PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIO DYDDIAD: 16/01/2012 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE:

EITEM CAIS RHIF CYMUNED LLEOLIAD ITEM APPLICATION LOCATION NUMBER

1 C11/0015/44/AM Tir yn / land at Ystad Diwydiannol Penamser Industrial Estate, Porthmadog 2 C11/0241/44/LL Porthmadog Uned 2, Stad Diwydiannol Penamser, Porthmadog 3 C11/0661/43/LL Pistyll Plas Pistyll and Pistyll Caravan Park, Pistyll 4 C11/0928/39/LL 273, Cae Du, , 5 C11/0929/44/LL Porthmadog 44, South Snowdon Wharf, Porthmadog PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT GWYNEDD (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Number: 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT GWYNEDD (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Number: 1

Application Number: C11/0015/44/AM Date Registered: 21/01/2011 Application Type: Outline Community: Porthmadog Ward: Porthmadog West

Proposal: CREATE FIVE A1 NON-FOOD RETAIL UNITS AND ONE A3 FOOD AND DRINK UNIT TO INCLUDE A MANAGER'S LIVING UNIT, TOGETHER WITH PARKING PROVISIONS AND SERVICES Location: LAND AT - PENAMSER INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PORTHMADOG, GWYNEDD

Summary of the TO REFUSE Recommendation:

1. Description:

1.1 This is an outline application to develop land within Penamser industrial estate into five non-food retail units and one food and drink unit in the form of a pub/restaurant that would include a living unit for the manager along with the provision of a car park and ancillary services. The proposal provides a total retail floor area of 4112m2 with 2741m2 of this provided on ground floor level and the remainder on mezzanine level. The individual retail units would have approximately 465m2 of retail area. The pub/restaurant would have an internal area of 690m2 with a beer garden outside. A living unit for the manager would be included on first floor level. There would be 175 parking spaces with nine for motor cycles and a provision for bicycle parking. Within the development there would also be a service yard for the retail units and another service yard for the pub/restaurant.

1.2 The agent, in his letter submitting the application states that the previous planning permission, application C97D/0264/24/MG has been commenced for the development of a non-food retail development of 3,465m2, along with a garden centre of 581m2 and therefore, the planning permission is extant in perpetuity. Additional permissions have also been approved for 4,831m2 and 4,562m2 of non-food retail floor area and this is more than the 4,112m2 that forms part of this proposal. It appears that these developments have been marketed but without success and the current application has been submitted as a consequence of the need for an A3 food and drink use and also for non-food retail A1 use and to have an internal floor area down to 465m2.

1.3 The site is located within the development boundary of the town and on land which has been designated as an employment protection site in the GUDP. The site is a substantial level plot of land located between the western junction of the estate road between a commercial garage and a building materials wholesale site on the A497 first class highway. The Travelodge Hotel is located to the north within the industrial estate.

1.4 As a consequence of the historical complexity of the application and similar applications under consideration in the industrial estate, a retail report was commissioned by consultants in order to obtain an independent assessment of the situation and they were of the opinion that the application was not suitable to be approved and reference is made to the results in this report. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

2. Relevant Policies:

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 2.1.2 of Planning Policy emphasise that planning decisions should be in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009: Strategic Policy 15 – INDUSTRIAL LAND - Land and property in the Plan area used for industry and business will usually be safeguarded for those purposes.

B20 – SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS THAT ARE INTERNATIONALLY AND NATIONALLY IMPORTANT - Refuse proposals which are likely to cause disturbance or unacceptable damage to protected species and their habitats unless they conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features of the site.

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

B23 – AMENITIES - Safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features of the amenities of the local area.

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

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

C7 - BUILDING IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER – Proposals for new developments or for adapting and changing the use of land or buildings will be refused unless consideration is given to specific environmental matters. Proposals must conform to specific criteria regarding building in a sustainable manner, unless it can be demonstrated that it is impractical to do so.

CH3 - NEW HOUSES ON UNALLOCATED SITES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES OF THE SUB-REGIONAL CENTRE AND URBAN CENTRES – Approve the construction of houses on appropriate unallocated sites within the development boundaries of Sub-regional Centres and Urban Centres.

CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETS – Development proposals will be approved if they comply with specific criteria relating to the vehicular access, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calming measures.

CH36 – PRIVATE CAR PARKING FACILITIES - Proposals for new development, extensions to existing development or change of use will be refused unless off-street parking is provided in accordance with the Council’s current parking guidance. Consideration will be given to the accessibility of public transport services, the possibility of walking or cycling from the site and the proximity of the site to a public car park. In circumstances where there is an assessed need for off-street parking and when the developer does not offer parking PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) facilities on the site, or where it is not possible to take advantage of the existing parking provisions, proposals will be approved provided the developer contributes to the cost of improving the accessibility of the site or providing the number of necessary parking spaces on another site nearby.

D2 – INDUSTRIAL SITES - Protecting land and units on Industrial Sites for Class Bl, B2 and B8 uses. To approve developments which are not B1, B2 or B8 uses if they are small- scale supplementary business facilities; provide waste management facilities or other 'sui generis' uses with similar features to activities in B1 and B2 classes; or, does not lead to lack of land units for B1, B2 and B8 uses.

D27 - COMPARISON AND CONVENIENCE GOODS RETAIL SHOPS OUTSIDE DEFINED TOWN CENTRES - Proposals for retail stores selling comparison and/or convenience goods or extensions to existing ones on sites within or near Service Centres but outside the defined town centres identified on the Proposals Map will be approved provided all the relevant criteria can be complied with that involve the need for additional comparison or convenience goods floor space, the sequential test shows that a more suitable site is not available or likely to become available, the proposed development does not significantly harm the viability, vitality and attractiveness of the defined town centre or other adjacent shopping centres, that the site is genuinely accessible to a variety of modes of transport; travel patterns and the use of the private car; provision for refuse collection and recycling facilities. Planning conditions or agreements will be used to ensure that the unit will not change its make-up in a way that would significantly harm the attractiveness, viability or vitality of a town centre.

2.3 National Policies: Planning Policy Wales (Fourth edition, February 2011) Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996) Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2009) Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (2004) Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (2007) Technical Advice Note 22: Sustainable Buildings (2010)

3. Relevant Planning History:

3.1 Outline planning permission was granted in 1993 for a retail development with a floor space of 3465m2 together with a garden centre measuring 587m2. The detailed application was approved in 1997 and work on the approved plan has commenced by creating the vehicular accesses to the site before the expiry of the planning permission and this was confirmed by a letter dated 22 October 1998 and, therefore, the permission for a non-food retail development is extant in perpetuity. An application was approved to extend the retail floor area to 3716m2 and to create two units and doubling the floor area of the garden centre to 1115m2 in 2002. An application was approved in 2006 to amend the planning permission from two to three non-food retail units along with a car park and ancillary services. Full planning permission was granted in 2007 to amend conditions 2, 7, 16 and 22 on the previous permission, namely, to amend condition 2 regarding the completion of the development in accordance with the approved plans; to amend condition 7 to allow the construction of a 3m high fence adjacent to the northern boundary of the site with the estate road; to amend condition 16 in order to reduce the floor area of the mezzanine first floor in unit C from 168m2 to 113m2 and provide a formal first floor; to construct a new mezzanine floor 557.5m2 in unit B and to amend condition 22 regarding the colour of the fence of the garden centre and not to paint the fence of the service yard. The most recent permission lasts until 1 May 2012. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: No objection.

Transportation Unit: The parking provision conforms to the needs under CSS Wales Parking Standards. The parking, turning and unloading provisions of the service yards are satisfactory also. After discussing the disabled parking requirements with the Access Officer, I recommend that the parking must be split disabled parking / parent and child parking at a ratio of 10:4, rather than 7:7 but I believe that this will be a matter that will be confirmed in the detailed application. Suggest conditions on the previous application in terms of the access, parking spaces and loading and unloading spaces.

Environment Agency: Since the responses to the previous planning consultation regarding this site, further hydraulic modelling work has come to hand. As part of the research work into the Porthmadog by-pass, a detailed hydraulic model was produced for the whole area. In each case that was modelled, this development site was shown to be dry. The developer’s proposal in respect of raising ground levels to 3.35m above Ordnance Datum should provide additional distance between the development and any flooding and would also compensate for any climate changes in future. The Flooding Consequences Assessment states that surface water from the site will flow into the existing watercourse and we believe that this is acceptable as water from the site currently flows into the same place. The Flooding Consequences Assessment goes on to say that surface water will be retained on the site to prevent it from flowing into the ‘Cut’ at the same time as the tidal water approaches into it. Although we welcome the storage of surface water on the site, it is crucial to control the rate of surface water discharge also so that it does not exceed the current grassland overflow rate. It is known that flooding from the drainage ditches are a substantial problem in the Porthmadog area and the ‘Cut' has been known to overflow into several buildings in the past. Therefore, it would be ideal if we could see a drainage scheme for the site (including base estimates) prior to approving planning permission but if your authority intends to approve planning permission without a drainage scheme we would seek to impose a planning condition to submit surface water drainage plans for the site prior to its development. The site is suitable for water voles and recently they were found in close proximity to the proposed development site during the survey work that was undertaken on the Porthmadog by-pass. A water vole survey would have to be completed prior to granting planning permission.

Welsh Water: Not received

Senior Rights of Way Officer: The Countryside and Access Department has no observations to make on this application since it does not directly affect rights of way.

Policy Unit: A wide range of observations were received in terms of the development's policy principles and a conclusion was reached that the policy cannot be approved from the planning policy perspective PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

as it does not conform to Strategic Policy 15 or Policy D2. It is not believed that the existence of an extant permission for retail use that has not been implemented over a period of time outweighs the clear inconsistency that exists in these policies. However, this will ultimately be an issue for the decision makers after they have considered all the relevant matters. The proposal is not consistent with Policy D27 of the GUDP or with national planning policies and guidelines regarding retail and town centre issues.

Public Protection Unit: No observations regarding this application, except the need for the proposal to conform to food hygiene and health and safety at work regulations. Public Consultation: A notice was placed on the site and nearby residents were notified and the statutory period expired on 1 March 2011 and no response has been received.

