Democratic Service Complete Agenda Swyddfa’r Cyngor CAERNARFON Gwynedd LL55 1SH

Meeting

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date and Time

1.00 pm, MONDAY, 22ND JULY, 2019

*NOTE*

This meeting will be webcast https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/l/en_GB/portal/home

Location

Siambr Dafydd Orwig - Pencadlys Caernarfon

Contact Point

Lowri Haf Evans 01286 679878 [email protected]

(DISTRIBUTED 12/07/19)

www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru PLANNING COMMITTEE

MEMBERSHIP (15)

Plaid Cymru (8)

Councillors Elwyn Edwards Simon Glyn Berwyn Parry Jones Huw Gruffydd Wyn Jones Elin Walker Jones Edgar Wyn Owen Gareth A. Roberts Gruffydd Williams

Independent (4)

Councillors Eric M. Jones Anne Lloyd Jones I. Dilwyn Lloyd Eirwyn Williams

Llais Gwynedd (1)

Councillor Owain Williams

Gwynedd United Independents (1)

Councillor Louise Hughes

Individual Member (1)

Councillor Stephen W. Churchman PROCEDURE FOR SPEAKING ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS IN THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The Council has decided that third parties have the right to speak on planning applications at the Planning Committee. This leaflet outlines the normal operational arrangements for speaking at the committee.

1. Report of the Planning Service on the planning application including a recommendation.

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

3. Objector or a representative of the objectors to address the 3 minutes committee.

4. Applicant or a representative of the applicant(s) to address the 3 minutes committee.

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

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

7. The committee to discuss the planning application AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES

To accept any apologies for absence.

2. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS

To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters.

3. URGENT ITEMS

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

4. MINUTES 6 - 14

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 01 July 2019, be signed as a true record.

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department.

5.1. APPLICATION NO C19/0090/33/LL - TOURING CARAVAN PARK 15 - 34 WITH PODS, PLAS YNG NGHEIDIO, BODUAN, PWLLHELI

Site 8 additional pods, extension to site, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies

Link to relevant background documents

5.2. APPLICATION NO C19/0305/03/LL - 1 BRO DDWYRYD, BLAENAU 35 - 44 FFESTINIOG

Two storey rear extension and side conservatory

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor R Glyn Daniels

Link to relevant background documents

5.3. APPLICATION NO C19/0338/42/LL - BWTHYN BRIDYN, LON 45 - 61 BRIDYN, MORFA NEFYN, PWLLHELI

Front extension, create first floor balcony, alterations to roof and extend outbuilding to create annexe LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth T Morris Jones

Link to relevant background documents Agenda Item 4. PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

Present: Councillor Elwyn Edwards – Chair Councillor Eric M. Jones – Vice-chair

Councillors: Stephen Churchman, Anne Lloyd Jones, Berwyn Parry Jones, Huw G. Wyn Jones, Edgar Wyn Owen, Gareth A. Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, Gruffydd Williams and Owain Williams.

Others invited: Councillors Annwen Daniels and John Brynmor Hughes (Local Members).

Also in attendance: Gareth Jones (Senior Planning Service Manager), Cara Owen (Planning Manager), Keira Sweenie (Development Control Team Leader), Rhun ap Gareth (Senior Solicitor) and Bethan Adams (Member Support Officer).

Apologies: Councillors Simon Glyn, Louise Hughes, Elin Walker Jones and Dilwyn Lloyd.

1. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND PROTOCOL MATTERS

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

 Councillor John Brynmor Hughes (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.3 on the agenda (planning application no. C19/0027/39/LL);  Councillor Annwen Daniels (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda, (planning application number C19/0154/03/LL).

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

2. MINUTES

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee, that took place on 10 June 2019, 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 policy aspects.

RESOLVED

1. Application Number C19/0149/46/LL - Congl y Cae, Llangwnnadl, Pwllheli

Demolish existing outbuilding and construct a single-storey extension to dwelling and conversion of outbuilding into two holiday units

(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this application was deferred at the Committee meeting on 20 May 2019 in order to have an opportunity to consider the context of appeal number (C18/0023/42/LL), which was refused for reasons relating to an excess of second homes in the area. It was noted that as a result of the figures noted in the appeal decision, it was considered necessary to re-assess the application against the relevant figures.

Page 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

It was noted that an application for the 'Demolition of outbuilding attached the house and erect a single-storey extension in its place', which formed part of the submitted application, had been approved on 28 June 2019.

It was reported that an appeal for a lack of decision had been registered with the Planning Inspectorate. It was explained that should the application be refused or deferred, the appeal would continue.

Attention was drawn to additional comments received, which included the observations of the Business Support Unit of the Economy and Community Department on the robustness of the business plan.

It was noted that Policy TWR 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP) permitted proposals to convert existing buildings such as agricultural buildings into holiday accommodation as provided they complied with five criteria. Reference was made to criterion 'v', which required that 'The development does not lead to an excess of such accommodation in the area.'

It was revealed that the applicant, in accordance with the requirements of Policy TWR 2, had submitted a comprehensive business plan that included investment figures, costs and projected letting figures, and it was considered that its content was realistic and demonstrated the viability as holiday use. The Business Support Unit of the Economy and Community Department agreed with these findings, and were satisfied that it was a suitable business plan for the application.

It was noted that over-concentration had been assessed in the context of the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation and the appeal decision on Tŷ’n Pwll, Nefyn It was revealed that the assessment had confirmed that 14% of the domestic units in the area of Tudweiliog Community Council were second homes, therefore this was higher than the 10% threshold used by the Inspector on the appeal in Nefyn. It was explained that the applicant did not agree with the figures, and noted that the majority of second homes were not let, and that he disagreed with the grounds to which the over-concentration was assessed.

It was noted that despite the applicant's arguments and although all the other TWR 2 matters were acceptable, on the basis of the current above figures and in light of the Inspector's decision and assessment on the Ty'n Pwll, Nefyn appeal, a recommendation to refuse the application had to be made on the grounds of an over-provision of such accommodation and contrary to criterion 'v' TWR 2 of the LDP and the threshold of Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation (2011).

(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:-  That substantial alterations had been made to the proposal in order to make the development acceptable;  That the recommendation of the officers had been amended, and the figure of 14% of domestic units being second homes in the area of Tudweiliog Community Council was the basis to the recommendation to refuse the application;  That the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation (2011) was outdated. The Supplementary Planning Guidance – Tourist Facilities and Accommodation, which was to be adopted, considered the strength of the business case rather than specific percentages. The planning officers and the Business Support Unit confirmed the robustness of the business case;  That the current average of second homes in Gwynedd was 8.5%, with Tudweiliog at 14% and Nefyn at 33%;  Extensive research had been conducted, which had demonstrated that there were no more than 25 self-service units in the ward, and none of them were at a 5* level, namely the intention for this development; Page 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

 That Nefyn's situation was different to the Tudweiliog area, with five times more second homes in Nefyn;  The proposal would mean keeping the same footprint and external characteristics;  A local person would be employed to supervise the site, and the intention was for the applicant and his family to settle in Congl Cae after his children completed their education.

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

Reason:

Since 14% of second homes were within Tudweiliog Community Council the proposal would lead to an over-concentration of self-serviced holiday accommodation in the area and was therefore contrary to criterion v of Policy TWR 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (2017) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation (2011).

2. Application no C18/1133/14/LL – Cwm Cadnant Valley, Ffordd Llanberis, Caernarfon

Replace 32 touring caravan pitches with 25 holiday lodges for year round holiday use.

(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that the proposal involved locating 25 holiday units within a concealed site and within the built environment and it was considered that this proposal would not lead to an over-concentration of similar static caravan/chalet sites in the vicinity of the application and that, in itself, it would not have a substantial and significant impact on the character and amenities of the local landscape. It was explained that the proposal would reduce the density of the use of the current site, by replacing 32 touring caravans.

Given its concealed location within the townscape; its scale which was less dense than the current use and the fact that it appeared that the holiday accommodation and the overall site would provide high quality facilities, the proposal was acceptable.

It was revealed that there were flooding issues on parts of the site, and that the applicant had moved the chalets from the part that suffered flooding, and that there was no access within the flood zone. It was noted that Natural Resources Wales was satisfied with the proposal.

