Planning Committee 08.07.13

PLANNING COMMITTEE, 08.07.13

Present: Councillor Gwen Griffith (Chair).

Councillors: Elwyn Edwards, Anne T. Lloyd Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd, June Marshall, Hefin Williams and Owain Williams.

Others invited: Councillor Elfed Williams (local member).

Also present: Gareth Jones, (Senior Planning Service Manager), Rhun ap Gareth (Senior Solicitor) Cara Owen (Acting Development Control Manager) and Eirian Roberts and Lowri Evans (Member Support and Scrutiny Officers).

Apologies:- Councillors Endaf Cooke, Louise Hughes, Dyfrig Jones, Dafydd Meurig, Michael Sol Owen, Tudor Owen and Eurig Wyn; Councillor John Wyn Williams (local member).

Lowri Evans was welcomed to the meeting following her recent appointment as Member Support and Scrutiny Officer.

1. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST

The following member declared a personal interest for the reason noted:-

 Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones (who was a member of this Planning Committee) in item 5 on the agenda, planning application number 3 (C13/0173/16/LL) as she was a member of the Cartrefi Cymunedol Board.

The member was of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest, and withdrew from the meeting during the discussion on that item.

The following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted:-

 Councillor Elfed Williams (who was not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5 on the agenda, planning application number 2 (C13/0145/18/LL).  Councillor Gwen Griffith (Chair of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5 on the agenda (planning application number 3 C13/0173/16/LL).  Councillor Hefin Williams (who was a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5 on the agenda, planning application number 6 (C13/0474/18/LL).

The members withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the discussions on the applications in question and they did not vote on these matters.

1 Planning Committee 08.07.13

2. MINUTES

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 17 June, 2013 as a true record.

3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the following applications for development.

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

RESOLVED

1. Application no. C13/0005/10/LL – Aber Country Hotel, , Llanfairfechan LL33 0LB

Full application for the demolition of part of the rear of the building and construction of extension that would provide six self-contained living units.

The Senior Planning Manager noted that information had come to hand on the morning of the committee that this application had been withdrawn.

2. Application no. C13/0145/18/LL – Capel Dinorwig, Dinorwig, LL55 3ER

Full application to convert a former chapel into a seven bedroom holiday accommodation.

The Senior Planning Service Manager expanded on the background of the application along with the officers’ recommendation to approve with conditions.

Taking advantage of the opportunity to speak, an objector noted:-

 That Lôn Capel was steep and narrow and was used by pedestrians, horse riders and children playing.  That the high walls either side of the road were in a very poor condition.  That the road would flood and freeze.  That the highest part of the road was only 2.3m wide with no pavement or passing place.  Amongst other dangers were, an un-prioritised junction, blind junction and access to a children’s playing field on the narrowest part of the road.  As a result of the remedial work to alleviate the flooding which occurred nearly every winter, that the ditches were very deep.  That the village of Dinorwig was 800 feet above sea level and had extreme weather many times a year.  As well as dangers to pedestrians due to drivers from outside the area, blocking the road would cause difficulties for local people, delivery vans, post vans and the emergency services.  That the existing septic tank had been intended to serve two houses and a cottage only, but it now served four houses. It leaked and had to be emptied on a weekly basis. The last time Natural Resources had taken steps regarding the leak had been early June and there had been other cases prior to that. Workers coming to the site were of the opinion that the tank was not

2 Planning Committee 08.07.13

suitable for another connection. The tank leaked near the watercourse which was only a field away from Afon Fachwen which flowed into , and everyone was aware of the algal bloom and phosphate problems in the lake.  That there were other concerns in relation to parking, sustainability, increasing risk of flooding, litter and factual errors in the application.  The development would not bring any benefits to Dinorwig and it would be an extremely unpopular imposition on the lives of the people living there.