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

5.1 Protecting the Site for Employment Use The site forms part of the Penamser Industrial Estate that has been designated as a protected employment site in the GUDP. This means that, in accordance with Policy D2 of the GUDP, the land and the buildings included within this protected area are restricted for enterprises in classes B1, B2, and B8 uses only. The only cases where it would be possible to approve a development that does not fall within these use classes are (1) providing small-scale ancillary business facilities that provides an appropriate service solely for the employees of the industries/ businesses located on the industrial site (2) providing waste management facilities or other sui generis uses with similar features to class B2 or B8 uses (3) that they do not result in a shortage of land or units for class B1, B2 and B8 uses. In the explanation to Policy D2, it is stated that the main aim of the policy is to safeguard industrial sites for B1, B2 and B8 uses mainly and to sustain economic growth it is important to safeguard these sites from other uses such as retail/commercial (A1, A2 and A3). In terms of the pub / restaurant it should be noted that currently a supplementary restaurant / café provision for the industrial estate exists and it could be argued that therefore there is no need for another such a provision. In addition, Strategic Policy 15 states that land and property in the Plan area used for industry and business will usually be retained and protected for those purposes. Therefore, the current proposal does not conform to Strategic Policy 15 or Policy D2 of the GUDP in that the use does not fall into class B1, B2 or B8 uses.

5.2 The principles noted in policy D2 of the GUDP are supported in Paragraph 7.2.7 Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4), that states that it acknowledges that there is a need for an industrial land bank and acknowledges that certain industrial uses have characteristics that preclude their location in mixed use areas; sites designated for industrial development should not be used for other single purposes such as retail, leisure or housing developments which could be located elsewhere. Other sites within urban areas which have extant, but unimplemented permissions for commercial or retailing uses may be suitable for housing (or other) development that could help bring vitality to urban centres.

5.3 The fact that planning permission for retailing and a garden centre has been commenced (in planning terms), is a material planning consideration. The existence of other planning permissions since then that amended the original permission are also material planning considerations. Therefore, there is a need to weigh and PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

measure whether the fact that there is an extant permission for retail use that has not been developed for a fairly long period of time outweighs the inconsistency with local and national planning policy in respect of industrial land. It must be noted that the permission implemented for large retail units such as, for example, building material suppliers, would not be suitable for locating on a plot nearer to the town centre.

5.4 The principle of using the site for retail purposes

5.5 From the retailing perspective, consideration should also be given to Policy D27, involving retail shops, comparison and convenience goods and a facility outside defined town centres. Policy D27 states that proposals will be approved for new retail shops selling comparison goods and/or a facility or extensions to existing shops on sites within or in close proximity to a service centre but outside defined town centres noted on the proposal maps if they comply with all the criteria. The main aim of this policy is to ensure that the status of service centres is safeguarded as the most appropriate locations for retail uses mainly.

5.6 As part of the consideration of the proposal, attention should be given to the ‘fallback position’ for the proposal. From this aspect, two planning applications are relevant, namely, applications C97D/0264/24/MG and C06D/0255/44/LL. Planning application C97D/0264/24/MG permits a total of 4,047m2 gross, including units measuring 1,143m2 and 2,323m2 along with a garden centre measuring 581m2. As referred to in the history, confirmation was received by letter that work on this permission has commenced and, therefore, the work could be completed on this permission at any time. The other relevant application is C06D/0255/44/LL, that permitted a total of 5,119m2 gross (including a mezzanine floor of 557m2) in four units, including two units of 929m2 (one including a mezzanine floor of 557m2) and a unit of 2,044m2 near to the garden centre of 660m2. This latest permission continues until 1 May 2012. As a consequence of the complexity of the situation and as there are several similar planning applications, the Council requested the advice of independent retail planning consultants on this application and similar applications that are submitted to this committee and in their assessment they state that the weight that could be placed on the ‘fallback’ position has to be tempered to some extent by the fact that this development has been available in some form or another for 20 years without it being implemented. It can therefore be assumed that the demand for retail units in this location has been very low over an extended period. From the perspective of the applicant, he has noted in a letter dated 12 May, 2011 that it would be uneconomic to develop a class B use on the land or indeed anything except retail as a consequence of the preparatory work undertaken on the site. Details were provided by the Agent of the cost of the work required to be undertaken to bring the site up to a standard that would be suitable for development. He stated that it would cost £1,079,226 per hectare, to undertake this work without including the initial cost of purchasing the land, which compares with values of approximately £120,000 - £140,000 per hectare for industrial land in the area and thus it can be seen that the work of preparing the land on the site is prohibitive for Class B use.

5.7 The proposal includes five retail units with a total retail floor area of 4,112m2. In May 2007, permission was granted for a total of 4,562m2 of retail floor area which included two units of 929m2 and a unit of 2,044m2 along with a garden centre of 660m2 and in this respect the current proposal includes a smaller retail area but of course the pub/restaurant unit has a floor area of 690m2 as part of the current application also. Although providing a retail floor area that is less than the most recent application to be approved on the site, the proposal, rather than providing three retail units, would provide five retail units that are smaller in size individually. The retail statement submitted as part of the application states in one section that these PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

units would vary between 465m2 and 977m2. Although the application in question is an outline planning application, a plan has been received as part of the application showing the proposed layout of the site and this plan shows five retail units as follows: unit 1 – 466m2, unit 2 – 510m2, units 3 and 4 – 557m2 and unit 5 – 651m2. There would also be a mezzanine floor of 50% to all retail units. Therefore, it is considered that one of the main considerations in the current application, bearing in mind that there is an extant planning permission on the site, is whether or not five smaller units would be acceptable for development on this site in terms of harming the viability and attraction of the town centre.

5.8 As referred to above, the applicant submitted a retail statement as part of the application and as part of this statement, it is seen that the main catchment area of the units are the areas to the west, east and south that are approximately 30 minutes driving time to Porthmadog and to the north, areas within 20 minutes driving time to Porthmadog. The difference in terms of driving distance is seen mainly to the north because places such as , Bangor and Llandudno are nearer. It is likely that the units will compete directly against retail stores in those towns to the north of the main catchment area of the proposal but it is also stated that 55% of sales turnover will originate from within the main catchment area, with 30% from Porthmadog, 20% from and 5% from other centres. The applicant proceeds to note that the development is for non-food units that are currently not available in or near the town centre of Porthmadog and that the development is needed in order to generate sales, that currently are taking place outside the main catchment area and for sales to return in order to improve the retail provision in Porthmadog and to reduce the need for travelling. However, the Council’s retail consultants in their assessment have recommended having a further explanation for the fact that 45% of trade is to be deviated from stores/ centres outside the main shopping catchment area. They see this as a high percentage and suggest that the applicant provides additional information. The applicant has received a copy of this assessment but although further information has been submitted in respect of clothing /shoe shops in the town centre, details have not been received about this aspect.

5.9 Policy D27 and also Planning Policy Wales refer to the need to receive details of a sequential test for retail applications of this type in order to show that there is no other site that is more suitable that is available or likely to become available. Part 4 of the retail statement deals with the sequential test. The site is approximately 550m from the boundary of the town centre of Porthmadog as designated in the GUDP and, therefore, it is located in a site outside the town centre. It is stated that the Council, by approving previous applications on the site, has accepted that this site is the most appropriate sequentially for the need of this type of retail development, however, it is stated, in accordance with the requirements of Planning Policy Wales, that they have also considered alternative sites/units that could be suitable, viable and available to meet the demand. By following the sequential test, priority should be given to sites within or on the boundary of existing town centres. In a discussion with planning officers prior to submitting the application, it was confirmed that the area for undertaking the sequential test was the urban area of Porthmadog but the planning officer did not suggest any specific site to be included within the process. It appears from the retail statement that the applicant had undertaken an assessment of sites in or near the town centre that could take the smallest unit that is proposed and they concluded that there was no site available with the potential of being the best site. In terms of the town centre itself, it appears that when the survey was undertaken for the sequential test, that 15 units were vacant with nine of them with a floor space of less than 100m2 and six with a floor area of between 101m2 and 200m2. The largest vacant unit at the time was 92 High Street, which measured approximately 190m2 and was PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

therefore substantially less in size than the units proposed as part of the application. In terms of the units in the centre, they had not been considered viable because of their size.

5.10 There is no reference in the retail statement to sites near the periphery of the town that have been considered and eliminated. The applicant was contacted to ascertain whether he had considered two specific sites and to receive confirmation from the applicant of the sites that had been considered as part of the process. Both sites involve a planning permission for a non-food unit near Lidl and the site of Unit 2, Penamser Industrial Estate that received planning permission recently to convert it into two retail units for bulky goods. A planning application is currently under consideration by this Planning Committee to remove the condition regarding bulky goods from the retail units proposed for Unit 2. The applicant’s response to this has been received, explaining that Planning Policy Wales does not make it a requirement to assess other sites outside the town centre as part of the sequential test and their sequential test has taken into account sites within and near to the town centre and the two sites suggested above fall into the category of being outside the town centre and, therefore, there was no need for them to be considered. Although it is agreed that the sequential test does not refer to sites outside the town, it is argued that it is completely reasonable to consider sites that are available for non-food use nearer to the town. In the independent assessment received by the Council's consultants, they were of the opinion that the sequential test that had been undertaken had used reasonable parameters and the findings from the sequential test were robust.

5.11 The consultants suggest that Tesco, Porthmadog should possibly be isolated from the remainder of the retailers in the town centre in order to assess the proposed impact of the development on the traditional town centre, along with receiving a further explanation on the retail attraction of the centre from outside the main catchment area. This assessment proceeds to recommend, if the local planning authority intends to approve the application as it is currently, that a condition should be imposed on the permission restricting the sale of goods such as clothes and shoes from the retail units that are the subject of the application as they considered that approving this could harm the attractiveness, vitality and viability of the town centre. The applicant’s response to this was received, submitting more details regarding the clothes and shoe shops in the town centre of Porthmadog. This information showed that there were 15 clothes/shoe retail units in the town centre with the majority of these retailers taking up units that were less than 200m2 gross and the largest measuring approximately 360m2 gross. They consider that the clothes/shoes retailers in the town centre operate and occupy units that are quite different to those proposed and it is considered that the retail overlap between the town centre retailers and those likely to occupy the proposed larger units was limited. Consequently, the applicant is not of the opinion that there is evidence to support what the Council’s consultants have recommended.

5.12 The principle of a living unit for a manager

5.13 The current proposal also includes a living unit for the manager of the pub/ restaurant. From this aspect, the site is located on an industrial estate within the development boundary of Porthmadog and in this respect it is not considered that an industrial estate would be acceptable as a location for a living unit and is contrary to the principles of policy CH3 of the GUDP. However, it is considered that should the committee wish to support the application and as a consequence of the nature of the businesses near to the site and that the proposal in terms of the living unit is submitted for a manager, a planning condition should be imposed on the planning permission to ensure that a restricted living unit is created for the manager of the pub / restaurant only and not as a residential dwelling. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

5.14 Transportation and Access and Accessibility Matters

5.15 It is considered that the site is located in close proximity to one of the main bus routes in Porthmadog. From the design and access statement, it appears that it is proposed to create a footpath for pedestrians connected with the existing pedestrian provision to the industrial estate. It is intended to create a total of 184 parking spaces with 175 for cars along with spaces for 9 motor cycles. There would be a provision for bicycle parking also. The parking provision would also include spaces for the disabled and parent and child spaces. It is proposed that there would also be a service yard for the retail units and another service yard for the pub/restaurant. The Transportation Unit was consulted regarding the proposal and they stated that the parking provision conformed to the requirements under CSS Wales Parking Standards and the parking, turning and unloading provisions in the service yards are also satisfactory. It appears that the Transportation Unit has been in contact with the Council’s Access Officer and recommends that the disabled parking / parent and child parking must be of the ratio of 10:4, rather than 7:7 but this could be confirmed in the detailed application. The Transportation Unit suggests conditions as on the previous application in terms of the access, parking spaces and loading and unloading areas. It is considered that the proposal complies with policies CH33 and CH36 of the GUDP.