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

(b) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 There were many static unit sites in the area, and the number of static units in the area was way above the threshold of over-concentration. Of the opinion that converting a static caravan site into a permanent static units site was a step too far;  With regard to the Tourism Unit's concern regarding the overprovision of static units and the lack of touring sites in the Caernarfon area, what assessment had been made? The number of touring caravan sites in the area needed to be protected;  The proposal would mean less transport, and would not be visible from anywhere;  The development was better than the existing development. Would the applicant sell or let the chalets?  The proposal would be an improvement to the site, with a reduction in the number of units. The Town Council did not object the proposal, it was not possible to restrict the

Page 8 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

use of the site to 11 months in accordance with their wish, but imposing a holiday use condition only/keeping a register would ensure that the chalets would not be occupied as permanent homes.

(c) In response to the above observations, the officers noted:  In the context of Policy TWR 3 of the JLDP, over-concentration was assessed in terms of the capacity of the local landscape for additional holiday chalet or caravan developments. The development would not be visible in the landscape;  That the Tourism Unit's wish was to have more touring sites. That there were touring sites in the area and there was potential in the landscape for new touring sites. The proposal did not undermine any planning policies;  The Anglesey, Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park Capacity and Sensitivity Study - (Gillespies, 2014), noted that there was capacity for small developments;  The applicant's intention to sell or let the chalets was unknown, but there was no requirement to receive this confirmation.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Conditions: 1. Time (five years) 2. In accordance with the plans 3. Submit and agree a detailed Environmental Construction Method Statement for the period of developing the site. 4. Must adhere closely to the submitted Ecological Survey recommendations 5. Condition of holiday use only/keep a register 6. Welsh Water Condition 7. A lighting plan must be submitted

Notes 1. Welsh Water 2. Natural Resources Wales

3. Application no C19/0027/39/LL – Land near Drws y Llan, Llanengan, Pwllheli

Construction of two affordable dwellings (amended application).

(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the site was in the countryside on the outskirts of the housing cluster of Llanengan. It was explained that Policy TAI 6 of the JLDP was the relevant housing policy for clusters, and this could enable the construction of houses in clusters if compliance could be secured with all criteria contained in the policy.

Details were given on the criteria:  Criterion 1: 'The need for an affordable house for local need (in accordance with the List of Terms) has been proven' - That the need for an affordable house for the initial occupiers of house number 1 had been proven, but the need for an affordable house for the occupiers of house number 2 had not been proven. In light of this, the proposal does not fully meet criterion 1 with regard to proving the need for affordable housing.  Criterion 2: 'The site is an infill site, between buildings highlighted on the relevant Inset Map, or a site directly opposite the curtilage of a coloured building' - The application site was not an infill site as it was not located directly adjacent to the curtilage of a coloured building with the county road between the road coloured in red and the site. The New Houses in Rural Villages Supplementary Planning Guidance gave an idea of the type of sites which were acceptable, and that sites where there was a road between the building coloured in red and the site were not suitable.

Page 9 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

 There was no concern with regard to criterion 3 and 4.  Criterion 5: 'The size of the property reflects the specific need for an affordable house in terms of the size and the number of bedrooms' - The houses in question were two- storey with an internal floor surface area of approximately 116m2. Since the application was submitted, a new Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Affordable Housing has been adopted. It could be seen that the size of the affordable houses had been reduced in comparison to the previous Affordable Housing SPG; now, the size for a two-storey, 5 person, three bedroom house was 94 square metres. It was not considered that the size of the houses reflected the size of affordable properties.  There was no concern with regard to criterion 6.  Criterion 7: 'There are mechanisms to restrict the occupancy of the house initially and in perpetuity to those who have a need for an affordable house' - As part of the application, an estimate was received for the proposed houses, which was prepared by Beresford Adams. The estimate noted that the open market price for the houses would be £325,000. A 45% discount linked to the Affordable Housing 106 agreement would not make the houses affordable for other families in the area. There had been instances in the parish of Llanengan in the past, where house prices were high and, therefore they were not really affordable houses. Consequently, 106 agreements were removed from the houses, thus making them open market houses.

It was recommended to refuse the application as the proposal was contrary to many criteria in Policy TAI 6. The need for an affordable house for local need had not been proven for both houses, the site was not in an infill site between buildings or a site that was directly adjacent to the curtilage of a coloured building, the size of the houses were larger than what was noted in the Affordable Housing SPG, and the price of the houses, even with a discount, would not ensure that they were affordable houses forever. The proposal was also contrary to Policy AMG 5 of the JLDP, because a reptile survey had not been submitted.

(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:  They had lived in the area for years, and that they felt passionate about the village and the location;  The proposal would enable both couples to stay in the area to raise a family;  The applicants worked in the area and contributed to the community; two of the applicants were builders, one worked in the medical field locally, and she was a new Headteacher at a local school;  As part of her work as a Headteacher, she worked in accordance with the Language Charter and Welsh Government's Cymraeg 2050 report, which aims to have a million Welsh speakers by 2050. Welsh Government's document noted: 'In Welsh communities, the challenge is to ensure that people have high quality jobs, attractive careers and homes in order for them to be able to stay or return to these communities';  That house prices in the area were extremely high, and the only option to settle there was to build a house. Land had been received from family in order to self-build, which was affordable in the true meaning of the word;  The prospective occupiers of house number 2 were not eligible under Tai Teg, because Tai Teg processes did not provide for self-builds;  The development would infill appropriately;  An attempt had been made to reduce the size in order to get closer to the criteria, but this was an attempt to develop homes for life;  Completely accepted the conditions of the Biodiversity Unit, and intended to follow the guidelines in order to avoid harm to the area's biodiversity.

(c) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:

Page 10 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

 That he had received a letter of support to the application from Liz Saville Roberts, Member of Parliament for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. He agreed with the observations in the letter, and therefore, he would read the content of the letter;  That the application site was an appropriate infill site;  That the propriety of the authority's affordable housing policies needed to be scrutinised in communities such as Llanengan;  The situation of Llanengan could not be compared with the situation of other communities in Gwynedd as Llanengan was an extension of Abersoch, and the open market housing in the area were not affordable;  The way the affordable housing policy was interpreted for the market housing situation in Llanengan should be revised; unless this was done, the affordable housing policy would not be implemented in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Gwynedd;  The specific circumstances of the applicants had not been considered in the context of self-builds;  That the size of the houses had been somewhat reduced, and the applicants were prepared to sign a 106 agreement;  In terms of the value of the houses in future, in order to satisfy the need, a sub- standard design would need to be agreed. The specification of affordable houses on a housing estate in Mynytho was different, therefore there was no consistency;  That the applicants had the means and the skills, and something was amiss in the interpretation of the policy if they were not worthy of affordable houses;  That the applicants had received advice from an officer that an application for two houses would be more acceptable in terms of infill;  That two small cottages were for sale near the site; one for over £300,000 and another for £250,000;  That the houses would only be served by one access, with the boundary being set back to widen the road;  Should the Committee believe that the application be refused, a site visit should be considered, because an appeal would be submitted should the application be refused;  Support for the application had been received from councillors and former councillors;  That the Community Council were surprised that their views had not been accepted.

(ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 That the application in question was unique, and would provide homes for life for professional Welsh people, enabling them to stay in Llanengan;  The policy did not take into consideration the situation of the nearby areas of Abersoch in terms of market prices;  Sympathy for the applicant's situation, but the proposal was contrary to too many policies, therefore the application could not be supported;  Full sympathy was given to the applicants, but a similar application had been refused in Llanbedrog. There was a need for consistency;  That the Welsh language and culture was under threat, and the economy of the area was fragile. It was a difficult decision, and that refusing the application would shatter the hopes of young families to stay in Pen Llŷn. Welsh Government's ambition of achieving a million Welsh speakers would not be realised if this application be refused;  A difficult application to determine. If the application be approved, it would go against policies and the policies would need to be reviewed; consequently, there would be an influx of such developments;

Page 11 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

 Sympathy with the applicants' situation, but the houses would be there forever. Tai Teg should look at the affordability of self-builds. The policies did not support the application;  Self-building was the only way to obtain an affordable house. In the context of infill, the houses were dispersed in Llanengan, and the land opposite was no better. That house prices in the Abersoch area were out of reach for young people and that they moved out of the area. The only way to keep Welsh speakers in the area was to approve the application. In accordance with what was noted in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, that the size of an affordable house was 94m2, which is too small to raise a family, therefore the size aimed for should be revisited;  The houses should be bound to an Affordable Housing 106 Agreement.

