PLANNING COMMITTEE 27-2-12

Present: Councillor Huw Price Hughes (Chair) Councillor Owain Williams (Vice-chair).

Councillors: Elwyn Edwards, Alun Wyn Evans, Gwen Griffith, Louise Hughes, Anne Lloyd Jones, R.L. Jones, Dewi Llewelyn, Dilwyn Lloyd, June Marshall, W. Tudor Owen, Dafydd Roberts, Glyn Roberts and Guto Rhys Tomos.

Others invited: Councillors Endaf Cooke, Roy Owen, Penri Jones, Sion Selwyn Roberts, R.H. Wyn Williams, Trevor Edwards, Charles Wyn Jones and John Gwilym Jones (local members). Two members were also present as members of neighbouring wards to take part in discussions in relation to two applications, namely Councillor John Gwilym Jones, (application number C11/1026/39/LL) and R.H. Wyn Williams (application number C12/0011/39/LL).

Also present: Gruffydd Morris (Planning Service Manager), Hywel Thomas (Development Control Manager), Rhun ap Gareth (Senior Solicitor), Gareth Roberts (Senior Development Control Engineer – Transport), and Ioan Hughes (Committee Officer).

Apologies:- Councillors Endaf Cooke and Roy Owen (local members – application number C11/0828/14/LL), Charles Jones (local member – application number C11/1177/23/R3)

1. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST

Councillor Dewi Llewelyn (a member of this Planning Committee) declared a personal interest in item 5 on the agenda, planning application number C11/1018/45/LL, as a close friend of his was the owner of ‘Wern yr Wylan’, a house situated behind Hafan.

Councillor Huw P. Hughes (a member of this Planning Committee) declared a personal interest in item 5 on the agenda, planning application number C11/1103/15/AM, as he was the secretary of a local angling club, who had issued a request to the Environment Agency to take action because of deficiencies in the sewerage system.

Councillor R.H. Wyn Williams (not a member of this Planning Committee), declared a personal interest in item 5 on the agenda, planning application number C11/1026/39/LL, because his wife was related to one of the objectors.

Councillor John Gwilym Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee), declared a personal interest in item 5 on the agenda, planning application number C12/0011/39/LL, as he was the applicant. The members were of the opinion that they were prejudicial interests, and they left the room during the discussions on those matters.

2. MINUTES

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 6 February, 2012, as a true record, subject to a change in the wording of the minute of application number C11/0769/18/LL in the English version, so that it noted that the local member was a member of this Planning Committee.

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. C11/0828/14/LL – Ysbyty Bryn Seiont,

A full application to demolish the existing hospital and erect a 77-bed specialist dementia nursing care facility together with parking spaces, a new laundry building, landscaping, and close one of the existing entrances and create a footpath to the site.

a) The Planning Service Senior Manager reported that extensive discussions had been held regarding this application and that the following additional information had been received:  A report by Design Commission Wales following their meeting with the Council and the Agent  Observations by the Social Services Department  The Agent’s response to the Commission’s report  The additional observations of the Design Commission on the Agent’s response  A report dated 23/2/12 by Professor Bob Woods, , commissioned by the Service  E-mail messages by the local members, Councillors Roy Owen and Endaf Cooke, stating their support to the development before the additional information had been sent to them.

b) In light of the need to consider so much information and the need to hold further discussions with the applicant, the applicant’s representatives agreed to postpone a decision on the application, and it was recommended to defer the application in order to give fair consideration to the matter.

Resolved to defer the application to allow time for the additional information to be considered, and for further discussions to be held with the applicant.

2 2. Application number C11/0932/38/LL – Land near Cysgod y Bryn, Llanbedrog

Delete condition 15 on permission C10D/0211/38/LL which restricted connecting the sewerage system of a constructed two dwelling development to the sewerage system of Tŷ'n Pwll. a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background to the application. b) It was noted that the condition, attached to planning permission C10D/0211/38/LL, restricted the connection of the residential development's sewerage system to Tŷ'n Pwll's sewerage system. Tŷ’n Pwll’s sewerage system was by now the responsibility of Welsh Water, who did not object to the application. c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the local member, who was not a member of this Planning Committee, noted that serious concerns remained regarding the site’s sewerage system. He added that doubts continued regarding the capacity of the sewerage system to receive additional connections. ch) The member accepted that Welsh Water was now responsible for the whole of Tŷ’n Pwll’s drainage system, and he noted that he expected that any further problems regarding the systems on Tŷ’n Pwll Estate and Cysgod y Bryn Estate would be resolved. d) In response to further observations by the member, it was noted that concerns regarding construction vehicles travelling through Tŷ'n Pwll Estate to the development site would be flagged up with the developer, and that they were outside the discussions of this Planning Committee.