5.16 Sustainability matters

5.17 Policy C7 of the GUDP states that proposals for new developments or developments to adapt and change land or building use will be refused if they have not shown that issues dealing with more sustainable construction materials, energy efficiency, recycling waste and long-term use of the building have been considered. As the application in question is an outline application, full details of the sustainability considerations have not been submitted as part of the application. However, attention has been given to the matter in the design and access statement and, therefore, it appears that sustainability considerations will be considered when reaching a decision on the final design and buildings. Also, details of registration with the BREEAM assessor were received. Therefore, it is considered that consideration has been given to sustainability issues and conditions can be included at the time of the detailed plans and prior to occupation of the property by the registered assessor, should the committee wish to approve the application and, therefore, it is considered that the application complies with Policy C7 of the GUDP.

5.18 General and Residential Amenities

5.19 The site is located in the centre of an industrial estate and no dwellings are located nearby. As a consequence of the nature of the proposal, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on the amenities of nearby residents and therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of policy B23 of the GUDP. An application for a hotel was approved to the north of the site, contrary to officers’ recommendation to refuse in 2007, and perhaps the applicant is attempting to locate a pub on the application site in order to serve the hotel which is understood not to have a dining provision at the moment.

5.20 Flooding Issues

5.21 The site lies within a C1 flood zone. However, a Flood Consequence Assessment was submitted with the application. The Environment Agency was consulted about the application and after receipt of the Flood Consequence Assessment and examining the hydraulic modelling work undertaken for the Porthmadog by-pass, they were PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

satisfied that this development site was dry. Also, it is proposed to raise ground levels to 3.35m above Ordnance Datum and this should provide additional distance between the development and any flooding and would also compensate for any change in climate in future. However a surface water drainage plan will have to be submitted for the site prior to commencement of the development. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy B29 of the GUDP.

5.22 Biodiversity Matters

5.23 The observations of the Environment Agency refers to the fact that water voles were found recently in close proximity to the site during inspection work on the Porthmadog by-pass and it is recommended that a survey of water voles is undertaken for the application site. As the application in question currently is an outline application and there is an extant permission for retail development on the site, it is considered that a condition can be imposed on the permission that a water vole survey must be submitted prior to commencing the works.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 It is acknowledged that there is a complex planning history to this site that is a material consideration when discussing the current application but it must be realised that the planning permission which has been commenced and is therefore extant, involves a building materials retail venture and a garden centre that is quite different to an application for five retail units and a pub and manager’s accommodation, which are to be considered under the current national policy and the policy of the GUDP. Although the hotel was granted permission on adjacent industrial land in 2007, contrary to officers’ recommendations, it should not create a precedent for this application that would provide an additional pub / restaurant on the industrial estate and would create retail units without evidence of a need for such a floor area in the town and there are more suitable sites with planning permission nearer to the town.

6.2 Although it is not possible to prevent the implementation of a current extant permission, applications that are different in character should not be permitted contrary to the current policies of the GUDP. There are no transportation concerns regarding parking although it is not considered that the site is accessible for pedestrian use by visitors to the town. The advice of independent planning consultants was received on this application and applications on other sites that are submitted to this Committee and it is considered that the application should be refused for the reasons noted.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To refuse – reasons – contrary to Policy D2 of the GUDP (it is not considered that the historical permissions on the site justify ignoring refusing the application on the site protected for B1, B2 and B8 uses and the proposal does not provide supplementary business facilities on a small scale for the businesses and the industries located on the industrial estate); contrary to policy D27 of the GUDP – no evidence of need for a provision of additional floor area for convenience or comparison goods and there are other sites with planning permission for non-food use available nearer to the town and concern that establishing a centre of smaller retail units on the site along with a pub is likely to destroy the viability, vitality and attraction of the defined town centre. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Number: 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Application Number: C11/0241/44/LL Date Registered: 17/03/2011 Application Type: Full - Planning Community: Porthmadog Ward: Porthmadog West

Proposal: AMEND CONDITION 5 ON PLANNING PERMISSION REF. C10D/0264/44/LL, WHICH RESTRICTS THE SALE OF A1 (NON-FOOD) GOODS TO BULKY GOODS, TO UNRESTRICTED SALE OF A1 (NON- FOOD) GOODS Location: UNIT 2, PENAMSER INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PORTHMADOG, GWYNEDD, LL49 9NZ

Summary of the TO REFUSE Recommendation:

1. Description:

1.1 The application involves amending a condition on planning permission no. C10D/0264/44/LL, which restricts the use of two (A1) units to the sale of bulky goods (non- food), to enable the unrestricted sale of (A1) goods and non-food retail. The building is situated on the Penamser industrial estate, which currently includes an industrial shed type unit to the western side of the site and offices to the eastern side of the building. (There is extant planning permission to demolish the offices and to finish with materials which are in- keeping with the unit, erecting two canopies as access to the two shops). Currently, there are 25 parking spaces within the curtilage of the premises and there is extant planning permission to extend the parking provision to include 88 vehicle parking spaces, six disabled parking spaces, five motorcycle parking spaces and nine bicycle parking spaces.

The site is situated approximately 400 metres away, along the Penamser footpath, from the boundary of the ‘Town Centre’ and 500 metres from the ‘Main Shopping Area’, and is situated within the development boundary of Porthmadog as indicated in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (GUDP). The land has been designated as a ‘Protected Employment Site’. The estate road, which joins the A497 highway, stretches along the southern and eastern boundary of the site. To the east are two retail shops, which include the main redevelopment to the shop site and the empty site (the former telecom depot), and to the north and west are the industrial estate units. Across the highway, to the south, there are residential houses.

2. Relevant Policies:

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 2.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales emphasise that planning decisions should be in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009: Policy A3 – Precautionary Principle - Refuse proposals if there is any possibility of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or the community unless the relevant impact assessment can show beyond doubt ultimately that the impact can be avoided or alleviated. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Policy B23 – Amenities - Safeguard the amenities of the local area by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised features and amenities of the local area.

Policy C3 – Re-using Previously Developed Sites - Proposals which give priority to reusing land or buildings previously developed and located within or adjacent to development boundaries will be permitted provided that the site or the building and use are appropriate.

Policy C4 – Adapting Buildings for Re-use – Proposals to adapt buildings for reuse rather than demolish them will be approved provided they conform to specific criteria regarding the aptness of the building, visual considerations, design and the effect on the vitality of neighbouring towns and villages.

Policy C5 – Redevelopment Sites - Permits development proposals on sites noted on the proposals maps as redevelopment sites, provided they are consistent with the relevant development briefs and/or any masterplan approved for the site by the Local Planning Authority.

Policy CH28 – Impact of development on journeys - Proposals for developments on a large scale will be refused if they cause a substantial increase in the number of journeys made in private vehicles where measures to reduce the environmental impact have not been introduced. Developments which are planned and designed in a way that promotes the most acceptable environmental and sustainable modes of transport will be favoured.

Policy D2 – Industrial Estates – Protecting land and units on Industrial Sites for Class Bl, B2 and B8 uses. To approve developments which are not B1, B2 or B8 uses if they are small- scale supplementary business facilities; provide waste management facilities or other 'sui generis' uses with similar features to activities in B1 and B2 classes; or, does not lead to lack of land units for B1, B2 and B8 uses.

Policy D27 – Retail Shops, Comparison and Convenience Goods and a Facility Outside Defined Town Centres – Proposals will be approved for new retail shops selling comparison goods and/or a facility or extensions to existing shops on sites within or in close proximity to a Service Centre but outside defined town centres, if they comply with all the criteria relating to establishing need, the sequential test, the impact on the viability, vitality and attractiveness of the town centre, traffic and parking matters and the availability of facilities.

D31 – Proposals for individual shops in industrial units will be refused unless the shop is ancillary to the main use of the unit, the goods produced within the unit only are sold and the shop does not significantly harm either individually or cumulatively the vitality and viability of a town centre.

2.3 National Policies: Planning Policy Wales (Fourth edition, February 2011) Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres Technical Advice Note 18: Transport - 2007

3. Relevant Planning History:

3.1 C10D/0264/44/LL - change of use of an industrial unit to two (A1) non-food retail units, together with the demolition of existing offices and alterations to the car park – Approved 31 January 2011. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

3.2 C09D/0108/44/R4 - Use of existing building for the storage, sorting and transfer of recycled materials together with existing storage and offices use – Refused 3 December 2009. 3.3 C98D/0234/24/LL – Installation of two temporary mobile cabins for use as offices – Approved 5 August 1998. 3.4 95/00190/FUL – Extension to a warehouse and office – Approved 26 July 1995. 3.5 2/24/120H - Extension to offices – Approved 6 January 1994. 3.6 2/24/120G - Extension to an industrial unit – Approved 28 March 1991. 3.7 2/24/120D – Alterations and an extension to form offices – Approved 28 March 1991. 3.8 2/24/C120 – Erection of a factory.

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: No objection.

Transportation Unit: I refer to the aforementioned application and I wish to state that I do not intend to submit a recommendation as it is supposed that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on any road or proposed road.

Environment Agency: Not received

Welsh Water: Not received

Public Protection Unit: No observations to make on the application. Public Consultation: A notice was placed on the site and neighbouring residents were informed. The advertising period ended on 29 March 2011 but no observations or letters of objection had been received.

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

5.1 The principle of the development The site is located outside the town centre in relation to the main shopping centre, and within a site considered to be ‘out-of-centre’ in terms of its location and which forms part of the Penamser Industrial Estate, Porthmadog, which is designated in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (GUDP) as a ‘Protected Employment Site’. This means that the land and the buildings included within this safeguard are restricted for enterprises in classes B1, B2 and B8 use only. It is recognised that there is currently extant planning permission for retailing on the site for specific sale of bulky goods use, which has already weakened its employment use status in the three classes of use. However, this does not justify a speculative retail development in this location without there being a specific need, and due to the economic climate and an increasing trend towards internet shopping, growth in the retail sector has slowed. It is important to bear in mind the principles of Policy D2 – ‘Industrial Sites’, that safeguards land and units on Industrial Sites for industry or a business venture included in class B1, B2 or B8 uses. There are exceptions within the UDP which permit retail development on an industrial estate. However, it is not considered that the proposal complies with the criterion of being ancillary to the site or the second criterion of being associated with waste management or ‘sui generis’; it is also contrary to the third criterion since changing the PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) use of the unit to unrestricted retail would add to the reduction in land / units for B1, B2 and B8 use, and it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy D2 of the UDP. Furthermore, national policy in paragraph 7.2.7 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011) endorses local policy, acknowledging the need for a bank of industrial land, and acknowledging that certain industrial uses have characteristics that preclude their location in mixed use areas; sites designated for industrial development should not be used for other single purposes such as retail, leisure or housing developments that could be located elsewhere.