(d) In response to the above observations, the officers noted:  Whilst understanding that it was a difficult decision for the Committee, the policy set the circumstances in the context of affordable housing. The houses had been valued at £325,000, therefore the houses were not affordable, and there was no purpose to creating a 106 agreement. Approving the application would mean approving open market housing in the countryside;  That there were firm reasons to refuse, therefore approving the application would be contrary to the recommendation and contrary to policy. It was understood that members wished to support local people, but there were many properties for sale nearby. Although the houses would be affordable to build due to the skills of the applicants and land ownership, the houses would not be affordable in future. An intention to refer the application to a cooling-off period, should the application be approved, was noted;  The houses would not be affordable, even with a 45% discount linked to a 106 agreement. There had been a successful appeal to lift an Affordable Housing 106 agreement from a site near the application site, as it was not an affordable house. There was no doubt about the motivation of the applicants, but the houses would not be affordable. Similar applications had been refused not so long ago, and the application in question was contrary to policies relating to developments in the countryside. That there was a need to be aware of the implications of approving the application;  Although applications were considered on their own merits, consistency was necessary in relation to implementation. The application in Llanbedrog was refused on the grounds of affordability. There was a need to be cautious of the impact of a decision to approve the application on other applications. The reasons for refusing were robust and, of course, the applicants had a right to appeal;  That the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan was being monitored, and the plan would be reviewed in 2021, which could mean amendments, but the decision had to be made on the basis of existing policies;  Should the application be approved, it should be noted that it would be subject to receiving a reptile survey in order to comply with the requirements of legislation;  The houses could be bound to an Affordable Housing 106 agreement, but this would mean additional costs for the applicants. The agreement could be lifted on appeal as the houses would not be affordable.

RESOLVED to approve the application, contrary to the officers’ recommendation, subject to receiving a reptile survey report.

Reason: Satisfies the local need for housing.

The Senior Planning Service Manager noted his intention, in accordance with the Procedural Rules of this committee, to refer the application to a cooling-off period and

Page 12 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

to bring a further report before the committee highlighting the risks associated with approving the application.

4. Application no C19/0154/03/LL – Market Hall, Church Street, Blaenau Ffestiniog

Conversion of building into 14 flats.

(a) It was reported that late observations had been received from the Language Unit, which noted that they did not feel that sufficient information had been submitted by the developer in order to be able to form a full opinion on the impact of the development on the Welsh language; and, due to a lack of clarity in the developer's documents, the standpoint that there would be no impact could not be supported. The Committee was requested to defer the application in order to discuss with the applicant, and to understand the linguistic situation in the context of what was being offered as part of the proposal.

A proposal to undertake a site visit was made and seconded. A vote was taken on the proposal, but it fell.

RESOLVED to defer the application.

5. Application no C19/0323/11/LL – 233-235, High Street, Bangor

Alterations to the first and second floors to create eight self-contained living units, along with modifications to the front elevation of the building.

(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and it was noted that Policy TAI 9 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Local Development Plan (JLDP) permitted the subdivision of existing properties into self-contained flats, provided they complied with the relevant criteria.

It was noted that the Housing Mix Statement submitted by the applicant stated that there was a lack of provision with regard to one-bedroom units in Bangor. The information received from the Housing Strategy Unit confirmed a lack of provision with regard to this type of accommodation, stating that there were 940 applicants on the Council's Housing Options Team register who wished to obtain one-bedroom units in the Bangor area; and that approving this application would go some way toward responding to the demand for social housing of this kind.

It was confirmed that although the proposal did not provide more units than the indicative housing provision, the applicant had voluntarily submitted a Language and Community Statement. It was noted that the Language Unit had concluded that the development itself would not have a significant impact on the character and linguistic character of the community.

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

It was recommended to impose an additional condition to what was stated in the report, in order to ensure a waste bin/storage provision to satisfy the needs of the units permitted.

(b) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 There was an increasing number of applications to modify buildings into residential units in Bangor, and that there was a need to question whether there was any demand for these types of units; Page 13 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1/7/19

 940 applicants who were on the Council's Housing Options Team register wished to obtain one-bedroom units in the area;  Many applications of this kind were being approved, but not being developed; A concern that the applications would be implemented at the same time, leading to an influx of new one or two bedroom units at the same time;  There was no parking provision on the site - although there were public transport links, car parks and streets were full as employees parked all day, meaning that there were no parking areas for visitors. The situation needed to be monitored.

(c) In response to the above observations, an officer noted:  Monitoring work would be undertaken and consideration would be given to planning permissions and those that were being implemented in the context of the JLDP in its entirety.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Conditions: 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the plans. 3. Ensure that two of the units are affordable by submitting an affordable housing scheme. 4. A waste/bin storage provision to satisfy the needs of the units.

6. Application no C19/0414/18/LL – Rhiwlas Waste Water Treatment Works, Rhiwlas, Bangor

Extension of existing water treatment works site to install appliances, equipment and landscaping

(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and it was noted that the principle of approving developments for utilities' infrastructure such as water supply was based on Policy ISA 1 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Local Development Plan. Considering the scale and nature of this development in mind, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle.

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

(b) In response to an enquiry from a member, the Planning Manager noted that although the application was submitted by Welsh Water, observations were submitted as part of the statutory consultation from a different Unit from within Welsh Water.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Conditions: 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the plans. 3. Landscaping. 4. Comply with the mitigation measures of the Preliminary Ecological Report.

The meeting commenced at 1.00pm and concluded at 2.30pm.

CHAIR

Page 14 Agenda Item 5.1 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

Number: 1

Application C19/0090/33/LL Number:

Date Registered: 17/04/2019

Application Full - Planning Type:

Community: Buan

Ward: Efailnewydd/Buan

Proposal: Creation of camping site for 8 pods, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building

Location: Plas yng Ngheidio Touring Caravan Park with Pods, Boduan, Pwllheli, Gwynedd, LL538YL

Summary of the TO REFUSE Recommendation:

Page 15 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

1. Description:

1.1 The proposal involves creating a camping site for eight pods which would include an access road and parking spaces. As part of the application, it is also intended to construct an extension to the existing self-catering room in order to serve the eight new pods. From the information submitted as part of the application, it is understood that the occupancy period of the pods would be between 1 March and 31 October but the pods would remain on site and unoccupied during the rest of the year. The pods would be green and the rest would have a timber finish. They would measure 2.4 metres by 4.38 metres and with a height of 2.5 metres. It is intended to place them on hard- standings. As part the proposal, it is intended to excavate the field where the pods will be located so that its level is approximately one metre lower than its existing level. Timber post fencing and hog wire fencing will be installed along the boundaries of the site. There is no intention to plant and landscape. Part of the field would be used as an extension to the play area on the existing caravan site and touring pods. The extension to the existing self-catering room would measure approximately 3.5 metres by 3.5 metres and it would have a pitched roof made of corrugated sheets to complement the existing roof. The external walls would be finished to be in keeping with the existing property.

1.2 There is planning permission for a site for 18 touring caravans and two movable pods on a field to the east of the application site. This permission is for an occupancy period between 1 March and 31 October in any year and touring caravans or pods are not permitted to be stored on the site between 1 November and 28 February. Application number C17/0317/33/LL was approved to permit a storage area for up to 30 touring caravans on particular land within the farm's tenancy.

1.3 The site is located in open countryside within a Special Landscape Area. It is also located within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. The site is served by a third class road which runs parallel to the farm. The Cors Geirch Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is nearby which is also a Ramsar site and the Llŷn Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

1.4 The application is submitted to Committee as the site is owned by a Council member.

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 made in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Local Development Plan.