RESOLVED to approve the application unconditionally.

3. Application no. C11/1018/45/LL – Hafan, Yr Ala,

Erect a new dwelling at the rear of Hafan for the applicant’s family so that Hafan could be used as a granny annexe. a) In accordance with the Planning Officers’ response to the many objections received, and the fact that the meeting of the Planning Committee was being held in Pwllheli, the members of this Committee had visited the site prior to the meeting. b) The Planning Service Senior Manager expanded on the background to the application and referred to the latest changes to the plan, where additional windows on the side and front gable-ends had been eliminated, and windows included in the roof and slate part of the wall which faced the front. He added that additional plans had been received which gave details of the scale of the original plan, in light of concerns that had been stated by individuals, but he did not consider that the difference in the scale due to the method of developing the plans was more than 2.5%, and would not be likely to have misled anyone on the scale of the development.

3 c) He explained that the following additional information had been received after notifying residents of amended elevation plans, which eliminated windows in the roof and windows on the gable-end facing Hafan, and included the installation of one velux window only:  18 correspondences in response to the amended plan, namely 14 objections, one letter of objection with 9 names on it (one of those names had also stated that she had no objections). The objections reiterated original concerns, with doubts being raised regarding the need for an annexe, together with observations that a Section 106 Agreement should be imposed, binding the two houses.  Agent – additional plans were submitted, emphasising the scale and showing the surface water disposal system.  The response of the Environment Agency on a surface water disposal plan stated – No observations to give on this – it is a mater for Building Control, and although the intention to use SuDS/soakaway to deal with the surface water is welcomed, the development is too small to provide specific comments. It is anticipated that Building Control will expect to see a percolation test to ensure that the land is suitable for a soakaway.

A letter was also received on the day of the Committee noting that a covenant existed in relation to the site, restricting development of the site in many ways. In response, it was noted that a covenant was a legal matter between landowners rather than a planning matter. ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted that the development would impair on the privacy of her and her mother – they lived close to the site. She further emphasised that several of the residents of the Erweni and Ala Estates objected to the application, and that a two-storey house would be out of character, given that bungalows occupied the vicinity.

She referred specifically to the covenant that restricted the development of the site.

She stressed her objection further by noting that the two-storey house would cast awful shadows and would impact on several nearby properties. d) The applicant’s son took advantage of the right to speak and noted that the intention was to prepare a provision to care for his mother in the future, and to have a reasonably sized garden. The following main points were made by him in addition:  That extensive discussions had been held before the original application was submitted;  That reference had been made to a similar application that had been approved on a nearby site in 2003;  That plans for an entrance to the site had been deemed acceptable by the Council’s Highways Department.  That the plans had been changed in order to try and comply with the planning officers’ recommendations, and in response to the concerns of nearby residents.  That the application was not considered to be an overdevelopment by the planning officers;

4  That the plan had been set out so that it was suitable to the site. d) The local member, who was not a member of this Planning Committee, said that he objected to the proposal on the basis that it was an overdevelopment, out of character with the neighbouring bungalows, and parking difficulties. He emphasised that numerous concerns had been stated in the past and that the current plan did not alleviate these.

However, he noted that having a bungalow on the site with a suitable entrance and parking area would be acceptable. dd) The Senior Solicitor explained that any legal covenant was not a matter for consideration, and that the Committee's responsibility was to consider whether or not the proposal was acceptable in planning terms.

He added that a condition would suffice in order to bind the new property to Hafan, and that a Section 106 Agreement was not necessary. e) Members expressed concern in relation to the following matters:  The size of the house would create a dangerous precedent;  The need to safeguard the amenities of the local neighbourhood;  The overbearing effect of the house on the estate, and that the house would be out of character amongst the bungalows

A proposal to refuse the application was seconded, but it fell.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Conditions: Bind the two properties as a house and granny flat; Commence the work within five years; Materials to be agreed; Landscaping; Levels in accordance with flood prevention requirements; Abolish permitted development rights for additional windows and extensions; In accordance with the amended plans; The parking site to be completed prior to using the house; Protect a sewerage pipe and separate disposal of surface water and foul water; Agree a procedure for the sustainable disposal of surface water; Comply with the requirements of level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

4. Application no. C11/1026/39/LL – Castell March, Abersoch

Erect an 80KW wind turbine on an 18 metre high column with blades measuring 18 metres in diameter, and ancillary equipment. a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background to the application and noted that the agent had by now amended the application, so that the height of the wind turbine's column was reduced from 24 metres to 18 metres.