5.2 Retail Matters Referring to a ‘Retail Assessment’ dated March 2011 that was submitted with the application, the applicant states that there is justification for further provision of retail units in Porthmadog. He refers to low rates of approximately 5% empty units in the town (Savills survey January 2010), which is below the national average of approximately 12% (Goad survey 2009), and notes that few units were empty at the time the survey was carried out, which reflects the success of retail sales in the town. Having assessed the information submitted with the application, it is not considered that the ‘retail assessment’ shows evidence of the level of extra expenditure capacity in the economy for shops in Porthmadog town centre to justify the need for the type of retail units in the town. Consideration should be given to Policy D27 (Retail Shops) of the GUDP, which recognises that the defined centre of Porthmadog has been designated an ‘urban centre’ the designation also and includes the towns of Blaenau , Caernarfon and Pwllheli), in order to promote and safeguard the current status of ‘Service Centres’ and their specific requirements. It is recognised that the Porthmadog ‘urban centre’ is losing trade in the hierarchical shopping order to the sub- regional centre in Bangor, and that there is a place in the order for Porthmadog to provide a range of goods and services to meet the needs of the community and reduce the need to travel. Justification was considered in terms of the sequential test at the time the previous application was considered in January 2011 for a bulky goods sales outlet in a location outside of the town centre. However, in the case of this application, it is not considered that the need has been proven for changing the sale of bulky goods consent to two retail units within a building that would measure in total approximately 1,815 square metres in an out-of-centre location as it would be likely to compete directly with traders selling similar goods in the town centre. Adequate justification of the quantitative need has not been submitted, which would convince that the two shops would not harm the viability and vitality of the town centre substantially, and therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy D27 of the UDP.

The applicant has also attempted to follow the sequential test in an attempt to assess whether or not there is another possible site in Porthmadog that could be more suitable for the proposed use. Whilst the applicant does not acknowledge in the sequential test of the retail assessment that there are retail sites of choice that excel on the basis of the test attention is given to an ‘out-of-centre’ site which is opposite the site of the current application where there is existing consent for shops. A food unit, namely Lidl, has been developed since a detailed application was permitted in 2004 and speculative planning permission still exists for two retail units no smaller than 400 square metres in floor surface area on the adjacent Lidl site. Furthermore, the ‘Lidl’ land has been designated as part of a more extensive site adjacent to the town as defined in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Development Briefs as a redevelopment site (the site to include the old BT yard located to the north-east of the application site), and therefore some weight is given to the fact that the Lidl site is better for proposed retail use in the local catchment area, although it is acknowledged that it cannot be anticipated when the floor surface area will come forward for development following commitment from companies to invest in the current economic climate. The current economic climate can be one of various reasons, including location and others, as to why the extant permissions on the Morbaine and Lidl sites have not been developed for some years, and it is considered that the lack of commitment to develop the sites is an indicator of a lack of PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) commercial demand and also an indicator of the limited quantitative need for further non-food retail floor area on the estate.

In terms of the cumulative effect on the retail activity of Porthmadog town centre, it is observed that the cumulative effect would need to be considered in relation to the two sites (Coronation and Morbaine properties) that are considered in this committee and the Lidl applications to be submitted to the following committee. Permission was previously granted for three non-food commercial units and which now exist following the permission in November 2005, for development in a location on the Porthmadog Business Park known as ‘Morbaine’. It is recognised that the Morbaine site is less accessible to the town centre than the application site, but there is concern that the three sites could combine to provide up to 6,480 square metres of non-food retail area, which is likely to attract operators who would probably sell goods similar to those offered by traders in Porthmadog town centre. Whilst there is no certainty that the planning permissions that have not been implemented will be developed, similarly, there is no certainty that the proposed development would be realised either. For this particular criterion, it is considered that inadequate information has been submitted to enable a sound assessment of the cumulative effect. However, and bearing in mind the quantum total of non-food area in relation to the Porthmadog town centre, it is likely that these proposals, if completed, would have a negative cumulative effect on activity in the town centre and would pose substantial potential risk of damage to the vitality and viability of the Porthmadog town centre contrary to the principles of policy D27 of the UDP.

5.3 Matters Relating to Reusing Buildings With regard to re-using the land and the buildings for retail use, it should be noted that the Coronation Properties company purchased the site in August 2004 and that attempts have been made at marketing it by two specialist estate agents specialising in marketing industrial buildings; the application includes a statement that unrestricted sale of (A1) goods and non- food retail would offer the potential to attract multiple national companies. A planning application was refused in April 2009 to use the building for a waste recycling facility due to concerns regarding the potential effect of the proposed use on the amenities of nearby residents owing to noise and health concerns, and as a result the property has remained empty and unused. Policy C3 of the GUDP states that priority will be given, wherever possible, to re-using previously developed land or buildings that are located within or near development boundaries, rather than utilising greenfield sites, provided that the use is suitable and conforms to the plan’s development strategy. However, we are not convinced that full consideration has been given to recognising the need and considering all the other possible sites for retail in Porthmadog, whilst it is recognised that the property does not contribute to the economic growth of the area.

5.4 General and residential amenities The site is adjacent to a residential estate situated approximately 50 metres away and in a southerly direction from the site on the opposite side of the A499 county road. It is considered that the proposal for change of use from sale of bulky goods to two retail shops would have a substantial adverse impact on the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Policy B23 of the UDP.

5.5 Matters relating to transportation and access The site currently has approximately 25 parking spaces. Following the permission granted in January 2011, it is proposed to increase this number to approximately 88 parking spaces, together with six disabled spaces, and motorcycle and cycle provision on flat level, and therefore it is not considered that it would be difficult for a range of people to access the site. The site would be accessible by various modes of transport, whether on foot or by public PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) transport, as the site is located on one of the main bus routes and is in accordance with policy CH28 of the UDP.

5.6 Flooding issues The site lies within a C1 flood risk zone, which means that there is a 1% chance of a fluvial flood in a year or a 0.5% chance of a tidal flood in a year. A Flood Consequence Assessment was received with the application that was permitted in January 2011 where the Environment Agency stated that the assessment had demonstrated that flood hazards and flood consequences could be controlled to acceptable levels in accordance with Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk, and it is considered that the proposal is acceptable as regards Policy B29 of the UDP.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 The proposal is to amend a condition on permission that was granted in January 2011, in order to change a condition which permits the sale of bulky goods (non-food) to enable the unrestricted sale of (A1) goods and non-food retail in the current unit. The current initiative is not established in the building located on the Penamser industrial estate which has now been empty since around 2004 and is in an estate that has been designated for safeguarding employment. However, there is extant planning permission for the retailing of bulky goods, and by separating the class use status it is considered that the proposal to enable unrestricted non-food retail is contrary to policy D2 of the UDP and national policy which support economic growth to protect an industrial site for B1, B2 and B8 uses mainly. A ‘Retail Assessment’ has been submitted with the application and there is no evidence of extra expenditure capacity in the economy for shops in Porthmadog town centre to assess the retail ‘need’ in the town. There is concern at the likelihood that the proposal on an ‘out-of-centre’ site would have a substantial detrimental impact on traders selling similar goods in the town centre of Porthmadog; adequate justification of the quantitative need has not been submitted for the speculative plan and there is no sound evidence of investment. It is considered that full details, including sound evidence following a ‘sequential test’, have not been submitted, and that it would include acknowledgement that there are retail sites that are better in the town on the basis of the sequential test and that would convince that the two shops would not harm the vitality and viability of the town centre substantially contrary to policy D27 of the UDP. Some weight is given in an assessment of the application to the fact that a ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance: Development Brief’ has been adopted by the Council which is supportive to redeveloping a former BT depot / Lidl site which is nearby and on a site located between the town and the applicant’s site. It is considered that the applicant has failed to convince as regards the cumulative effect of the proposal on retail activity in the Porthmadog town centre when considering the quantum total of non-food area on the ‘Coronation, Lidl and Morbaine properties’ sites, which are likely to sell goods similar to those offered in the main shopping area in Porthmadog town centre.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 Refuse - reasons - the proposal would involve the unrestricted sale of (A1) goods and non-food retail on a site which has been designated for safeguarding employment in class B1, B2 or B8 uses, and it is considered that the evidence submitted with the application does not demonstrate that there is a defined quantitative assessment for retail in an out-of-centre location and which is likely to harm the vitality and viability of Porthmadog town centre contrary to policy D2 and D29 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Number: 3 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Application Number: C11/0661/43/LL Date Registered: 18/08/2011 Application Type: Full - Planning Community: Pistyll Ward:

Proposal: DEMOLISH PLAS PISTYLL AND ERECT 20 SELF-CATERING HOLIDAY UNITS TOGETHER WITH THE ERECTION OF 16 SELF-CATERING HOLIDAY UNITS IN LIEU OF THE EXISTING STATIC CARAVAN SITE Location: PLAS PISTYLL AND PISTYLL CARAVAN PARK, PISTYLL, PWLLHELI, LL536LR

Summary of the TO DELEGATE POWERS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO SIGNING A 106 Recommendation: AGREEMENT TO REMOVE A PREVIOUS PERMISSION AND RECEIVE AMENDED PLANS