2.2 The Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 places a duty on the Council to take reasonable steps in exercising its functions to meet the seven well-being goals within the Act. This report has been prepared in consideration of the Council’s duty and the 'sustainable development principle', as set out in the 2015 Act. In reaching the recommendation, the Council has sought to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Page 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

2.3 Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-26, adopted 31 July 2017 TRA 2 – Parking standards TRA 4 - Managing transport impacts PCYFF 1 - Development boundaries PCYFF 2 - Development criteria PCYFF 3 - Design and place shaping PCYFF 4 - Design and Landscaping TWR 3 – Static caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation PS 19 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment AMG 2 – Special Landscape Areas AMG 5 - Local Biodiversity Conservation PS 20 - Conserving and enhancing cultural assets AT 1 - Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites and Landscapes, Parks and Registered Historic Gardens

Supplementary Planning Guidance – Holiday Accommodation (2011)

2.4 National Policies: Planning Policy Wales, Edition 10, December 2018 Technical Advice Note 13 – Tourism Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport

3. Relevant Planning History: 3.1 C17/0317/33/LL - Change of use of part of an agricultural field to store up to 30 touring caravans during the winter months – Approved 8 June 2017.

3.2 C16/1090/33/LL - Increase the number of touring units from the 11 that were approved to 19 (eight more) and erect a washing facility - Approved 20 December 2016.

3.2 C14/1218/33/LL - Change of use of a field to form a touring caravan site for 11 caravans and two camping ‘pods’ along with the construction of a toilet / shower block and installation of a new septic tank - Approved 27 March 2015.

3.3 C12/0718/33/LL Improvements to vehicular access and engineering work: Approved 16 July 2012

3.4 C12/0195/33/A Site for 12 touring caravans and washing facilities: Refused 19 April 2012

3.5 C08D/0048/33/AM Single-storey dwelling: Refused 14 April 2008

3.6 C07D/0267/33/AM Erection of two houses: Refused 19 September 2007

3.7 C02D/0035/33/LL Agricultural shed Approved 12 April 2002

Page 17 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

4. Consultations:

Community/Town Support. Council:

Transportation No objection to the proposal. Access has already been Unit: provided as part of a previous application and the site is located a short distance from the local 'A' class highway network, therefore, it is assumed that the extension is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the nearby roads network.

Natural Resources We have no objection to the application, but we do have the Wales: following observations:

Environmental Permitting The site is currently served by a septic tank and enhanced soak-away and benefits from an environmental permit to discharge following the previous development (Permit number EPR/AB3292FQ). However, if the site owners are increasing the volume of sewage generated above what the current permit allows for, as a result of the proposed development, then they will need to apply to NRW to vary the permit.

Protected Sites The site is within 120 metres of the Llŷn Fens SAC, Anglesey and Llŷn Fens RAMSAR, and Cors Geirch SSSI.

Special Area of Conservation We advise that Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 applies to this proposal and you should carry out a test of likely significant effects on the SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites listed above. We can help you reach a conclusion on likely significant effects. If that assessment concludes there is likely to be a significant effect, we can also advise on the further appropriate assessment that would be required under the regulations.

Site of Special Scientific Interest The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) places a duty on public authorities when carrying out their duties, as far as it is likely to affect features of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, to take reasonable steps which are in keeping with appropriately conducting their duties, to develop conservation and the improvement of those features.

By satisfying the requirements regarding the SACs, as indicated above, it is likely the requirements for the SSSIs will also be met.

Page 18 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

A reference also to advice for developers on how to manage the environment.

Biodiversity Unit: Observations 2 July 2019 Further to the previous observations of the Biodiversity Team (28/05/2019). The principle of the "septic tank and enhanced soak-away" to deal with sewage from the development was established in the previous application C16/1090/33/LL, and by means of an environmental permit from Natural Resources Wales (Permit number EPR/AB3292FQ). In order to ensure there will be no negative impact on the European site (Cors Geirch SAC) as a consequence of the development, evidence is required from the developer that this site can sufficiently cope with the additional volume generated as a result of connecting eight additional pods to the system. This information will need to be received from the developer before the development can be approved.

Observations 28 May 2019 The site is 150 metres from Cors Geirch which is a protected site as a SSSI and SAC. Cors Geirch is below the field in question where the pods would be constructed. Natural Resources Wales must be consulted with on this planning proposal. Where does waste water and sewage go? Cors Geirch has a sensitive hydrology and is sensitive to fertiliser. I have no concerns regarding the footprint of the development but we must consider the indirect impacts of fertiliser input from sewage on Cors Geirch. It would be better if farmers would allow a buffer along Cors Geirch in order to protect the marsh. I can assess the impact on Cors Geirch after receiving more information.

Public Protection Not received. Unit:

Fire Service: Not received.

Welsh Water: As the applicant intends to use a septic tank, it is recommended to contact Natural Resources Wales.

Caravans Officer: It can be seen within the proposed application that a parking space and seating area is between every pod. It must be ensured that a clear 3m gap is provided within the six metres between the pods. This development requires a site licence and licensing conditions will need to be met. The conditions are relevant to Health and Safety, Fire Safety and Public Health provision as follows:  Caravan Site and Control of Development Act 1960  Public Health Act 1936

Page 19 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

 Model Standards 1983 (Permit Conditions Touring Caravans / Tents)  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Public A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were Consultation: notified. The consultation period came to an end and one item of correspondence was received stating:

 No objection to the application for additional pods in principle but noting that the applicant has never moved the existing pods from the site over the winter which is contrary to the planning permission, and especially as the applicant is an elected member and should show the rest of her electors that she complies with conditions. If the applicant can confirm that all pods will be moved from the site between November and March every year, then I am satisfied with the application.

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

The principle of the development

5.1 A touring caravan site with mobile pods is operated from the field to the east of the application site. Conditions imposed on the planning permission restricts the occupancy of the site in question between 1 March and 31 October in any year and no touring caravan or pod is permitted to remain on the site over the winter. A particular site within the farmland has been agreed to store the units over the winter months. The existing permission is in order to locate eight pods with an occupancy period between 1 March and 31 October in any year but pods would remain on the site throughout the year. Access would be gained to the site along an existing agricultural track. Although the proposed site would share the same access to the county road, there is a different access to the proposed site and the existing caravan site. Facilities such as toilets / showers and facilities room will be shared between the existing site and the proposed development. As there is an intention to place the pods on the site throughout the year and that they are not permitted to be moved from the site during the winter months, the application must be considered under Policy TWR 3, which concerns touring caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation.

5.2 As referred to above, the proposal would involve the creation of a new permanent alternative camping accommodation site as it is intended to place pods on the land throughout the year. There is no intention to move them to a storage area on a particular site during the winter months. The site lies within a Special Landscape Area. Policy TWR 2 states that proposals to develop new permanent alternative camping accommodation sites within a Special Landscape Area will be refused. A Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Study was commissioned in Anglesey, Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park to manage developments such as static caravan and chalet sites by identifying and protecting sensitive areas, and particularly from inappropriate developments. The study concluded that perhaps there would be very restricted capacity in some areas outside the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Special Landscape Areas for static unit site developments. The outcomes of the Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Study form the basis for Policy TWR 3 which confirms that

Page 20 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

new static caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation would not be supported within the AONB nor the Special Landscape Area. In light of the above, the proposal is therefore contrary to point 1 of Policy TWR 3 as it would establish a new permanent alternative camping accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area.

5.3 The pods, that are the subject of the application, are of the same design as the two that have been approved on the nearby site. In that case, there was an intention to move the pods from the land during the winter months and such a condition was imposed on the planning permission. In a third party letter that was received about the application, it can be seen that there is doubt whether or not this takes place. Therefore, the Enforcement Unit will be required to investigate this matter to examine whether or not there is a breach of planning conditions on the existing site. It would be possible to impose a condition on the existing proposal that all pods are moved from the site between 1 November and 28 February. However, bearing in mind that information submitted with the application clearly notes that there is no intention to do so and that there is also doubt as to whether existing pods are being moved, it is not considered that it would be appropriate to impose such a condition as there is no certainty that there would be compliance with the condition.