Taking advantage of the opportunity to speak, the agent noted:-

 That this was the last of a series of successful developments in this part of Dinorwig where two other cottages, which were already in the ownership of the applicant, had been developed into holiday cottages.  That those developments had been completed to the highest standard and were very successful.  That the old chapel was quite a large building in the middle of this cluster and it would be a substantial investment for the applicant in order to be able to finish the development.  That a substantial amount of money had already been spent on the other developments. All construction work had been given to local companies and that was what would happen with the chapel also.  The work would be of the same standard as the other units on the site i.e. the high-grade standard which would attract families to the area and would add to the tourism income to Gwynedd.  That there had been concerns at one time that the unit would be suitable for parties which would affect the amenities of neighbouring residents. The applicant’s business was based on offering facilities appealing to couples or families and he would not offer facilities which would attract unsuitable parties for the location and the type of people staying at the other cottages.  That it was clear from the officer’s report that the development complied with the Council’s policies as regards planning and tourism.  Despite receiving objections in relation to traffic on the road, the Transportation Unit had no objections to the development.  Due to the nature of the building, it fell within class use D2, and it would be possible to use it as a children’s nursery etc. which would also affect the road.  That this application would be an entirely appropriate use of the old chapel in Dinorwig.

The local member (who was not a member of this committee) noted:-

 That there was no support to the application amongst local residents. A petition had been submitted to the Planning Department objecting to the application, along with minutes of meetings with local residents to discuss their concerns.  Although the planning application stated that the applicant had discussed with local residents, no reference had been made to the negative response received from the very small number of residents consulted.  That concerns regarding the application fell into four main categories, namely the size of the development, road safety, sewerage provision and sustainability.  The size of the development – as the applicant already had two holiday cottages adjacent to the chapel which could accommodate between four and nine people, developing the chapel into a seven bedroom holiday

3 Planning Committee 08.07.13

accommodation would mean that between 25 and 30 people could be staying at this complex of holiday homes. That would be equivalent to a small hotel and would double the population of Lôn Capel. Also, despite promises that the accommodation could not be hired for large parties, it would not be possible to control who hired it or how many people would stay there.  Road Safety – that the road leading to the chapel was narrower than 2.3m in places (the width of one car), with no passing places or footpaths for pedestrians. It was also steep (estimated ascent of 1:4) with a blind turning half-way along. The access to the children’s playing field was on the narrowest and steepest part of the road and that caused dangers to children and parents. On the highest part of the hill, there was nowhere for pedestrians to stand to avoid cars unless they carried on walking in front of cars in order to step into the entrance of the playing field. The junction at the top of the hill to join the main road was a blind one. Also, the stone walls on the road, many of them being retaining walls, were in a dilapidated condition and were already a danger to cars and pedestrians. It was very difficult to understand how the road could sustain the traffic and heavy vehicles required to complete the work on the chapel. During the last six weeks, a Council representative had visited the site due to the concerns of local residents about the condition of the road and the volume of water which flowed down the hill in wet weather and two officers from the Highways Department had been of the opinion that the road could not sustain a development of the size proposed for the chapel. There were three private entrances on the road and local residents and tourists, including children and young people and parents with prams and small children, the elderly and horse riders used the road in order to access public footpaths. An increase in the number of cars using the road, in particular cars which were not familiar with the particular dangers of the road, would endanger these users. The application stated that Lôn Capel was a quiet road; however, that was misleading as the residents of Lôn Capel owned 15 cars in total with visitors to Tŷ Capel and Islwyn adding up to another seven cars. Consideration must also be given to visitors and friends who visited local residents and delivery vans also. There was no through road when travelling from Lôn Capel and any vehicle driving down the road was required to turn at the bottom in order to drive back up, or reverse up or down.  The sewerage provision – that the existing sewerage tank was old and leaked to the field and was being emptied on a weekly basis. Originally, it provided for approximately ten people at most, but now, with the addition of the Tŷ Capel and Islwyn holiday homes, the tank was required to provide for approximately 20 people, and the increasing volume of sewage along with the age of the tank meant that the tank was failing. Connecting seven bedrooms which could accommodate up to 20 people would place unsustainable pressure on the existing provision and Welsh Water workers visiting the site had been of the opinion that such a development should not be considered.  Sustainability – the development would not bring any benefits to the Dinorwig area itself as there were no facilities such as shops and pubs there. There were many errors in the planning application. In the first application, the applicant stated correctly that Capel Dinorwig was in Dinorwig, but incorrectly stated that Dinorwig had shops and pubs. In the second application, the applicant incorrectly noted that Capel Dinorwig was on the outskirts of . Capel Dinorwig was approximately a mile and a half from Deiniolen and Dinorwig was a separate area. It would not be possible to access the shops and pubs of Deiniolen without a bus or car and the buses did not run more frequently than every two hours. Given this, the development would not