1. Description:

1.1 This application relates to the Plas Pistyll site and the adjacent caravan park in Pistyll Farm. 1.2 Plas Pistyll itself is a site that is in a serious condition and is located in a prominent location in the landscape as the bulky building is visible from the coast and also from the road leading from to . The building used to be a hotel and more recently planning permission has been granted to convert the building into 14 apartments for holiday use and create a tennis court near this development, along with a leisure building on the farm site. 1.3 The farm site is used as eight holiday units, a warden flat and the former farmhouse. Also, there are hardstandings and an access track for 29 timber chalets between the former timber buildings and the coast. 1.4 The proposal involves demolishing the Plas and redeveloping the site to create 20 new holiday units on the site (16 x three bedroom and 4 x two bedroom), along with associated parking. The proposal seeks to keep away from the tennis court site that has been granted approval, in order to stay away from the area of archaeological interest. The layout of the 20 units on this site attempts to follow the contours of the land in order to take advantage of the site’s natural topography and reduce the visual impact. 1.5 It is intended to create 4 ‘levels’ to create a type of terrace and avoid creating a uniform development in terms of layout in order to follow the contours of the land. Every unit would have a sea-view and an external area in front of it, placed on top of the unit below. It is intended for the units on the highest level to have slate ridge roofs with concealed parking spaces below and behind the existing stone boundary wall (which intends to be retained). 1.6 In terms of materials, it is intended for the units to be broken up by a series of stone walls in an attempt to blend into the landscape better and substantial landscaping would be undertaken to soften the impact, as well as using timber and glass cladding in the northern sea-facing elevations. 1.7 On the farm site, it is intended to adhere to the form of the existing buildings in terms of layout, scale and design in order to build 16 new holiday units to replace the 29 timber chalets that have been approved on the site and remove the hardstandings that can already be seen on the site. This would involve restoring the land immediately on the coast to grassland. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

1.8 To summarise, the proposal involves creating 36 new holiday units to replace the previously approved 29 timber chalets and 14 holiday apartments, along with a tennis court and building for leisure use. 1.9 The site is located in a ‘bowl’ with the natural landscape surrounding it and concealing it to an extent from the east, south and west. The site is prominent from the coast to the north but it is also located on a cliff above the sea. 1.10 There are a number of statutory designations to consider here, including:  Site located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;  Near a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);  Near a Special Area of Conservation (SAC);  Site within the Llŷn Heritage Coast;  Near prehistoric enclosed land;  Within a Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest;  St Beuno’s Church nearby, which is a Grade I Listed Building;  Llŷn Coastal Path leading down towards / past the site/Public Footpath.

1.11 It has also become apparent that choughs nest in the Plas and that bat and owl surveys have been submitted with the application. 1.12 Also forming part of the application are: Design and Access Statement; Language and Community Impact Assessment; Ecological Survey; BREEAM Assessment; Planning Statement; Archaeological Assessment; Landscape Assessment and the outcome of a period of public consultation (undertaken by the developer).

2. Relevant Policies:

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 2.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales emphasise that planning decisions should be in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009:

A2 - Protecting the Social, Linguistic and Cultural Fabric of Communities Safeguard the social, linguistic or cultural cohesion of communities against significant harm due to the size, scale or location of proposals. A3 - Precautionary Principle Safeguard Listed Buildings against proposals for their total or partial demolition unless there is outstanding justification for doing so, in accordance with a number of criteria regarding the condition and ownership of the building. B7 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Refuse proposals which will damage or destroy archaeological remains which are of national importance (whether they are registered or not) or their setting. Also refuse any development which will affect other archaeological remains unless the need for the development is greater than the significance of the archaeological remains. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

B8 – Llŷn and Môn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) To safeguard, maintain and improve the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised features of the site. B9 – Heritage Coast Refuse proposals for any building or structure on the heritage coast unless they can conform to a series of criteria aimed at avoiding significant damage to recognised features. B12 - Protecting Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens Protecting Historical Landscapes, Parks and Gardens - Safeguard landscapes, parks and gardens of special historical interest in Wales from developments which would cause significant damage to their character, their appearance or their setting. B16 – Protecting Nature Conservation Sites of National Importance Refuse proposals which are likely to cause significant damage to nature conservation sites of national significance unless they conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting, enhancing and managing recognised features within the sites. B20 – Species and their habitats of international and national importance Proposals which are likely to cause unacceptable disturbance or harm to protected species and their habitats will be refused unless they can conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features of the site. B22 - Building Design Promote good building design by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at safeguarding the recognised features and character of the local landscape and environment. B23 - Amenities Safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised features and amenities of the local area. B25 - Building Materials Safeguard the visual character by ensuring that building materials are of a high standard and are in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. B27 - Landscaping Plans Ensure that permitted proposals incorporate high quality soft/hard landscaping which is appropriate to the site and which takes into consideration a series of factors aimed at avoiding damage to recognised features. C1 - Locating New Developments Land within the development boundaries of towns and villages and the developed form of rural villages will be the main focus for new development. New buildings, structures and ancillary facilities in the countryside will be refused with the exception of a development that is permitted by another policy of the Plan. C3 - Re-using Previously Developed Sites Proposals that give priority to re-using previously developed land or buildings that are located within or near development boundaries will be permitted provided that the site or building and the proposed use are appropriate. C7 – Building in a Sustainable Manner Proposals for new development, or for the adaptation and change of use of land or buildings will be refused where consideration has not been given to specific environmental matters. Proposals must conform to specific criteria regarding building in a sustainable manner, unless it can be demonstrated that it is impractical to do so. CH30 - Access for All Proposals for residential/business/commercial units or buildings/facilities for public use will be refused unless it can be shown that full consideration has been given to the provision of appropriate access for the widest possible range of individuals. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

CH33 – Safety on Roads and Streets Development proposals will be approved provided they can conform to specific criteria relating to the vehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calming measures. D13 – Attractions and Facilities Proposals for the development of new attractions and facilities for visitors, or to improve the standard of existing facilities will be approved if they are located within a development boundary or on other specific sites if there are no suitable opportunities within a development boundary. It will be a requirement that each proposal conforms to the criteria regarding the development of ‘niche’ markets or support for the development of the recognised Gwynedd Tourism Strategy and also the design, appearance and setting of the proposed development. D15 – Self-catering Accommodation Proposals for developing new, permanent self-catering holiday accommodation and adaptation of existing buildings or existing establishments will be approved if the design, setting and appearance of the development is of high standard and if it conforms to criteria relevant to the location and scale of the development, impact on the permanent housing stock and on residential areas and availability of this type of holiday accommodation.

Supplementary Planning Guidance:

Gwynedd Design Guidance (2002) Holiday Accommodation 2011 Planning for Sustainable Building 2010

2.3 National Policies:

Planning Policy Wales (2011): Chapter 5, Protect and Improve the Natural Heritage and Coastline Chapter 6, Protecting the Historic Environment Chapter 11, Tourism, Sport and Recreation

Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5: Planning and Nature Conservation (2009) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 12: Design (2009) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 18: Transport (2007) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 20: The Welsh Language – Unitary Development Plans and Planning Control Technical Advice Note (TAN) 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (2010)

The Welsh Office Circular 60/96 – (Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology) The Welsh Office Circular 61/96 – (Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas)

3. Relevant Planning History:

3.1 The recent relevant planning history includes:

C08D/0422/43/LL – permission granted on 16/2/09 to convert the Plas into 14 holiday apartments along with creating an adjacent tennis court and small leisure building. Permission not commenced; however, 3 years remain on the permission.

C07D/0635/43/LL – permission granted in 2009 to build a leisure building with a swimming pool (farm site) and exchange 29 static caravans for 29 timber chalets. Permission implemented in part, therefore it is extant. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: No response

Transportation Unit: No objection

Environment Agency: No objection but notes observations about:  Appropriate ecological assessments achieved before commencing the work.  To implement in full all mitigation steps and recommendations outlined in the ecological report.  Observations about an Environmental Licence and the Agency’s arrangements/procedures.

Welsh Water: No response

Public Protection Unit / Caravans Officer: No objection

Access Officer: Observations about meeting British Standards and the external provision of paths, ramps, stairs and surfaces.

Countryside Council for  The statutory requirement for the Authority to consider Wales: the purpose of protecting and improving the natural beauty of the AONB.  CCW believe that there will be a real improvement in the landscape’s quality and visual amenities by getting rid of the existing chalet park and exchanging them for more traditional buildings in nature.  Demolishing the Plas is also a substantial improvement to this open and valuable part of the AONB.  A development of this scale not in keeping with its open location and there are insufficient features such as walls, cloddiau, and scrub growth to ‘tie in’ the proposal to the site in a visual sense.  The modern design is out of place on such an open site in the AONB and also in relation to the historical landscape.  Is it possible to have green roofs in order to reduce the visual impact / mass?  In weighing up the proposal, CCW believes that the proposal is an improvement in terms of the landscape, considering the site in its current state.  Sites (SSSI and SAC) have been protected to the east of the site. Any waste discharged from sewerage works should be piped immediately to the watercourse, rather than it being discharged into the ground or into a soakaway.  Need to ensure good practice of working in accordance with the guidelines of the Environment Agency on Pollution Prevention. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

 Subject to the above points being implemented, it is not likely that the proposal will affect the SSSI or SAC.  In terms of protected species, a small number of lesser horseshoe bats use the Plas as a roost and the mitigation steps outlined in the bat report and the plans submitted with the application should be adhered to. There will be a need to secure a licence after planning permission is granted.  The chough also nests in the Plas and the Council’s Biodiversity officer will deal with this aspect.

AONB Officer: Detailed observations in two parts: Farm-  caravan park reflects a number of farms in Llŷn;  object to extending the Pistyll Farm farmhouse; the proposed extension dominates the original farmhouse and harms its historical character. Its features are unsuitable;  the existing farmhouse and farm buildings appear natural in the landscape;  five new blocks of flats create an unnaturally large built development in a rural area in the AONB;  the basic principle of exchanging static units for permanent buildings causes concern. Plas –  very visible and is an eyesore in its current location in a prominent place in the Llŷn AONB;  the ideal situation would be to restore the original building as it is prominent and striking in the landscape;  based on the AONB, it is believed that there is justification to demolish and redevelop the site; this would be in line with Aim NA 4 in the AONB’s Management Plan and the redevelopment would conform to NA 3 to ensure that new developments are in keeping with the local area and that they have a positive effect or the least possible harmful effect on the environment;  more surface area, but on lower levels; going to be prominent from viewpoints located above (the highway/coastal path/near the Church);  the use of slate and timber on the elevations of the buildings is an alien feature in the landscape; also, the substantial windows are an alien feature.  It must be ensured that any new development fits in well in the landscape, the coast and the broader area.  The proposed developments appear alien and strange from a number of directions based on its planning, design and materials.  It is a shame that the company has not retained the original names of Pistyll Farm and Plas Pistyll.  The Community and Language Statement does not give due attention to some aspects. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Biodiversity: Notes that there is a need to provide for the bats and chough. To do this, there is a need to act in accordance with the recommendations/conditions included in their observations.

Archaeological Assessment Report meets standards. Suggests Archaeological Trust: specific conditions relating to archaeology.

CADW: No response.

Impact of a large-scale development on the landscape and setting Conservation Officer: of a listed building being overbearing and out of character in the local environment. It cannot be supported. Caravans Officer: No objection.