Visual amenities

5.4 The proposed development is located in a field to the west of the existing touring caravan site with mobile pods. It can be seen from the cross-section plan submitted as part of the application that the field that is the subject of the application is approximately three metres higher than the ground level of the existing caravan site. As part of the proposal, it is intended to excavate the field so that its level is reduced by approximately one metre. This means that the lowest metre of the pods would be sunken in the ground compared to the existing ground level in the field. However, the highest part of the pods would be visible. Although the sides of the site would be graded when undertaking the excavation work, there is no intention to plant on the outskirts of the site and it is intended to install new timber post fencing and hog wire fencing on the western boundary of the site as installed on the eastern boundary. When landscaping information was requested as part of the registration process, it became apparent that the applicant does not intend to undertake landscaping work as part of the application. It was noted that green fields and cloddiau with hedges on top of them surround this site and that a clump of trees and hedges would look out of place in the local landscape. In addition, reference was made to the fact there would be a risk of the roots of plants damaging the pipes of land drainage systems and the stability of the retaining wall between the proposed site.

5.5 The field in question varies in terms of land levels and is currently comparatively visible and open, especially from the A497 county road above and near the Bryn Cynan roundabout, and on the approach from the roundabout down the slope towards the site. There is timber post fencing and hog wire fencing on the eastern boundary that abuts the existing touring caravan site. As noted above, the land of the application is on a higher level than the existing touring caravan site and although it is intended to excavate approximately one metre in the field in order to place the pods on the land, the highest part of the pods would remain visible in the landscape. It is realised that the dark green colour of the roof of the pods can reduce their prominence in the landscape; however, this does not overcome the fact that pods would be placed on higher land than nearby land and be in a location where there is no existing landscaping to assimilate them into the landscape. In addition, as explained above, it is not intended to undertake

Page 21 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

landscaping work as part of the application. Policy PCYFF 4 states that every proposal should integrate with their surroundings and will refuse proposals that do not show how consideration has been given to landscaping matters from the outset as part of the design proposal. The comments of the applicants regarding landscaping are recognised; however, it is considered that it would be possible to landscape around the site in a manner that matches with the cloddiau and hedges in the vicinity. The type of plants that would be used would need to be selected carefully. In addition, Policy AMG 2 requires that a development maintains, improves or restores the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area. It is not considered that approving a permanent pod site on this site would be of assistance to maintain, improve or restore the character of the Special Landscape Area. Indeed, due to its location on higher ground and with the presence of units on the land throughout the year, it is considered that the proposal would create further harm in the landscape of the Special Landscape Area which would be visible from the surrounding area. It is realised that it would be seen in the same context as the existing touring caravan site between March and October; however, the proposed units would be visible on their own during the winter months and on a higher level than the existing touring caravan site. A development of this nature and scale would therefore be likely to stand out obtrusively in the landscape and cause significant harm to the visual quality of the landscape and it is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy PCYFF 4 and Policy AMG 2 of the LDP.

5.7 The proposal also includes an extension to the facilities building. This extension would be finished to be in keeping with the existing property in terms of materials and appearance. It is considered that the extension to this building is acceptable and would not create an obtrusive feature in the landscape. It is considered that this part of the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy PCYFF 3 LDP.

5.8 The site lies within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. The proposal involves creating a new permanent alternative camping accommodation site. However, in terms of its location and size it is considered that the proposal would only have a local impact and that it would not have a broader impact on the historic landscape. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy AT 1 of the LDP.

General and residential amenities

5.9 Other than the Plas yng Ngheidio farmhouse, there are two dwellings in the surrounding area, namely a bungalow known as Tŷ Ni which is within the ownership of the farm as well as the property known as Graeanfryn which is opposite. It is not considered that a site with 8 additional pods would be an over-development of the site and would not lead to additional traffic to an extent that would significantly harm local amenities. The Graeanfryn site itself acts as a Caravan and Camping Club exempt caravan site, therefore, the use in question would be unlikely to affect the property any more than it currently experiences. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would cause significant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy PCYFF 2 LDP.

Transport and access matters

5.10 It is proposed that the existing entrance to the site be used for the development. The Transportation Unit submitted observations on the proposal and there is no objection to the proposal. It was noted in the observations that access has already been provided

Page 22 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

as part of a previous application and that the site is located a short distance from the local 'A' class highway network, therefore, it is assumed that the extension is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the nearby roads network. A parking space would be provided near every pod. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of road safety and complies with Policy TRA 2 and TRA 4 LDP.

Biodiversity matters

5.11 Cors Geirch lies approximately 200 metres to the north of the site which runs parallel with Afon Geirch. The marsh has been identified as a Ramsar site and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is of international conservation significance. The marsh is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of national significance. In the original proposal for the touring site, namely C14/1218/33/LL, Natural Resources Wales expressed concern regarding the proposed sewage disposal system and its possible impact on the protected site. A condition was imposed on that application to provide a reed bed. However, more recently on application C16/1090/33/LL, the applicant had discussions with Natural Resources Wales at which an understanding was reached that installing septic tanks with a soak-away of a higher than usual quality would be acceptable. Details of these septic tanks were submitted as part of application C16/1090/33/LL, and Natural Resources Wales and the Biodiversity Unit are satisfied with the details and that the capacity is sufficient for the proposal. The existing application intends to connect to the existing septic tank but the Biodiversity Unit and Natural Resources Wales have voiced concerns whether or not the existing system is sufficient to serve the proposal in question. The observations of the Biodiversity Unit require the developer to submit evidence showing that the system can sufficiently cope with the additional volume generated as a result of connecting eight additional pods to the system. It is noted that this information should be submitted before the application can be approved. As the basic principle of the proposal is unacceptable, the applicant was not requested to incur costs in terms of providing such evidence. However, this information would be required in order to fully assess the proposal against the requirements of Policy PS 19 and national planning guidance so as to ascertain whether the proposal is likely to have an impact on the designated SSSI, SAC areas and the Ramsar site.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 The site lies within a Special Landscape Area and the proposal involves the creation of a new alternative camping accommodation site. Policy TWR 3 does not support establishing new alternative camping accommodation sites within a Special Landscape Area and it is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to point 1 of Policy TWR 3 LDP.

6.2 The site is visible in the landscape and the site in question is on a higher level than the existing touring caravan site on the farm. The site would be visible in the landscape and it is not considered that the proposal would integrate well with its surroundings. Neither was it demonstrated as part of the application how consideration was given to landscaping matters as part of the proposal. In light of this, it is not considered that the proposal would do anything to maintain, improve or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 LDP.

Page 23 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

6.3 No evidence was submitted to demonstrate whether the existing septic tank has the capacity to serve the eight additional pods. Designated sites near the site include a Special Area of Conservation, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Ramsar site. As a result of this lack of information, the impact of the proposal on these sites cannot be fully assessed and, therefore, the proposal in its current form is contrary to the requirements of Policy PS 19.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To refuse – reasons:

1. The proposal would create a new alternative camping accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area and is therefore contrary to point 1 of Policy TWR 3 LDP.

2. It is not considered that the proposal would integrate with its surroundings and no consideration was given to landscaping matters as part of the proposal. In light of this, it is not considered that the proposal would add to maintaining, improving or restoring the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and that the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 LDP.

3. No evidence was submitted as part of the application to demonstrate that the existing septic tank has the capacity to serve the eight additional pods. Designated sites are near the site which include a Special Area of Conservation, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Ramsar site. As a result of this lack of information, the impact of the proposal on these sites cannot be fully assessed and, therefore, the proposal in its current form is contrary to the requirements of Policy PS 19 LDP and Planning Policy Wales.

Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Agenda Item 5.2 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

Number: 2

Application C19/0305/03/LL Number:

Date Registered: 24/04/2019

Application Full - Planning Type:

Community: Ffestiniog

Ward: Diffwys and Maenofferen

Proposal: Two-storey rear extension and side conservatory

Location: 1, Bron Ddwyryd, Blaenau Ffestiniog, LL41 3EN

Summary of the TO REFUSE Recommendation:

Page 35 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

1. Description:

1.1 A full application to erect a two-storey flat roof extension, with a single-storey conservatory to the gable-end of the house. The rear extension includes a kitchen / dining room on the ground floor, and two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. The rear extension will measure 7.8 metres in length and 4.8 metres in width, and extends from the rear wall of the house to the rear boundary wall, where there is currently a single-storey storeroom. The ground floor and first floor windows are located on the southern elevation, facing away from the neighbouring property. The conservatory will measure 5.5 metres in length and 3.5 metres in width. The property is located at the end of a row of two-storey houses. The site is served by an unclassified county road. It is noted that the property next door has a two-storey extension with a slate pitched roof, which extends over four metres from the rear elevation of that property.

