the Areas ofOutstanding Natural Beauty by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteriaaimed at protecting the recognised features of the site in accordance with the statutoryrequirements of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.


PWLLHELI

B22 – BUILDING DESIGN - Promote good building design by ensuring thatproposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised featuresand character of the local landscape and environment.

B23 – AMENITIES - Safeguarding the amenities of the local neighbourhood byensuring that proposals must conform to a series of criteria which aim to safeguardthe recognised features and amenities of the local area.

B24 – ALTERATIONS AND BUILDING EXTENSIONS WITHINDEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES, RURAL VILLAGES AND THECOUNTRYSIDE - Ensure that proposals for alterations or extensions to buildingsconform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the character and amenity value ofthe local area.

B25 – BUILDING MATERIALS - Safeguard the visual character by ensuring thatbuilding materials are of a high standard and are in-keeping with the character andappearance of the local area.

Gwynedd Design Guidance Chapter 12: Alterations and extensions.

2.3 National Policies:Planning Policy Wales (Issue 7, July 2014)Technical Advice Note (TAN 12): Design


3.1 C03D/0430/39/LL – Extension to balcony: Approved 28 October 2003.

3.2 Y14/002134 – A planning enquiry was submitted asking about the possibility oferecting a first floor extension with a rear second floor balcony and a dormerwindow. Concern was expressed about the design of the dormer window and aboutthe balcony element. The existing proposal has listened to advice and has amendedthe design of the dormer window and omitted the balcony.

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: Object because of overdevelopment in a limited area and that itwould start a precedent for the rest of the terrace.

AONB Unit: 94 Cae Du is a modern two-storey house set amongst other housesand the house is not prominent in the landscape. It is not believedthat the adaptations to the property would have an unacceptableimpact on the AONB.

Public Consultation: A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were notified.Four objections were received to the proposal. The objections weremade on grounds of:-

An overdevelopment of the site. Overlooking and impact on privacy.

Sets a precedent.

Dissatisfaction that the work had commenced.


PWLLHELI



5.1 Generally policies B22 and B24 of the Unitary Development Plan approve proposalsto extend existing houses provided they comply with the associated criteria whichinclude:

The proposal will respect the site and its surroundings in terms of scale, size, form,density, location, layout, symmetry, the quality and suitability of materials, aspect,microclimate and density of land use/buildings and spaces around and betweenbuildings.

The proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the form and characterof the surrounding landscape or townscape or the local natural or historicenvironment.

The proposal will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on prominent viewsthat the public have into, out of, or across the centre, village, rural village or opencountryside.

The design and scale are in keeping with the main building and the local areasurrounding the development.

No extension will lead to an unacceptable reduction in amenity space within thecurtilage of the house.

5.2 In this case, the proposal involves building a rear first floor extension on columns aswell as retaining a rear dormer window which is already in the process of being built.The kitchen extension would be located in the rear corner of the property and wouldtouch the gable wall of 95 Cae Du which is nearby. The extension would measure 3.6metres wide and would extend out approximately 2.10 metres from the rear wall ofthe property and it is intended to install external stairs which would extend out anadditional 1.5 metres leading from the rear door of the extension down to the reargarden area of the property. The rear gardens of the terrace are restricted and in openplan form and it is a concealed site because a high boundary hedge extends along therear of the entire terrace. The extension would not be prominent or intrusive to theAONB landscape as views of it would be restricted to a close location within thegardens of the terrace behind the hedge. It is believed that the size, location anddesign of the extension respect the property and its surrounding and the finish wouldmatch the existing house. Adequate amenity space would remain at the rear of theproperty.

5.3 Since undertaking the original site visit, work of building the dormer window hascommenced and by the time of preparing the committee report work is nearingcompletion. The flat roof dormer window is covered in slates and is lower than theridge of the roof, and extends over a large portion of the rear roof. Builders wereadvised to suspend work until the application had been determined; however theyhave proceeded with the work at their own risk. Although dormer windows are not acommon feature within the estate, it is not considered that it is an intrusive orunacceptable element in this location which is at the rear of the terrace. Views of itare seen from Lôn Engan through gaps in the trees of the curtilage of the propertyknown as Hendre, but it is not believed to be a domineering visual feature on theproperty or the surroundings. Nor is it considered that there would be anyunacceptable visual impact on the AONB.

5.4 The objections state that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the restricted site andis likely to start a precedent. Whilst their points are noted, given the small size of the


PWLLHELI

extension it cannot be agreed that the extension is an overdevelopment of theproperty. Despite the rear being comparatively restricted, it would not lead to anunacceptable reduction in the amenity area as a small area would remain in the rearalong with a vast front balcony. It is appreciated that dormer windows are not acommon feature in the estate and that it is possible to start a precedent; however, eachapplication must be considered on its own merit. It is believed in this case that thedormer window is of suitable design and is acceptable to be retained in thisunobtrusive location.

5.5 It is therefore considered that the proposed extension and the dormer window areacceptable in terms of design, finish and visual amenities and comply with therequirements of policies B8, B22, B24 and B25 of the GUDP.


5.6 Policy B23 aims to safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood. Theextension would be located in the rear corner of the property and would touch the sidegable wall of 95 Cae Du. As the rear of no. 95 is stepped back approximately 4mfrom the rear of this property, there would be no impact on their amenities as a resultof the development. The window and the door in the extension would face the rearhedge, without any possibility of direct overlooking to the windows of neighbours. Itis not considered that there are any grounds to the objection which states that thedormer window could cause overlooking to the properties of Aberafon and BronAber, given that the roof of the neighbouring property in no. 95 prevents any views tothat direction. The window faces mature hedges with a track beyond it and over thecorner of the garden of Hendre, which is visible from the county road. Neither theextension nor the dormer window which has already been built, would cause anysignificant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood in this case and thereforeit is considered that it is acceptable in terms of policy B23 of the GUDP.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 It is believed that the size, scale and design of the proposed extension are acceptableto this concealed location. Whilst we cannot excuse the fact the work of erecting thewindow has taken place prior to determining the application, it is considered thatwhat has been built is acceptable in this case and respects and matches the building.Whilst the objectors’ points are noted, it is not considered that there are grounds torefuse the application based on their observations. It is not considered that thedevelopment affects the visual amenities of the area or the character of the AONBand does not cause significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents. Tothis end, it is considered that the extension is acceptable and the dormer window issuitable to be retained as they comply with the requirements of relevant planningpolicies as noted above.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve – conditions

1. Extension and dormer window to comply with the plans.2. Finish to match the existing property.

Contents · 2015-01-26 · Contents Agenda 4 - Minutes of previous meeting 1 - Brithdir,...

Documents

Transcript of Contents · 2015-01-26 · Contents Agenda 4 - Minutes of previous meeting 1 - Brithdir,...