Public Consultation: Several notices were placed on the site and neighbouring residents were informed. The application was advertised in the press. The consultation period has ended and two letters were received objecting on the following grounds:

 Light pollution  Additional traffic  Noise and overlooking from the site  Number of units

Six letters / correspondences had been received supporting the application on the following grounds:

 Existing condition of the Plas  Economic reasons PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

5.1 The principle of the development

There is extant permission for 14 flats within the Plas for holiday use and for 29 timber chalets. Hardstandings for the chalets are in place; however, the associated work of creating a leisure building with a swimming pool has not been commenced. Nevertheless, the permission has been commenced and is therefore live. Similarly, work on the Plas has not been commenced; however, the permission period is yet to end. It is now intended to exchange the 14 flats within the Plas for 20 self-catering new holiday units and erect 16 self-catering units on the farm site near the eight holiday units, warden flat and former farmhouse. This will involve restoring the hardstandings for the chalets to grassland.

Relevant to the principle of the development are policies D15 ‘Self-catering Holiday Accommodation’, C3 ‘Reusing Previously Developed Sites’ and C1 ‘Locating New Developments’. In accordance with Policy D15, the concept of developing new, permanent self-catering holiday accommodation will be approved, provided that the development is located within a development boundary or if a suitable previously developed site is used. Also, it should be ensured that the scale of the development is suitable, considering the site. The UDP defines previously developed land as: land where there is, or was, permanent structures (except for agricultural or forestry buildings) and an established associated surface infrastructure.

Policy C1 approves new developments outside development boundaries if it relates to rural tourism. Policy C3 gives priority to re-use previously developed land or buildings, provided that the site or building and the proposed use is suitable and in keeping with the objectives and development strategy of the Plan.

As a result of demolishing Plas Pistyll, the site would fall into the definition of previously developed land and this also considers the extant permission on the site. Therefore, consideration will need to be given to the scale of the proposed development. It should be noted further that the fact that the site is previously developed land does not necessarily mean that it is suitable for development; consideration should also be given to other factors as noted in policies C3 and C1 and such restrictions could include matters relating to location, presence of protected species or archaeological value.

Policy D15 also approves proposals to extend existing self-catering holiday accommodation establishments if the design, setting and appearance of the development is of a high standard and that all criteria can be satisfied. The criteria include:  Developing on suitable previously developed land;  Acceptable scale, considering the site, location and/or settlement in question;  No loss of permanent housing stock;  Not located within a residential area and that it will not cause substantial harm to the residential character of the area;  Not leading to an excessive concentration of this type of accommodation within an area.

Considering the extant permissions on the site, it is not believed that the proposal leads to creating an excessive number of this type of accommodation as there are fewer units than what has been approved previously; the location is not within a residential area and it is not likely to cause more significant harm to the residential PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

character of the area than the extant permissions would and it will not lead to the loss of permanent housing stock.

Therefore, the two points that need to be assessed is the scale and suitability of the previously developed site. In terms of the scale and suitability of the previously developed site, the extant permissions and the scale of the developed land / land that could be developed under these permissions must be borne in mind. In this context, the scale is less on the farm site as it is intended to develop within the parking spaces / gardens of the existing units and remove the hardstandings and access roads leading to the chalets – this would mean that grazing / green land would be reclaimed, rather than extending the site. On the site of the Plas, it is intended to develop on more land, but within the ‘curtilage’ of the Plas, which has overgrown but continues to be a curtilage, and also on a lower level to be in keeping with the contours of the land, rather than adhering to the bulky building of the Plas.

Policy A3 relates to the Precautionary Principle and this seeks to obtain the required information in order to make an informed decision; this can lead to changes to the proposal or appropriate conditions.

As a result, I do not believe that there is an objection in principle based on the suitability of the site or general scale of floor area. Therefore, I am not of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to Policies C1, C3 or D15, or Policy A3 of the UDP.

5.2 Social, Linguistic and Cultural Fabric of Communities

Policy A2 of the UDP and TAN 20 relates to the above and a Statement of this type has been submitted with the application. The application site is located within the parish of Llanaelhaearn where 77% of the population is able to speak Welsh; this is a higher percentage than the average in the County and in Wales. Because of its close connection to Nefyn, it can be also noted that 80% of the population there speaks Welsh. It is obvious that the language is viable in both communities. There has been a small increase in the population number in the parish of Llanaelhaearn between the 1991 and 2001 censuses. Creating a development for tourism is in keeping with the general strategy of the UDP. There is no proof that these visitors would contribute to inward migration in the area as only holiday accommodation would be provided here; thus contributing positively towards local expenditure, local jobs and a visual improvement to the site of the Plas and the hardstandings. It is possible that the development could lead to further investment in services associated to the development.

It is proposed to nurture a relationship with the Welsh Language Board in order to maximise benefit from the development in the local area and promote local produce and services and establish the sense of place. It is possible to promote the language and local character by means of the development. On these grounds and based on the extant permissions, I do not believe that the proposal is contrary to Policy A2 or the advice given in TAN 20.

5.3 Landscape Designations

Site of Archaeological Importance An archaeological assessment has been submitted with the application which identifies that there is prehistoric enclosed land near the site. As a result, it is noted in the assessment that it should be ensured that the development is designed in a way that will prevent any direct impact on the enclosed land and that an archaeological PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

assessment programme is obtained in order to assess the status of the land within the former garden of the Plas Pistyll ruin. The response of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust suggests appropriate conditions that would ensure that the proposal is in accordance with Policy B7.

Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty The application site lies within the Llŷn AONB. Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, 2011), notes that appropriate consideration should be given to conservation and natural beauty when dealing with applications within an AONB; however, consideration should also be given to any economic benefits deriving from the development. Policy B8 – ‘Llŷn and Anglesey Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)’ - of the UDP expands upon the principles set and notes that there is a need to seek to protect, maintain and improve the character of the AONB and that any development proposals that would cause significant harm to the landscape and coast, wildlife, historical remains and buildings, language and culture and the tranquil and unpolluted nature of the area should be refused except for in circumstances where there is a national economic or social benefit and where refusing the application would harm the local economy. Furthermore, it should be ensured that appropriate consideration has been given to the harmful effects on the character of the area and that measures have been taken to mitigate the effects in the application.

Detailed observations have been received from the AONB Officer (noted above). In the context of these observations and the proposal, it is essential to weigh up the impact of the extant permissions and the development that is the subject of this application. It is a unique situation considering the extant permissions and the current site. When considering the observations of the AONB Officer, there is a need to mention the precedent and basic principle of exchanging caravans for permanent units. This situation is unique in terms of the current use made of the site, the permission for caravans and the Plas site; therefore, I do not believe that it is possible to create a precedent. The basic principle is another issue; however, it is supported by other Council policies discussed in this assessment (previously developed land). The scale of the proposal is a concern from the perspective of the AONB, as well as the alien features which are not in keeping with the area. It is believed that there is fundamental concern here about the size, scale, design and lack of justification to demolish and rebuild the Plas and a lack of compliance with the AONB’s Management Plan as a result of this. The Management Plan asks for developments to be in keeping with the local area and to have a positive effect, or the least possible harmful effect, on the AONB.

The Plas site is an eyesore, it is not listed and it is an alien feature in the landscape, and the same would be true even if it were in a good condition. The proposal to demolish and rebuild the units on a larger footprint, but lower in height, is very different to what is on the site at present; however, no demands can be made to restore the Plas to its original condition as it is not a listed building; thus it is not protected. I am of the opinion that the new plan is ambitious and modern and attempts to cause the least possible harmful impact on the landscape; this is reiterated in the supplementary documents submitted with the application.

In terms of the farm site, possibly caravans are a relatively normal feature in the area; however, it is in a prominent location in the landscape and can be seen from surrounding public areas. There is an extensive area of development on the site at present and the intention is to ‘tighten’ this with the new holiday units. The observations of the AONB Officer state that the proposal is unusually large and that PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

the extension to the current farmhouse is unnatural and has unsuitable features and that it would overbear the farmhouse and have a detrimental effect on its character. Discussions have commenced to reconsider the design of these two units, along with the details of the other units on the farm, including setting the glass ‘walls’ back from beside the stone walls in order to create a type of recess. These changes will lead to a design and details that are more in keeping.

Once again, considering the extant permissions, I believe that the proposal causes the least possible harmful impact as it seeks to strike a balance between 29 chalets on this very visible site (although this is ‘normal’ in the area), and providing permanent holiday units on a less prominent part of the site and on a smaller scale in terms of numbers. The Countryside Council believes that there will be a real improvement to the landscape and visual amenities by doing away with the caravan site and exchanging it for buildings around the ‘farmyard’. In addition, it is believed that redeveloping the Plas will be a substantial improvement to this visible area; but there is concern about the modern design proposed and the lack of ‘anchoring’ to the site by means of cloddiau, walls and natural vegetation. Possibly a green roof would be more suitable to reduce the visual impact and possibly there is a need to reconsider other aspects relating to this also.

In weighing up these issues, the proposal does not comply in full with Policy B8 or the AONB Management Plan; however, the planning history and live permissions improve the situation and to this end, I do not believe that any additional substantial / significant negative impact derives from this proposal than what would happen in the current situation on the site. This view is supported in the summary of the observations of the Countryside Council for Wales.

Heritage Coast It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy B9 because the current site will be redeveloped for a similar use in a coastal location. Any significant harm is assessed above and the importance of biodiversity is discussed under another heading. The policy is also complied with by giving priority to locations with a visual connection to current buildings or existing structures.

Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest Policy B12 relates to Landscapes of Outstanding Historical Interest and much of Llŷn was included on the Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historical Interest in Wales because of its collection of small archaeological and historical features, which narrate a seamless story from the prehistoric age to the present day. The policy asks for consideration to be given to the historical landscapes when the impact of proposals on such a large scale are assessed where they have more of an impact than just a local impact. It is not believed that the proposal is likely to have more than a local impact on the landscape because of the nature of the location and existing land uses; therefore, the proposal is not contrary to Policy B12.

5.4 Nature Conservations and Species and their Habitats (Biodiversity) An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application. During the site visit in order to undertake the ecological assessment and previous inspections by field experts, it was noted that evidence existed of the presence of some protected species such as bats and owls. Furthermore, it is known that choughs nest in Plas Pistyll. Choughs are given additional protection under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The ecological report places emphasis on the need to ensure that mitigation steps are used in order to ensure that the development’s impact on these PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

species is restricted. It is suggested further that any work should be undertaken during the period of the year when birds are not nesting, namely 1 March to 30 September.

Choughs nest regularly in the old Plas. Following discussions with the applicant and following expert advice from Adrienne Stratford, we have agreed upon steps to mitigate the loss of the nesting site. A specific building will be created that will be suitable for Choughs to nest in it, as illustrated in the amended plans and in the report ‘Protected Species Mitigation Strategy/ Plas Pistyll’ (27.10.11), attached to the application.