1.2 The property is located outside the development boundary and within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

1.3 The application is submitted to Committee at the Local Member’s request.

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 made in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Local Development Plan.

2.2 The Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 places a duty on the Council to take reasonable steps in exercising its functions to meet the seven well-being goals within the Act. This report has been prepared in consideration of the Council’s duty and the 'sustainable development principle', as set out in the 2015 Act. In reaching the recommendation, the Council has sought to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

2.3 Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (LDP) adopted 31 July 2017:-

TRA 2: Parking standards

TRA 4: Managing transport impacts

PCYFF 1: Development boundaries

PCYFF2: Development criteria

PCYFF3: Design and place shaping

PS 20: Protecting and where appropriate enhancing heritage assets

AT1: Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites and Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens.

Page 36 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

2.4 National Policies:

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 10, November 2018)

TAN 12 Design (2016).

3. Relevant Planning History:

Application no. C18/0585/03/LL - Proposed two-storey extension on side of residential property, construction of a new two-storey holiday unit, as well as a detached double garage and domestic wind turbine - Refused 11 September 2018

4. Consultations

Community/Town Council: Support the proposal but draw attention to the observations on planning application C18/0585/03/LL regarding the Japanese Knotweed on the land, and the site's proximity to the River Dwyryd.

Natural Resources Wales No objection to the application, but note the following observations:

Flood Risk

The application site is not within a C2 zone, according to the definition of the development advice map referred to in TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004). However, the site is adjacent to Afon Du-bach, and there is therefore a possible flood risk.

Given the scale of the proposed development, and in the absence of a Flood Consequence Assessment, we deem that the degree of risk could be acceptable if the developer is notified of the potential flood risks, and they are advised to include flood resistance measures in the development.

Usual observations proposed.

Transportation Unit No objection

Page 37 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

Public Consultation: A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were notified. Objections were received on the following grounds: 1. loss of light from the ground floor kitchen window of the rear extension, and the living room window on the ground floor; 2. the extension is too large and doubles the size of the existing house; and 3. the extension would be built too close to the boundary wall that separates the two properties.

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

The principle of the development

5.1 Policy PCYFF 3 states that proposals will be approved, including extensions and changes to existing buildings and structures, if they comply with a number of criteria, including: that the proposal adds to or enhances the character or appearance of the site, the building or the area in terms of setting, appearance, scale, height, mass, and elevation treatment; that it respects the context of the site and its place in the local landscape; that it uses materials that are appropriate to their surroundings and incorporates soft landscaping; that it improves a safe and integrated transport and communications network; that it limits the risk and danger of flood water run-off and prevents pollution; that it achieves an inclusive design that allows access for all and helps to create healthy and lively environments taking into account the health and well-being of future users.

5.2 The plans show a proposal to build a two-storey rear extension with a flat roof, and a conservatory along the gable-end of the house. The property is located between two existing county ‘cul-de-sac’ roads, which form the rear and front entrances to the property, and it is likely that the proposal (conservatory and rear extension) will be visible from those roads. Although the proposal is unlikely to constitute a prominent feature in the wider landscape, concern must be expressed about the scale and design/form of the rear extension in relation to the character of the existing house. It is noted that Policy PCYFF3 supports proposals that contribute to and enhance the character and appearance of the site, building or area, and that respect the context of the site and its place in the local landscape. Although there is no objection to extending the house, it is considered that the design and scale of the proposed rear extension, that would extend 15 metres to the rear, compared with the side of the existing house which measures 7.2 metres, would be incongruous with the appearance and character of the property and would not conform to good design principles. Therefore it does not meet the policy objectives of PCYFF3 or the requirements of the Design Guidance.

General and residential amenities

5.3 A notice was placed on the site and nearby residents were notified. One letter of objection has been received, on the grounds that the proposal, due to the size of the extension, would have a negative impact on the neighbour's amenities. It is noted that planning permission was granted for the construction of a two-storey extension measuring over four metres in length, with a slate pitched roof to the rear of the neighbouring property in 1996; the permission has been utilised and the extension has

Page 38 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

been constructed. It is therefore considered that a precedent has been set for the construction of a two-storey rear extension to the property.

5.4 The current proposal involves constructing a two-storey flat-roofed extension that extends from the property's rear elevation to the boundary of the back yard, which is a distance of 7.8 metres. The plans show that the ground floor and first floor windows are located on the southern elevation, facing away from the neighbouring property, and therefore there are no concerns regarding overlooking. However, concern must be expressed regarding the proposal as its size and scale would have an oppressive/dominant impact on the residential amenities of the neighbour's property. It must also be acknowledged that the size of the curtilage allows the siting of a two- storey extension in a more acceptable location, and that this has already been suggested to the agent/applicant. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed rear extension is contrary to policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.

5.5 In relation to the side conservatory, it is not considered that it would have a significant negative impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property.

Transportation

5.6 It is not considered that the proposal would affect road safety. The Transportation Unit submitted observations confirming that it had no objection to the application. The proposal is in accordance with policy TRA 2 and TRA 4 of the LDP.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 Having considered the proposal in the context of relevant policies it is deemed that the proposal is not acceptable for approval.

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To refuse – reasons:

1. The two-storey rear extension, due to its length and scale, would create an oppressive and dominant feature that would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of residents of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP.

2. The proposal involves constructing a two-storey extension of a scale and design that is not in keeping with the character of the property, and therefore does not add to, or enhance, the appearance of the site. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP.

Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Agenda Item 5.3 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

Number: 3

Application C19/0338/42/LL Number:

Date Registered: 04/04/2019

Application Full - Planning Type:

Community: Nefyn

Ward: Morfa Nefyn

Proposal: Front extension, create a first floor balcony, alterations to the roof and extend an outbuilding to create an annexe

Location: Bwthyn Bridyn, Lon Bridin, Morfa Nefyn, Pwllheli, LL53 6BY

Summary of the TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Recommendation:

Page 45 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

1. Description:

1.1 This is an application to erect a porch on the front of the house, install a first floor balcony along the front of the house above existing flat roof sections, undertake alterations to the roof with a slate roof and a dormer door, front decking and extend the existing outbuilding within the property's curtilage to create an annexe at Bwthyn Bridyn, Lôn Bridyn, Morfa Nefyn.

1.2 The property is adjacent to the access to Morfa Nefyn beach but at a slightly higher level than the beach, with a high boundary wall surrounding the front and sides. An access track runs with the back wall and serves three other properties. It is a site in the countryside. Lôn Bridyn is an unclassified road that is adjacent to the site and Coastal Path number 19 Nefyn runs along the cliff to the back of the site. The site is outside the designated Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but is within 240m to it and is within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest. The beach is to the front and sections of the cliff at the back are within the Pen Llŷn a'r Sarnau Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the Porthdinllaen to Porth Pistyll Site of Special Scientific Interest. The site is within the Coastal Change Management Area and nearby but outside a C2 Flood Zone.

1.3 The application is submitted to the Committee at the request of the Local Member and two other members.

1.4 The original plans included alterations to the external boundary wall, by placing a glazed screen and with a new opening to the beach. These have now been removed by the amended plans, dated 3 June 2019.

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 made in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning considerations include National Planning Policy and the Local Development Plan.

2.2 The Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 places a duty on the Council to take reasonable steps in exercising its functions to meet the seven well-being goals within the Act. This report has been prepared in consideration of the Council’s duty and the 'sustainable development principle', as set out in the 2015 Act. In reaching the recommendation, the Council has sought to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

2.3 Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (31 July 2017) TRA 2: Parking Standards TRA 4: Managing transport impacts PS 5: Sustainable Development PS 6: Alleviating and adapting to the effects of climate change PCYFF 1: Development Boundaries PCYFF 2: Development criteria PCYFF 3: Design and place shaping ARNA 1: Coastal Change Management Area PS19: Conserving and where appropriate enhancing the natural environment AMG 1: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plans AMG 4: Coastal Protection

Page 46 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

AMG 5: Local Biodiversity Protection PS 20: Preserving and where appropriate enhancing heritage assets AT 1: Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites and Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens.