4 Planning Committee 08.07.13

meet the access and sustainability requirements of the Unitary Development Plan.  That there were many other reasons for objecting to the application also, namely:-  Parking – the five parking spaces intended to be provided as part of the application were not adequate for a seven bedroom accommodation and this could create difficulties for the residents of Lôn Capel, their families and friends.  Flooding – despite the application noting that flooding was not a risk, the water flowing from the site in heavy rain had caused the track down to Tŷ Newydd from the private road and Dublin House and Pant Sardis to be washed away. Tarmacking the wild garden at the rear of the chapel would increase the risk of flooding and even with drainage to the fields under the road the water would significantly increase the risk of flooding to Tŷ Newydd.  Litter – that this was a historical problem with the existing holiday homes with local residents having to clean up after the visitors.  Amenities – that the development would affect the peace and quiet of the area and would affect the lives of local residents who had always lived in the area, or who had chosen to move there to live.

Prior to the commencement of the discussion, the Chairman drew attention to the fact that neither the Transportation Unit nor Welsh Water had any objection to the application.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be refused.

Before discussing the reasons for refusal the Senior Planning Manager responded to some of the points that had been raised by the objector and the local member. He noted:-

 It was a dormant building that was unused.  Although the chapel would not have been used every day of the week, substantial use of the entrance would have been made on occasions such as weddings and funerals.  It was an application for one holiday unit and should the committee consider objecting this specific application based on transportation, it was difficult to think what type of development the committee would deem acceptable for the building.  Although he accepted that this was a building of a substantial size and that the entrance or the road were not ideal, that was the situation and this was the entrance provided for this building for some years.  The Transportation Unit had no objection to the application based on matters involving road safety.  Welsh Water or Natural Resources Wales had no objection to the application based on matters involving sewerage disposal.  In terms of sustainability, the Unitary Development Plan supported the principle of converting buildings rather than constructing new buildings, and in terms of the policies, the location of the building was within the rural village of Dinorwig.  As part of the development, pv panels would be installed on the roof in order to make the best use of the natural energy available.  In terms of matters regarding the provision of accommodation on this site, and having regard to the proposal in question and the other uses, it had to be borne in mind that the other buildings nearby were houses. It was the choice

5 Planning Committee 08.07.13

of those individuals to let those houses for holiday use and there was no need for any type of planning permission for this use. Therefore, any additional impact that would derive from this development, compared with the current situation, had to be considered. Given that it was possible to convert the building into a number of other uses without planning permission, such as a nursery, the actual impact in terms of residential amenities, and the impact of transportation in terms of road user safety, had to be borne in mind.  There was no evidence to support the objection in terms of flood impact.

The following observations were submitted in favour of the recommendation:-

 That two families, at any time, would stay at the chapel.  That any use of the building would create traffic.  That hundreds of people could have been attending the chapel in the past and that they would have parked somewhere.  That the Transportation Unit did not object to the application.

The following observations were submitted contrary to the recommendation:-

 The objector and the local member had submitted adequate reasons for refusing the application.  This area of highlands received more rain, snow and ice than other parts of the county.  There were road hazards here as it was difficult to reverse as the road was so narrow.  Seven holiday units would very likely mean up to 10 additional cars, not to mention the people who would deliver goods there etc.  The fact that the road was used by children, horse riders, lorries etc. together with the lack of space to reverse was a substantial problem.  The septic tank had to be emptied once a week, and as there would be at least an extra 20 people using it as a result of approving this application, it would have to be emptied twice a week. Septic tank emptying lorries were large and wide vehicles and they would have to go up to Dinorwig twice a week from then on, and create an obstacle on the road for local people and visitors. Therefore, a much more detailed report on the sewerage arrangements was required.  There were 70 signatories on a petition objecting to the application and attention should be given to the opinion of local people.  The development would not bring any economic benefit to the village as there were no facilities such as shops and pubs there.  No full report on the impact of the change had been submitted. The chapel was previously used for 2 hours a week by up to 10 people compared with at least 14, perhaps 20, people using it on a full time basis should this application be approved.  The parking provision was insufficient and the parking facilities of two existing holiday homes nearby were often overloaded.  The development did not assist the local need for affordable housing for local people in the area.  The observations of Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales could not be accepted as Llyn Padarn had been polluted for 30 years.  In one place, the road appeared to be very narrow.  The application was an over-development of the site.  The units would overlook on the nearby property, known as Bronallt.