This can be managed by means of a condition that this building is built to provide a nesting site as illustrated in the amended plans and Mitigation Strategy. It must be ensured that no period within the nesting season goes by without having a nesting site in place. This means that the new site must be in place before the old Plas is demolished. A method statement and timetable should also be submitted to the Local Authority for approval, explaining how this will be implemented, before commencing any work. A condition should also be included to ensure that no demolition work takes place during the nesting Season – 1 March to 30 August.

There are records of lesser horseshoe bats in Plas Pistyll. It will be required to include a condition to ensure that a purpose-built bat roost has been created in accordance with the amended plans and details in the report ‘Protected Species Mitigation Strategy/Plas Pistyll’ (27.10.2011), attached to the application. Once again, it must be ensured by means of a condition that the new provision for bats is in place before any demolition work is undertaken, and the Plas must not be demolished either, and a method statement and timetable should also be sent to the local authority for approval, to explain how this will be implemented before any work is commenced.

Furthermore, a condition will be needed to monitor the success of these methods for bats and choughs and a report must be submitted within five years of commencing the work.

In terms of the choughs, a condition will be required to ensure that the grazing land on the site is grazed to secure a feeding habitat for the Choughs as described in the report (ecological) submitted. (Land to be grazed in favour of chough in accordance with expert advice by Stratford).

In order to ensure compliance, evidence will need to be submitted to the authority regarding compliance with these conditions.

The above is reiterated in the observations of the Countryside Council for Wales and they state that they do not believe that there will be any impact on land designations or in terms of wildlife, provided that the above advice/conditions are followed. To this end, it is believed that the proposals and suggested mitigation measures comply with policy B16 and B20 of the UDP.

5.5 Design, Materials and Landscaping Plans An extensive Design and Access Statement and Design Statement have been submitted to support and justify the application. As the development is located within an AONB, serious consideration needs to be given to the design of the development and how it would affect the local landscape. Note that there is no design value to the Plas Pistyll building. It appears that serious consideration has been given to the design of the proposed development in order to ensure that it is sensitively in keeping PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

with the natural landscape and extensive discussions have taken place prior to submitting the application, as well as two submissions to the Design Commission. Furthermore, design measures have been taken to ensure the sustainability of the development, in accordance with policy C7.

The design on the site of the Plas is very different and it takes advantage of the site’s contours in order to blend into the landscape better. The high wall behind the Plas will be retained and this will keep an important current feature in order to define the site and conceal the proposed parking spaces from the road. It can be seen from the plans that this proposal has been ‘stepped’ down and roughly it follows the footprint of the Plas and its curtilage. By doing so, this allows for the visual impact of the three-storey building and cellar (previously four-storey) to be reduced. Therefore, consideration must be given to the extant permission to convert the Plas when considering this proposal. In terms of Policy B22, the proposal respects the site and its surroundings and it is considered to be a very different design and form and it may not be to everyone’s taste; however, I do not consider that this is contrary to Policy B22, in particular considering that a development that is not completely suitable for the site exists there at present. When weighing up these issues, the proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the form and character of the surrounding landscape or on the local natural or historical environment. Its visual impact has been restricted to a relatively small area because of its location in a natural ‘bowl’ in the land and with the greatest impact from the sea towards the land. I do not consider that this proposed impact is greater than the impact of developing the Plas into 14 flats.

The design proposed on the farm site is more traditional with some modern elements, e.g. the glass walls on some of the gable ends. There is a need to reconsider elements/details of this design so that it is better in keeping with this; in particular from the perspective of the extension to the existing farmhouse, number of roof lights, size of openings, etc. and also in order to push the ‘glass’ walls further into the walls. The agent has also expressed his willingness to do so, should the application be supported in principle, and the Planning Manager given permission to act. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the form or scale or main principle of the design is contrary to Policy B22 and it would certainly be an improvement to a caravan site that extends to the cliff of the site and which forms the most visible part of the site. The proposal will be a more compact form of development that would be more in keeping because of its scale, size, design, form, etc. and would certainly be better in terms of the visual impact on the form and character of the landscape. Therefore, I do not consider that the proposal, with the changes outlined above, are contrary to policy B22.

In terms of the building and landscaping materials, the proposal uses traditional materials on the ‘farm’ site that would be in keeping with the existing materials. Therefore, it is believed that the proposal is in accordance with Policy B25 as the new needs to be tied in with the old on this part of the site, in order to reflect tight ‘farm’ units. The landscaping plan that is relevant to this part of the application strengthens the eastern appearance with trees and bushes; it is assumed that a traditional clawdd to the front of the site to define the field would be advantageous and a condition can be imposed to this end; this part of the application would therefore be in accordance with Policy B27.

The site of the Plas is very different to the farm site as it is more open and on a slope. The grass roofs proposed for the majority of the units will be an opportunity to landscape and soften the impact from every direction and in reality only one block (the highest) will have a slate roof. Planting plans will be undertaken around the PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

balconies in order to soften the impact and new cloddiau will be created – it is suggested that more cloddiau are created along the boundaries of the site than what is shown and this can be managed by means of a further condition. The landscaping will need to be controlled now for the future by means of appropriate and relevant conditions in order to ensure that the standard of the development does not slip. The main aim of the Plas site is to blend into the landscape as successfully as possible and it is believed that the ‘live’ grass roofs with a purposefully soft nature, along with the rest of the landscaping, will succeed to do this. Therefore, it is believed that the proposal is in accordance with Policy B27 and should local stone walls be used (to reflect cloddiau) as a method of cladding the eastern and western sides of the units (namely the site boundaries), the proposal would also be in accordance with Policy B25.

5.6 General Amenities In terms of general amenities, consideration must be given to the reasonable privacy of nearby users; that it is not an overdevelopment of the site; that there will be no increase in traffic or noise resulting in significant harm; reducing opportunities for anti-social behaviour; and considering the needs of all users. To this end, the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy B23 as it is not considered that there will be any more loss of privacy deriving from the proposal or more overdevelopment than that caused by extant permissions; this is also the case in terms of traffic and noise. Developing the site is likely to reduce anti-social opportunities and a Manager will live on the site. The development will also consider all of its likely users.

5.7 Traffic and access matters

The response of the Transport Officer states that there is no objection to the proposal. It is true to say that it is not considered that there would be a substantial increase in traffic, considering the extant permissions. The access will remain as present and it is considered safe. It is also considered that the current road network is of a sufficient standard to deal with the traffic flow that is likely to derive from the new development. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policy CH33 of the UDP.

5.8 Relevant planning history

The extant permissions on the site are very relevant when assessing the application; these have been referred to previously in the report. These permissions provide a ‘fall back’ situation which means that the Plas could be converted into 14 holiday apartments along with creating an adjacent tennis court and small leisure building. In addition, a leisure building with a swimming pool (farm site) can be built and 29 timber chalets can be erected. This permission has been implemented in part, therefore it is live.

5.9 Response to the public consultation It is not believed that there will be a substantial rise in traffic or noise levels and due to the nature of the site, which is substantially lower than the public highway, overlooking will not be possible. It is not believed that noise levels or light pollution will be worse than what would have been possible under extant permissions on the site and the number of units is less than what has already been approved (but in the form of different units). Other letters are supportive of the application based on the economic benefit and visual improvements.

6. Conclusions: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

6.1 It is acknowledged that a broad range of self-catering accommodation of high quality is essential in order to provide choice for tourists, and unavoidably, the proposed development would be a substantial economic investment to the local area. However, the possible impact of the development on the AONB and on the area in general must be weighed up carefully. The measures submitted to mitigate any possible negative impact that the development would have on the landscape and protected species are applauded and the above assessment assesses whether or not these measures are sufficient. It must also be emphasised that holiday use only will be made of these units as permanent use would not be supported under the Plan’s policies; this can be controlled by means of relevant conditions. 6.2 Critically, when considering this application, bear in mind that there is extant permission for 53 units on the site (14 Plas, 10 Farm, including a warden flat and existing farmhouse and 29 chalets), and it is proposed to have 46 units (20 Plas, 10 existing farm and 16 new farm). This is an improvement in itself and it is believed, based on the above assessment, that no detrimental impact or greater impact derives from this proposal compared to the extant permissions. This means that this does not create a precedent for the future as it is a unique situation in terms of the site and extant permissions. 6.3 There is a need to discuss minor details relating to changing materials, boundaries and design as discussed in the assessment; however, this will not change the main principles of the proposal or its design. A request is made for permission for officers and the Planning Manager to act and agree upon these issues without having to resubmit the application to the Committee. 6.4 On these grounds, I am not of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to relevant policies discussed in the above-mentioned assessment and that there is no other material planning consideration that states otherwise. It is possible to control the mitigation measures, etc. by means of relevant conditions.

7. Recommendation:

To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application subject to signing a 106 Agreement to abolish permission no. C07D/0635/43/LL to build a leisure building with a swimming pool (farm site) and exchange 29 static caravans for 29 timber chalets and for the LPA to receive acceptable amended plans relating to the two units near the farmhouse, as well as the details of the remainder of the units on the farm site, cloddiau / boundaries and materials, as well as relevant conditions relating to:

1. time 2. compliance with amended plans 3. materials 4. holiday permission only / occupancy period 5. retention of manager unit/office 6. bat mitigation measures / further reports 7. chough mitigation measures / further reports 8. ensure that the lands to the front of the Plas/farm are not developed 9. method of lighting the site 10. landscaping and restoring the chalets site to agricultural land prior to occupying the new holiday units 11. parking 12. confirmation of sewerage/drainage issues. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Number: 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Application Number: C11/0928/39/LL Date Registered: 14/10/2011 Application Type: Full - Planning Community: Llanengan Ward: Abersoch

Proposal: FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER EXISTING GARAGE Location: 273, CAE DU, ABERSOCH, PWLLHELI, GWYNEDD, LL537DZ

Summary of the Recommendation: TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

1. Description:

1.1 The application is being submitted to committee following receipt of three objections to the proposal. The proposal involves erecting a two storey extension on the side of the existing dwelling house. The extension measures approximately 7.6m in length, 3.7 in width and 5.7m to the ridge, and includes a garage on the ground floor level and a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. The house is located in an elevated and prominent position within a residential housing estate. The site is within a village and AONB boundary.

2. Relevant Policies:

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 2.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales emphasise that planning decisions should be in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009:

POLICY B8 – LLŶN AND MÔN AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) To safeguard, maintain and improve the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by ensuring that proposals conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the recognised features of the site.

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

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

POLICY B24 – ALTERATIONS AND BUILDING EXTENSIONS WITHIN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES, RURAL VILLAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE Ensure that proposals for alterations or extensions to buildings conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the character and amenity value of the local area.

POLICY B25 – BUILDING MATERIALS Safeguard the visual character by ensuring that building materials are of a high standard and are in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

POLICY CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETS Development proposals will be approved provided they can conform to specific criteria relating to the vehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calming measures.