2.4 National Policies: Planning Policy Wales, (Edition 10) 2018 Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5: Planning and Nature Conservation Technical Advice Note (TAN) 12: Design Technical Advice Note (TAN) 14: Coastal Planning Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development and Flood Risk Technical Advice Note (TAN) 18: Transportation

3. Relevant Planning History: No record of planning history No pre-application planning enquiry.

4. Consultations:

Community/Town The Town Council objects on the grounds of change to the Council: area's appearance and look. These buildings are historic and it is important to protect them to safeguard the nature of the area. It is an over-development of the site and is very prominent from the sea and completely changes the landscape.

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

Observations to the second consultation I refer to the above application and specifically to the amended plans and confirm that I have no further comments to offer.

Biodiversity Unit: The building has an asbestos roof and is more or less on the beach. It is very unlikely that bats will be affected and therefore I have no Biodiversity concerns.

Observations to the second consultation Further to my previous observations: As Natural Resources Wales note in their comments, the application could have an impact on  Pen Llŷn a’r Sarnau Special Area of Conservation  and the Sea cliffs of Llŷn SAC: There is a possible pollution impact route to features from these sites. Gwynedd Council, as the Eligible Authority, is required to conduct a Test of Likely Significant Effect under Regulation

Page 47 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) before determining the application.

The first step is to undertake a Test of Likely Significant Effect: There is a small risk that some of the polluted material may escape from the site and have an impact on the features of the sites. The developer will be required to follow recognised good practice for this type of development. These have been detailed in the observations from Natural Resources Wales and there should be a condition. The developer is advised to follow the directions within Advice Note Pollution Prevention 5 "Maintenance work in water or close to water":

Outcome Due to the above details and the size of the development, Gwynedd Council can be confident that the Bwthyn Bridyn development will not lead to a Significantly Negative Impact on the features or the processes of the Pen Llŷn a'r Sarnau SAC, or Sea Cliffs of Llŷn SAC.

Water and The development is in a coastal area within the CChMA Environment Unit: listed in appendix 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2017), as it is intended to implement the 'Managed Realignment' in the West Wales Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) 2.

According to the recommendations of the LDP limited residential extensions in the CChMA that are closely related to the existing scale of the property and therefore do not result in a potential increase in the number of people living in the property will be permitted subject to a TAN 15 compliant Flood Consequences Assessment or a Stability Assessment.

The SMP is clear that the defences in front of the property would become under pressure with an increase in future sea levels, but that it is likely that the existing defences could be maintained over the coming 50 years (i.e. beyond the second period) without submitting amendments that would be contrary to the recommendations of the plan, and therefore the Managed Realignment policy is slightly misleading. With this in mind, we feel that the risk of coastal erosion linked to the development is acceptable.

A FCA has been submitted with the application, and we will leave NRW to offer comments on the contents of this report.

Observations to the second consultation The unit has no observations to offer on the additional information submitted for the above application.

Page 48 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

Maritime and We state concern regarding the proposal on the following Country Parks grounds: Officer  The alterations as shown in the plan are open to the weather and the sea.  The proposed alterations (appear to be) less robust than the existing situation.  The sea level is high on this foreshore particularly at high tide when there are strong winds behind the waves from the west to the north. This means that waves can hit the nearby structures.  The forecast is that the sea level will rise. This means that any sea storms can cause damage to property where the structure is not strong enough to with-hold the waves.

Natural Resources We recommend that you should not approve planning Wales: permission if you do not include the following conditions. These conditions will get to grips with the significant concerns noted by us and we would not object on condition that you attach these to the planning permission: Condition: The finished floor level of the development (extension) to be no lower than 4.8m AOD.

Flood Risk We have considered the flood consequence assessment (the FCA) (Wray Architects, Bwthyn Bridyn, flood consequence assessment, dated 02.04.19) submitted to support the application. Based on this information, we can say that the proposed finished floor level of the extension to the existing outbuilding will be set at 4.8m AOD which is above tide level by 0.5% (1 in 200) on the tidal scale including an allowance for 100 years of climate change. Therefore, the development complies with section A1.14 of Technical Advisory Note 15. We therefore have no objection to the development subject to attaching the following condition to any planning approval. Condition: The finished floor level of the development (extension) to be set no lower than 4.8m AOD.

We welcome the mitigation measures proposed in section 3 of the FCA and recommend that these are implmented. There is no specific flood warning for the village of Morfa Nefyn, but as the risk is tidal, it is likely there will be prior warning of any storms or tidal surges available through various media channels.

We also note the intention to use the existing outbuilding only as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling (section 1.2 of FCA) and not as a separate residential dwelling. If this is not undertaken then we would wish to have a second consultation. Although we do not object the proposal, in order to determine if flooding consequences

Page 49 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

can be managed in accordance with TAN 15, your Authority might also wish to consider the following: The application site is located outside a C2 zone, as defined in the development advice map referred to in TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004). Our Flood Map information, which is updated every quarter, confirms that the site is a little outside the extreme flood outline. These outlines do not include any allowance for climate change and therefore it is likely that the outline will extend over a wider area in the future. Extreme flood levels, referred to in the FCA, continues to be the water levels and do not consider the wind and waves that are likely to be significant in an open coastal location such as this.

Protected Sites From the information submitted, NRW are of the view that the proposal could have an impact on the Pen Llŷn a'r Sarnau Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the Porthdinllaen to Porth Pistyll Site of Special Scientific Interest. The application site is located nearby and is surrounded by the SAC site. NRW have noted a possible pollution impact route to features from this site. The route may not lead to a likely substantial impact if the developer adheres to suitable guidance on pollution prevention and waste management. Your Authority has not undertaken an assessment of likely significant impact under Regulation 63 of the Habitats and Species Conservation Regulations 2017, or it was not forwarded this for consideration to NRW. If you come to the conclusion that the proposed development is likely to have a substantial impact on the European site, we look forward to consulting with you regarding your appropriate assessment. In the absence of this assessment, NRW cannot offer any certainty that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the SAC.

Protected Species We note that there is no information regarding protected species with the application and therefore we take it for granted that your Authority has screened the application and has concluded that there is no reasonable likelihood of protected species being present at the site.

Observations to the second consultation Thank you for consulting on the amended plans. We can confirm that our response dated 25 April remains valid.

Welsh Water: Some public pipelines and drains that are not recorded. Inform that Welsh Water has right of access to its apparatus at all times.

Page 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

Public A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were Consultation: notified. The advertising period has expired. Eight letters / correspondences were received objecting on the grounds of:  Design - The size is out of character, Fishermen's cottages that have not been spoiled by modern developments.  Impact on the traditional character of the village  Effect on the AONB setting and views, contrary to policy AMG1  The site can be seen on postcards advertising Morfa Nefyn  Concern regarding safety with erecting the extension

5. Assessment of the material planning considerations:

The principle of the development

5.1 The application comprises two elements, namely the extension and the alterations to the house and the extension to the outbuilding to create an annexe. As far as the principle to develop the annexe is in question, the building to be converted touches the corner of the house and is within its current curtilage and is therefore close enough to be considered as an annexe. A residential annexe may be defined as accommodation that is ancillary to the main house and located within its curtilage. It should be specifically used for ancillary use and not as a separate dwelling. From the Agent's email, it is understood that the building has been used as storage over the years, with the first floor used as a play room and an overspill bedroom for the house, therefore the use would not be significantly different to the current use. It would make use of a previously used building which is favoured by policy PS5 in the LDP. Due to the close connection of the building to the house, it is not considered that this proposal would create a separate new living unit and the proposal is not considered to be tantamount to erecting a new house in open countryside. A condition can be imposed on the permission to restrict the use of the outbuilding to be converted as ancillary use to the house and that it is not used as a separate living unit, this would be a means to control use. Therefore, it is considered that the principle of providing an annexe is acceptable in this case.

Visual amenities

5.2 Policy PCYFF 3 of the Joint Anglesey and Gwynedd Local Development Plan (LDP) is the policy to be considered when assessing design, materials and the area's visual amenities. Currently the house has an asbestos sheeting roof and the proposal entails re-roofing with slate and installing a small dormer door in the front. The roof finish would certainly be an improvement and the dormer door would be small enough so that it would not cause substantial harm to the appearance and character of the frontage. There are two flat roof extensions on the front of the property and the proposal involves adding a small porch to it and using its roof and the existing flat roofs as a balcony with a glazed screen along its side. Several objections had been received to the proposal expressing concern about introducing modern features to the property as the existing fishermen's cottages were unspoiled. Whilst noting their points, it has to be considered that the extension would not be significant and that flat roof extension had already

Page 51 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

compromised a little of the property's character. Bearing in mind that only a light glazed screen would be in the front of the balcony and that the building's shape would not significantly change, it is considered that the changes would not significantly damage the appearance of the property to justify refusing the alterations. As the curtilage is enclosed with a high wall, the front decking would not be visible to the public. Since the alterations to the house are relatively minor, it is considered that they are acceptable additions in terms of appearance, scale and the treatment of elevations and comply with the requirements of policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP.