5 b) He noted that the recommendation continued to be to refuse, due to concerns regarding the proposed location, and he suggested that the members could either discuss the application and consider the reduced height of the turbine, or allow time for further discussions to be held regarding the location. c) Taking advantage of the opportunity to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main points:  That the Welsh Government acknowledged that climate change was a real threat;

 That the Welsh Government had set ambitious targets for natural production and reducing the carbon footprint as a result;

 That the Arbed Programme, established in 2009, aimed for Wales to produce twice the amount of natural energy within a year’s time;

 That they were the fourth generation to farm in Castellmarch, and that they were trying to plan positively and responsibly for the future;

 That the Planning Department’s recommendation to refuse a 24 metre wind turbine had been a disappointment, and that precedent had been set, given that three turbines had already been approved in the area, with two of those measuring 24 metres and the other measuring 22 metres;

 That a turbine on a neighbouring farm to Castellmarch was located within a 100 metres of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and that the proposed turbine would be 500 metres away from the AONB;

 That the application complied with policies because the wind turbine was small-scale and on a site over 500 metres away from an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. ch) Since the local member could not speak on the application as he had declared a personal interest, a member from an adjoining ward, Councillor John Gwilym Jones, was nominated to submit observations.

He noted that the production of clean energy was a principal aim by the Welsh Government, and that he would be supportive of having a 24 metre turbine on the site. However, the applicant was eager to complete the work so that the turbine was in operation. He expressed some dissatisfaction since the 18 metre turbine would not be sufficient for the requirements of the farm and the various sections of the tourism industry there.

The Councillor explained further that the applicant’s aim was to extend the tourist season there, and that the demand for additional energy was evident. He highlighted the fact that an 18 metre wind turbine produced around 10% less energy than a 24 metre turbine.

6 However, given the applicant’s eagerness to continue with the development promptly, he was willing to support the amended plan, with the size of the turbine column being reduced to 18 metres. d) The Planning Service Senior Manager referred to the fact that and Anglesey had jointly prepared a Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance document on Onshore Wind Energy, which would begin its period of public consultation soon. The turbine would be located within an area where the Guidance would require that a landscape and visual impact assessment be carried out, as it measured over 15 metres to the tip of the blade. dd) The proposal was supported by some members and concern was expressed by another member about the risk of setting a precedent and affecting the area.

RESOLVED to approve the application, subject to relevant conditions to be imposed by the service, for a wind turbine measuring 18 metres high to the top of the column. The members’ reasons for acting contrary to the officers’ recommendation – that the size of the turbine has been reduced to an 18 metre column, which therefore has less amenity impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Relevant conditions to be prepared by the officers.

5. Application no. C11/1103/15/AM – Land near Tŷ Du Road, Llanberis

An outline application for the erection of 14 dwellings, site clearance and the creation of a new access and estate road (a revised application to a previously refused application for 16 dwellings: Ref. C10A/0506/15/AM). a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background to the application together with the officers’ recommendation to approve the application with conditions. b) Members were reminded that a previous application for 16 dwellings on the site had been refused, and it was noted that an appeal had been submitted in relation to this refusal. c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:  That the site was within the development boundary of Llanberis;  That there was a need for a residential development in the area, and that the various sizes of the units would be of benefit to many, including those wishing to move to a property of a higher standard;  That the planning officers had recommended approving the previous application for 16 units, and that an appeal had been submitted following the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse the application;  That there was room for 24 units on the site according to planning policies;  That a reduction in the number of units made it difficult for the development to be viable;

7  The neither the Environment Agency nor Welsh Water objected to the application;  That the application had been prepared in full consultation with the Transportation Unit;  That the planning officers also recommended approving the application. ch) The local member, who was not a member of this planning committee, noted that he did not object to development on the site in principle, but he believed that having 14 units there would still be an overdevelopment.

He further drew attention to the following main points:  That it was difficult to develop the site as there was wet and rocky land there, and there was also a tree preservation order in force there;

 That the sewerage system was a cause for concern, and he wished for this matter to be addressed by the officers;

 That the site was beside Fron Goch road which ran past the local school;

 That additional development created additional parking problems;

 That the safety of the access caused concern. d) The local member suggested that the number of units could be reduced from 14 to 11, with a house near the entrance, and two houses situated along Fron Goch Road being deleted from the plans. dd) In response, the Planning Service Senior Manager confirmed that he had been given to understand that the Environment Agency and Welsh Water had expressed concern regarding the effect of sewerage on Llyn Padarn, and that a report was currently being prepared to this end.

The Senior Manager also referred to the observations of the Biodiversity/Trees Unit, which noted that the site was not suitable for a development of this scale, due to the need to safeguard wetland and trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order. e) A member noted that there were several matters to be considered, including the outcome of the appeal on the previous application, and the problems with the sewerage system, and she therefore proposed deferring the application.