2.3 National Policies:

Planning Policy Wales, Fourth Edition, February 2011 Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2009)

3. Relevant Planning History:

C99D/0316/39/LL – Construction of 6 dwelling houses including estate road and landscaping. Approved. 23.11.1999. C02D/0080/39/LL – Construction of a two storey side extension. – Refused. 08.04.2002. C10D/0116/39/LL – Construction of a garage and balcony. Approved - 10/12/2004. C10D/0250/39/LL – Construction of a first floor extension above a garage. Refused 23/09/10

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: Refuse, as it would set a precedent, and concerns regarding extensions on this estate.

Transportation Unit: I refer to the aforementioned application and wish to state that I do not intend to submit a recommendation as it is supposed that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on any road or proposed road.

Public Consultation: A notice was placed on the site and neighbouring residents were informed. The consultation period ended on 17/11/11 and three letters / correspondences were received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

 An oppressive development.  Out of character  Over-development.  Setting a precedent  Intrusive development.  Loss of light, sunshine and shade  Loss of natural heat due to the loss of light and shade  Creation of parking problems on the estate  Loss of privacy and amenity.  Too large PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

The principle of the development 5.1 The Development Plan includes the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (July 2009). The national planning policy is included in Planning Policy Wales fourth edition, February 2011 and associated documents, the Technical Advice Notes. The plan is acceptable in principle in terms of policy, subject to detailed development control criteria

Design and visual amenities 5.2 Policies B22, B23, B24, B25 and B8 are a consideration for this aspect of the application. The nature and size of the proposed extension is an expected residential feature of such houses. The design and setting of the extension respects the shape and form of nearby houses. The residents and Community Council are concerned that approving the application will set a precedent for more extensions on the estate. Each application must be considered on its own merits and this does not constitute a reason to refuse the application if it is otherwise acceptable in planning terms. It is considered that the extension will not have a detrimental impact on the site’s appearance or impact upon the visual amenities of the AONB. The proposal therefore conforms to policies B22, B23, B24, B25 and B8.

General and residential amenities 5.3 As a result of the statutory publicity, three letters were received from nearby residents objecting to the proposal. It must be acknowledged that the property’s location within a residential housing estate means that an element of overlooking and loss of view is inevitable. Therefore an assessment must be made of whether this development will change the current situation to an unacceptable level. Two of the objectors live in terraced houses to the north of the proposed site. These houses face the two storey gable end of the existing house, and they would be around 12m from the side of the proposed extension’s side wall. It is inevitable that the extension will cast extra shadow, but it is difficult to envisage that it will be substantially more than the current situation, and bearing in mind that the sun’s path is behind the applicant’s house which is considerably higher than the proposed extension. It is not intended to install a window in the extension’s gable end for the bedroom. Regarding the residents of Ysgubor Fferm Cae Du, this property is located around 34m from the site of the application, and as there are no new windows in the extension’s elevation which faces the property, it is not considered that the development will cause loss of privacy or have a detrimental impact on its residential amenities. No response was received from the residents of number 55 which is around 16m from the property and on a lower level, but it must be recognized that the existing windows and balconies of the applicant’s house already face that house. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of policy B23 which deals specifically with amenities.

Traffic and access matters 5.4 The extension is located within the house’s garden. From the site’s history it is apparent that planning rights have already been granted for a single storey garage on the same site as the proposed extension which includes a ground floor garage. The proposal will not therefore reduce parking provision within the site. However, the objectors state that adding a bedroom will attract more visitors to the property when it is let during the summer, and that this will create parking problems and vehicles turning within the estate. Despite this, the Transportation Unit had no objections to the application. The concerns of nearby residents are acknowledged, but it is not considered that the proposal contravenes policy CH33 which relates to safety on roads and streets.

Any other considerations PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Order (General Development Procedure) (Wales) 2009, a Design and Access Statement is not required for developing an existing dwelling house, or for developments within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. Given this, no Design and Access Statement was needed for the current application.

6 Conclusions:

6.1 Despite the objections to the application, it is considered that the proposed use, location, design and materials are acceptable and that they will not affect the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities. All material considerations were considered when determining this application, but this has not changed the recommendation.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve – conditions 7.2 Start work on the development within five years 7.3 Materials 7.4 Development to comply with the approved plans. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Number: 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Application Number: C11/0929/44/LL Date Registered: 24/10/2011 Application Type: Full - Planning Community: Porthmadog Ward: Porthmadog West

Proposal: FULL APPLICATION TO ERECT TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION Location: 44, SOUTH SNOWDON WHARF, PORTHMADOG, LL499ND

Summary of the Recommendation: TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

1. Description:

1.2 The application is being submitted to committee following receipt of more than three objections to the proposal. The proposal involves erecting a two-storey extension on the side of the existing dwelling house. The site is located in a residential housing estate at the end of a terrace of modern houses. The site is within the development boundary of Porthmadog and conservation area.

2. Relevant Policies:

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 2.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales emphasise that planning decisions should be in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan 2009:

POLICY B4 – DEVELOPMENTS IN OR AFFECTING THE SETTING OF CONSERVATION AREAS Ensure that proposals within conservation areas, or which affect their setting, are refused unless they aim to maintain or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and its setting.

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

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

POLICY B24 – ALTERATIONS AND BUILDING EXTENSIONS WITHIN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES, RURAL VILLAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE Ensure that proposals for alterations or extensions to buildings conform to a series of criteria aimed at protecting the character and amenity value of the local area.

POLICY B25 – BUILDING MATERIALS Safeguard the visual character by ensuring that building materials are of a high standard and are in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. POLICY CH33 – SAFETY ON ROADS AND STREETS PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Development proposals will be approved provided they can conform to specific criteria relating to the vehicular entrance, the standard of the existing roads network and traffic calming measures.

2.3 National Policies:

Technical Advice Note 12 - Design (2009) “the relationship between all the elements of the natural and built environment. To create sustainable development design must go beyond aesthetics and include the social, environmental and economic aspects of the development, including its construction, operation and management and its relationship to its surroundings.”

Planning Policy Wales, Fourth Edition, February 2011 Chapter 6 - Protecting the Historic Environment 6.5.17 Should any proposed development conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission. In exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development deemed desirable on the grounds of some other public interest.

3. Relevant Planning History: C10D/0454/44/LL – Construction of a two-storey extension to the side. Withdrawn 09/02/11

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Council: At the meeting of the Porthmadog Town Council, it was decided to object to this application on grounds that it will set a precedent.

Environment Agency: No objection.

Welsh Water: No objection.

Transportation Unit: I refer to the aforementioned application and wish to state that I do not intend to submit a recommendation as it is supposed that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on any road or proposed road.

Public Consultation: A notice was placed on the site and neighbouring residents were informed. The consultation period ended on 24/11/11 and 25 letters / correspondence were received objecting to the application on the following grounds:  An oppressive development.  Out of character and changing the character of the estate.  Setting a precedent.  Loss of light, sunshine and shade.  Detrimental to the appearance and atmosphere of the estate.  Smoke pollution.  Reduce access to the harbour.  Creation of parking problems on the estate.  Loss of privacy and amenity.  Loss of public amenity space. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

 Loss of open atmosphere.  Impact on natural surveillance.  Detrimental to the conservation area.

In addition to the aforementioned objections, objections were submitted that were not valid planning objections, which include:  Covenants and Land Ownership.  Right of way over land.

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

The principle of the development 5.1 The Development Plan includes the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (July 2009). The national planning policy is included in Planning Policy Wales fourth edition, February 2011 and associated documents, the Technical Advice Notes. Erecting an extension on a dwelling house is acceptable in principle in terms of policy, subject to detailed development control criteria.

Design and visual amenities 5.2 Policies B22, B23, B24, B25 and B4 are a consideration for this aspect of the application. An extension is a residential feature expected to be seen in estates. The design of the extension is modern and reflects the design of the estate in size, shape and appearance. It is also in keeping with the development patterns and density of the estate. The extension will not have a major impact on the estate in terms of the design and layout given the scale and nature of the estate as one development. It is considered that it will not have a detrimental impact on the site’s appearance or affect the visual amenities of the conservation area.

The residents and Community Council are concerned that approving the application will set a precedent for more extensions on the estate. However, each application must be considered on its own merits and this does not constitute a reason to refuse the application if it is otherwise acceptable in planning terms. The proposal therefore conforms to policy B22, B23, B25 and B4.

General and residential amenities 5.3 As a result of the statutory publicity, 25 letters were received from nearby residents objecting to the proposal. The estate is a unique development of a modern design with a high density of residential houses, no gardens and parking spaces in the centre. The main windows of the houses face out onto the quay and the estuary. The extension will not affect these windows. The extension affects the secondary windows of building no. 47 but it does not extend out so as to cover these windows.

The majority of the objections involve the amenity effects which refer to the loss of public space and the loss of the open atmosphere of the estate. The extension covers approximately half the open land between the application site and no. 45 which is a reflection of the space between nos. 9 and 10 on the other end of the estate.

Given the design of the extension and location of the proposed windows it is not considered that the development will cause loss of privacy or have an unacceptable impact on residential amenities. It is inevitable that the extension will cast some extra shadow, but it is difficult to envisage that it will be substantially more than the current situation, bearing in mind that the sun’s path is behind the applicant’s house which is higher than the proposed extension. PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 16/01/2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGULATORY DEPARTMENT DOLGELLAU (PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC PROTECTION)

Despite the acknowledgment and consideration of the observations of the community council and neighbours, it is not anticipated that the proposal would have a negative impact on the amenities of the estate to such an extent that would result in refusing the application on this basis. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of policy B23 which deals specifically with amenities.

Transportation matters 5.4 The proposal will not reduce parking provision within the site. However, the objectors state that adding a bedroom will attract more visitors to the property when it is let during the summer, and that this will create parking problems and vehicles turning within the estate. Despite this, the Transportation Unit had no objections to the application. The concerns of nearby residents are acknowledged, but it is not considered that the proposal contravenes policy CH33 which relates to safety on roads and streets.

Any other considerations 5.5 In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Order (General Development Procedure) (Wales) 2009, a Design and Access Statement is not required for developing an existing dwelling house, or for developments within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. Given this, no Design and Access Statement was needed for the current application. In the case of this application, the applicant has submitted a design and access statement as a way of justifying the design and layout of the extension. The Design and Access Statement has been given due weight and consideration in determining this application, but this has not changed the recommendation.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 Despite the objections to the application, it is considered that the proposed use, location, design and materials are acceptable and that they will not affect the character and appearance of the area, the conservation area or the residential amenities. All material considerations were considered when determining this application, but this has not changed the recommendation.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve – conditions 7.2 Start work on the development within five years 7.3 Materials 7.4 Development to comply with the approved plans.