5.3 The second element involves erecting an extension on the existing outbuilding that forms part of the ownership of the property. The proposal involves constructing an extension to provide a living room. As the curtilage is enclosed with a high boundary wall, only a small section of the wall and the roof would be visible from the access road to the beach. There would be a high window on a section of the northern gable-end of the extension facing the beach. The original plans entailed taking down a section of the boundary wall and installing a glazed screen in its place together with opening a new independent access door in the wall down to the beach and splitting the curtilage. Concern was expressed about the visual impact of this and they were advised to take these out of their plans, and the amended plans dated 3 June 2019 has responded to this. The size of the extension is not unreasonable in comparison to the existing outbuilding, that has already been used informally as ancillary rooms to the house. We realise that the objections have stated concern about changing the appearance of a historic building, however, the alterations are not considered to be significantly intrusive and are not unacceptable in terms of scale, height and mass on this site that is enclosed by a high wall. Therefore, it is considered that the annexe element also complies with the requirements of PCYFF3.

5.4 The property is adjacent to the access to Morfa Nefyn beach, and is therefore visible to the public. A number of the objectors have expressed concern regarding the proposal's impact on the traditional character of the fishermen's cottages in a popular location and are postcard images. They have also stated that the proposal would have an impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, however, the property is not located within that designation which is approximately 240m west of the property in the direction of Porthdinllaen. Whilst we appreciate their points, it is considered that neither the design of the extensions nor the minor alterations to the front do not introduce inappropriate features to the site and are unlikely to harmfully affect the character of the property. The property has been set back at an angle from the adjacent housing with higher ground to the back and a high boundary wall in the front, this means that the vistas of it are comparatively local. We realise that views of the property and the nearby cottages can be seen from Porthdinllaen, which is within the AONB, however, considering the small scale of the development and that the roof would be the most visible alteration, it is not considered that the proposal would significantly affect the setting and the views out of the AONB from that distance. Therefore it is considered that refusal cannot be justified on the grounds of the impact on the AONB and it is not considered to be contrary to policies PS19 and AMG1 of the LDP.

5.5 The site is located within the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Area of Outstanding Historic Interest. The proposal involves constructing an extension to an outbuilding and alterations to the existing house and in terms of its location and size it is considered that the impact of the proposal would be local and would not have a wider impact on the historical landscape. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy PS20 and AT 1 of the LDP.

Page 52 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

General and residential amenities

5.6 There is a cluster of four houses at this location near the beach, but due to their setting the only property that would likely to be affected by the proposal would be Tŷ Newydd which is adjacent. Tŷ Newydd is set further forward in the direction of the beach than Bwthyn Bridyn, with a lean-to extending out to the back. During our site inspection it was noted that windows in the western gable-end of the lean-to would be comparatively close to the balcony. Based on concerns about over-looking from the balcony a solid screen was requested on the eastern side in order to reduce the potential of over-looking to the neighbour's windows. It is not considered that any other element of the application would have any significant detrimental impact on the amenities of local occupiers due to their distance and that they are one-storey. Having assessed the application against the requirements of policy PCYFF 2, it is deemed that the amended proposal that includes the screen has responded to and overcome our concerns about over-looking and would not now have an intrusive or detrimental impact on the neighbour's amenities, and is therefore acceptable in terms of policy PCYFF2 of the LDP.

Flooding Matters and Coastal Change Management Area

5.7 As this is an application for an extension to a house and an existing building, it is not considered that policy AMG 4 Coastal Protection is totally relevant in this case, as this policy deals with new developments. However, we did consult the Maritime Officer and he stated his concerns regarding the alterations to include a glazed screen instead of part of the boundary wall and opening a new independent access to the beach, as these will not be as robust and more open to the weather and the sea than the existing wall. Since then the plans have been amended and the alterations to the wall have been deleted from the proposal.

5.8 The site touches but is outside a C2 Flood Zone. A Flood Consequence Assessment was received in relation to the extension to the outbuilding with information as part of the application, and NRW was consulted. As this is an application from house occupiers involving extending and converting an existing building into an annexe for ancillary use to the house rather than to create a new house concerns regarding flooding are not as contentious in this case. The building's lower floor would be converted into a bathroom which is not a habitable room and the middle floor room of the extension would be raised a little. These measures would be a means of controlling flood risk for the residents. NRW confirm that the proposed finished floor level of the extension noted, namely 4.8m AOD above tide level by 0.5% (1 in 200) on the tidal scale including an allowance for 100 years of climate change. Therefore, they confirm that the development is acceptable with the floor level condition stated and this is in compliance with section A1.14 of Technical Advisory Note 15 and also satisfies policy PS 6 LDP.

5.9 The application site is on Morfa Nefyn beach and within the Coastal Change Management Area (CChMA), and therefore the application has to be considered against policy ARNA1. The policy allows some types of development in the CChMA such as extensions to existing housing, subject to the receipt of a TAN 15 compliant Flood Consequences Assessment. The Council's Water and Environment Unit were consulted and it was noted that the Shoreline Management Plan was clear that the defences in front of the property would become under pressure with an increase in future sea levels, but that it is likely that the existing defences could be maintained over the coming 50 years (i.e. beyond the second period) without submitting amendments

Page 53 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

that would be contrary to the recommendations of the plan, and therefore the Managed Realignment policy is slightly misleading. With this in mind, they feel that the risk of coastal erosion linked to the development is acceptable. The proposal complies with criterion 8 of the policy as the extension is limited and very close to the scale of the existing property. As the outbuilding has already been used as overspill rooms to the house, it is not considered that the proposal to formalise the one-bedroom annexe does not mean significantly increasing the number of people who live in the property. The development is ancillary and is within the curtilage of the existing house and therefore conforms to criterion 9. On the grounds of the favourable observations of the experts, and as the Flood Consequences Assessment has been received and confirmation from NRW that it satisfies the requirements of TAN 15, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the requirements of policy ARNA 1 of the LDP.

Transport and access matters

5.10 The property is served by an unclassified road that ends near the beach access. There is a parking area for two cars to pull in outside the property's garage together with the garage itself. The Transportation Unit was consulted and they had no objection to the proposal. Based on this, therefore, the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy TRA2 and TRA4 of the LDP.

Biodiversity matters

5.11 The Biodiversity Unit was consulted on the application and they state that as the building has an asbestos roof and is on the beach then bats are unlikely to be present. As the property is adjacent to the beach, Natural Resources Wales suggested that a Test of Likely Significant Impact should be undertaken by the Biodiversity Unit to establish if there could be a likely impact from the development on the conservation designations of Pen Llŷn a'r Sarnau Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI). It is noted that there is a small risk that some polluted material may escape from the site and the developer should follow good practice guidance as stated in NRW's letter. The Biodiversity Unit concluded due to the details noted and the size of the development, that Gwynedd Council can be confident that the development would not lead to a Significantly Negative Impact on the features and processes of the SAC. Based on the Biodiversity Unit's favourable observations, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of Biodiversity policies PS19 and AMG 5 of the LDP.

6. Conclusions:

6.1 Having weighed up the application and the amended plans against the requirements of the above policies, as well as considering all the observations and the objection, we conclude that the proposal is acceptable to approve with the planning conditions listed below.

Page 54 PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 22/07/2019 REPORT OF THE SENIOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SERVICE CAERNARFON MANAGER

7. Recommendation:

7.1 To approve with conditions:

1. Five years 2. In accordance with the amended plans 3. Slate 4. Finish to match 5. The high screen as shown in the amended plans on the eastern side of the balcony has to be retained at all times. 6. Use of annexe to be ancillary to the house only 7. NRW floor level condition Note referring to NRW letter

Page 55 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61