RESOLVED to defer the application in order to allow time to: a) hold further discussions with the applicant regarding the possibility of reducing the number of houses to 11; b) obtain further information from the Environment Agency / Welsh Water regarding the effect of sewerage on Llyn Padarn; c) obtain details regarding the outcome of the appeal submitted in relation to the refusal of the previous application.

8 6. Application no. C11/1122/39/LL – Hendy Farm, Abersoch

Install 50KW photovoltaic panels.

The members of this Committee had visited the site before the meeting. a) The Planning Service Senior Manager expanded on the background to the application and noted that an amended plan had been received, showing the panels divided into two blocks, but there had been no public consultation on this plan prior to this meeting. He added that the size and angles of the panels were not entirely clear, and he suggested deferring the application in order to hold further discussions with the applicant, or refusing the current application so that an entirely new application could be submitted. b) Additional information had been received noting that the Community Council objected to the application because it would be an overdevelopment in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would set a precedent. c) Furthermore, observations had been received from the Llŷn AONB Officer in reference to the original plans. Although noting the benefit of the panels with regard to energy production and carbon reduction, he noted that the development would be prominent and obtrusive from several locations in the AONB.

He further noted that the panels would be dark-coloured on agricultural fields, and would intersect a historical clawdd. ch) A further letter had been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:  The site was within an AONB;  The proposal would have a significant visual and environmental impact on the area;  It would destroy an old Llŷn clawdd between the fields, thus changing the landscape;  The development would be outside the development boundary of the village of Abersoch;  The application was an industrial application and was therefore contrary to many policies and guidance that were relevant to development in conservation areas;  The plan would generate 50KW and not 2.5 – 3.5 KW like an ordinary domestic dwelling, and would change the character of the area with all the panels and frames;  The application would open the door to a number of other applications in the nearby fields in the area;  Policy C27 spoke of 5MW which equated to more than 1,000 solar plans for an ordinary house;  Wished for reconsideration of the 5MW maximum in policy C27.

After contacting the applicant with a request to move the solar panel to the north- eastern end of the field, additional information had been received showing that part

9 of this site was overshadowed by housing, trees and hedgerows and that it would not be suitable to place it there, and that part of the field adjacent to the farm’s entrance was required as a turning space for tractors and large vehicles that would be visiting the farm. However, the application had offered a satisfactory alternative site to the west of the clawdd. d) Members expressed concern regarding the uncertainty surrounding the application. Furthermore, a member expressed concern that there were changes to plans that were submitted in meetings, which meant that the plans were different to what was included in written reports, and this generally caused confusion.

RESOLVED to defer the application in order to allow time to hold further discussions with the applicant, so as to obtain clear plans and details with regard to the size and location of the panels, and for additional public consultations to be held locally when the full information is available.

7. Application no. C11/1177/23/R3 – Ysgol Gynradd Llanrug, Llanrug

Extensions to the existing classrooms and demolish the temporary teaching unit. a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background to the application. b) It was confirmed that the local member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), had expressed his support to the application.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Conditions: Commence the work within five years In accordance with the plans Natural slate Ensure that the rear windows are shut during school hours Details regarding the photovoltaic panels to be approved Details regarding erecting a new boundary wall to be approved

8. Application no. C12/0011/39/LL – Cae Crowrach, on the land of Nant y Big, Cilan.

Retain use of land as a boat storage area. a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background to the application. b) As additional information, the observations of the Llŷn AONB Officer were received, who noted that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the AONB given the landscaping and earthen clawdd proposed. He wished for a condition to be imposed to ensure that boats would not be stored on the site over the winter.

10 c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant referred to matters that had been noted in the planning officers’ report, confirming the need for the storage area and the fact that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the Llŷn AONB. ch) He elaborated and drew attention to the following main points:  Placing boats/jet skis near the static/touring caravans was not allowed, and it was therefore necessary to provide storage areas to satisfy the need in order to comply with Health and Safety regulations;

 That there was no objection from the Transportation Unit or the Fire and Rescue Service;

 That the site was not significantly prominent in the vast landscape of the AONB;

 That the proposal was not considered contrary to policy B23 - amenities;

 That there were no significant concerns regarding the access;

The applicant added that he accepted the conditions that were recommended. d) As the local member could not take part in the discussion, since he was the applicant, Councillor R.H. Wyn Williams, the member of an adjoining ward, was nominated to submit observations on the application.

He noted that the caravan site had been well-established for years and was very popular.

He reiterated observations that had been noted in the planning officers’ report and emphasised that a storage area was essential in order to comply with health and safety regulations.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Conditions: Restrict the number of boats to 10 Restrict the storage period to the standard touring holiday season Erect a clawdd and landscaping within a month of receiving permission Restrict the storage of boats to users of the Nant y Big and Cae Crowrach caravan site only.

The meeting commenced at 1.00pm and concluded at 2.35pm.

11