6 Planning Committee 08.07.13

 There were too many problems regarding the entrance.

Concern was expressed that what was being said in the meeting was very different to what had been noted in the report. The objector and the local member had mentioned that the septic tank was deficient, but there was reference in the report to an intention to link the development with the main sewer. There was also inconsistency in terms of road safety matters, as the view submitted by the objector and the local member was completely contrary to the opinion of the Transportation Unit.

On that basis, an amendment was proposed that the committee should visit the site to see the situation for themselves.

A vote was taken on the amendment and it was carried.

RESOLVED to undertake a site inspection.

3. Application no. C13/0173/16/LL – 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 16-21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32-34, 36-38, Erw Faen, , Bangor LL57 4AT.

Full application for alterations and refurbishment work to 26 houses which involves demolishing existing walls and constructing new walls finished with smooth render, new windows and doors and new roofs.

Councillor Elwyn Edwards was elected to chair the discussion on this application.

The Senior Planning Service Manager noted that information had been received recently that there was a record of bats in the area of this site and that the application had to be deferred so that the developer could prepare a bat survey.

RESOLVED to defer the application so that the developer can prepare a bat survey.

4. Application no. C13/0202/25/LL – Brewery Farm, Penrhos Road, Bangor, LL57 2LX.

Full application to construct a house.

The Acting Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application along with the officers’ recommendation to approve subject to conditions.

It was noted that the local member had stated that he supported the application.

It was proposed to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation and this was seconded.

RESOLVED to approve the application with conditions.

Conditions – five years, in accordance with the plans, roof, materials, code for sustainable homes, Welsh Water, highway conditions/notes.

5. Application no. C13/0243/41/LL – Wernol Caravan Park, , , LL54 6SW.

7 Planning Committee 08.07.13

Full application to extend the existing caravan park to relocate 6 units and site 7 additional caravans, create a boat storage area and landscaping and improvements to existing landscaping.

The Acting Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application along with the officers’ recommendation to approve subject to conditions. She noted that the reference in the report to Policy B19 (new sites) should be changed to Policy B17 (extensions to existing sites).

It was proposed to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation and this was seconded.

RESOLVED to approve the application with conditions.

Conditions – time, in accordance with the amended plans, landscaping work / phases etc, retain an ash tree, occupancy period as the existing site, holiday use only.

6. Application no. C13/0474/18/LL – Tŷ Elin, Penisarwaun, Caernarfon, LL55 3BS.

Full application to retain an extension to a property’s garden and alterations to an access.

The Acting Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application along with the officers’ recommendation to approve subject to conditions.

The local member (who was not a member of this committee) noted:-

 That he did not object to the application but that he had some observations to make as a result of the concerns of local people.  That the original application had been submitted in the name of Gwynedd and Anglesey Councils but that this was a private development that had no link whatsoever with the County Council.  That the fact that this was a retrospective application angered people as they did not know what was going on. If the application had been made beforehand, it was likely that things would have been much simpler.  Following a discussion with the applicant, he had been given to understand that it was possible to collaborate with the officers and adjacent landowner regarding the access to the field.

A proposal was made to delegate powers for the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation and this was seconded.

RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the retrospective application with conditions.

Conditions – in accordance with plans, no PD on the land, no caravan to be sited on the land.

7. Application no. C13/0501/41/LL – Unit 3, Agri Park, , Cricieth, LL52 0LJ.

8 Planning Committee 08.07.13

Full application to erect a new industrial building for a showroom and workshop for tractors and agricultural machinery.

The Acting Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application along with the officers’ recommendation to approve subject to conditions.

It was proposed to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation and this was seconded.

RESOLVED to approve the application with conditions.

Conditions – time condition, in accordance with plans, materials / finishes, details to be submitted on the control of surface water, retain the visitor parking spaces for parking only, details of floodlights, restriction of development rights, landscaping.

The meeting commenced at 1.00pm and concluded at 2.10pm.

9