Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: To delegate powers to the Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to conditions relating to the following: 1. 5 years 2. Duration of works - 10 years at a rate of 125,000 tonnes per annum 3. In accordance with plans 4. Restriction of GPDO rights for buildings, structures, private roads, floodlighting, fencing etc. 5. A copy of the determination and approved plans to be shown at the site office. 6. Restriction of 125,000 tonnes per annum on material removed from site, at a maximum rate of twenty-five (25) HGV loads per day. 7. Surface of site access to county highway to be kept clean and no mud/debris to be deposited on highway. 8. No materials (refuse or waste materials) shall be imported to the site. 9. Mark the boundary of site and mineral extraction zones. 10. Working hours. No operations on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays or Public Holidays other than emergency, servicing and maintenance work. 11. All loaded vehicles must be sheeted or treated to avoid emission of dust. 12. Record of traffic. 13. No processing on site. 14. Noise limits and noise limits in relation to temporary operations. 15. Noise mitigation measures. 16. Acoustic fencing retained and bunding retained. 17. Vegetation, topsoil, subsoils to be stored in acoustic screening bund. 18. Noise monitoring. 19. Air quality limits and air quality monitoring. 20. Dust suppression measures and updated dust monitoring and control scheme. 21. Boundary of mineral extraction area to be temporarily fenced. 22. Groundwater monitoring. 23. Submission of detailed written scheme of investigation for archaeological work. 24. Submission of detailed analytical report of the archaeological work in accordance with the written scheme of investigation. 25. Restoration plan. 26. Storage/management of soils. 27. No soils to be removed from site, and the soil to be used in site restoration. 28. Soil storage mounds to be kept free from weeds. 29. Submission of restoration and 5-year aftercare plan. 30. Restoration in accordance with the 5-year aftercare and monitoring plan. 31. Ripping of ground to avoid compaction. 32. Correct sequence and spread of soils in restoration. 33. Conduct chemical analysis of soils during restoration. 34. No livestock to be kept until land is of an acceptable condition. 35. Annual review of operations and aftercare. 36. Revised scheme of restoration to be submitted to the LPA in the event of premature cessation of mineral extraction for a period of 12 months. 37. Mitigation measures for badgers, breeding birds, reptiles. 38. Restriction on removal of vegetation during bird nesting season. 39. Reasonable avoidance measures to protect reptiles during demolition of walls and field boundaries. 40. Pollution prevention measures. 41. Collection and disposal of water to restrict what is released to water environment. 42. Compliance with surface water management plan. 43. A condition to identify the site by its Welsh name.
RESOLVED: To delegate the right to the Assistant Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the application. 3. Submit details of external elevations. 4. Compliance with Part 5 (Interpretation and Advice) of the Ecology Impact Assessment document as well as the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and observations of the Biodiversity Unit. 5. Complete the landscaping scheme within a specific period. 6. Compliance with the contents of the Arboriculture Assessments. 7. The standard conditions of Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service regarding submission of details of an archaeological recording programme initially, and following this, the submission of a detailed report of the archaeological work within 6 months of completing the archaeological work at the site.
RESOLVED: To approve the application subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the application. 3. Submit details of external elevations. 4. Submission of asbestos details prior to demolition. 5. Compliance with Part 5 (Interpretation and Advice) of the Ecology Impact Assessment document as well as the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and observations of the Biodiversity Unit. 6. Complete the landscaping scheme within a specific period. 7. Compliance with the contents of the Arboriculture Assessments. 8. The standard conditions of Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service regarding submission of details of an archaeological recording programme initially, and following this, the submission of a detailed report of the archaeological work within 6 months of completing the archaeological work at the site.
RESOLVED To approve with conditions 1. Five years to commence the work. 2. In accordance with plans. 3. Slates to match. 4. Opaque glass to be installed along the side of the balcony that borders with number 6 Marine Terrace 5. In accordance with the ecology report 6. Welsh Water condition Information note: Welsh Water/Natural Resources Wales and Biodiversity
RESOLVED to confirm the order with changes.
RESOLVED: To refuse the application, which was contrary to policy TWR 2 and TWR 3 based on excess and scale; excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel.
Apologies were received from Councillor Louise Hughes and Councillor Gareth Coj Parry
a) The following member declared that he had an interest in relation to the item noted: b) Councillor Gareth Morris Jones (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.2 (C22/0302/22/LL) and item 5.3 (C22/0953/17/LL) due to a connection with Glynllifon College staff. The member was of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest, and he withdrew from the meeting during the discussion on the application and he did not vote on the application. c) The following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted: · Councillor Ioan Thomas (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.4 (C23/0959/15/AC) on the agenda · Councillor Huw Wyn Jones (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.5 (C23/0917/14/DT) on the agenda · Councillor Beca Brown (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.6 (C21/0861/23/LL) on the agenda · Councillor Berwyn Parry Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.6 (C21/0861/23/LL) on the agenda
None to note
The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 5 February 2024, as a true record.
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.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: To delegate powers to the Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to conditions relating to the following: 1. 5 years 2. Duration of works - 10 years at a rate of 125,000 tonnes per annum 3. In accordance with plans 4. Restriction of GPDO rights for buildings, structures, private roads, floodlighting, fencing etc. 5. A copy of the determination and approved plans to be shown at the site office. 6. Restriction of 125,000 tonnes per annum on material removed from site, at a maximum rate of twenty-five (25) HGV loads per day. 7. Surface of site access to county highway to be kept clean and no mud/debris to be deposited on highway. 8. No materials (refuse or waste materials) shall be imported to the site. 9. Mark the boundary of site and mineral extraction zones. 10. Working hours. No operations on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays or Public Holidays other than emergency, servicing and maintenance work. 11. All loaded vehicles must be sheeted or treated to avoid emission of dust. 12. Record of traffic. 13. No processing on site. 14. Noise limits and noise limits in relation to temporary operations. 15. Noise mitigation measures. 16. Acoustic fencing retained and bunding retained. 17. Vegetation, topsoil, subsoils to be stored in acoustic screening bund. 18. Noise monitoring. 19. Air quality limits and air quality monitoring. 20. Dust suppression measures and updated dust monitoring and control scheme. 21. Boundary of mineral extraction area to be temporarily fenced. 22. Groundwater monitoring. 23. Submission of detailed written scheme of investigation for archaeological work. 24. Submission of detailed analytical report of the archaeological work in accordance with the written scheme of investigation. 25. Restoration plan. 26. Storage/management of soils. 27. No soils to be removed from site, and the soil to be used in site restoration. 28. Soil storage mounds to be kept free from weeds. 29. Submission of restoration and 5-year aftercare plan. 30. Restoration in accordance with the 5-year aftercare and monitoring plan. 31. Ripping of ground to avoid compaction. 32. Correct sequence and spread of soils in restoration. 33. Conduct chemical analysis of soils during restoration. 34. No livestock to be kept until land is of an acceptable condition. 35. Annual review of operations and aftercare. 36. Revised scheme of restoration to be submitted to the LPA in the event of premature cessation of mineral extraction for a period of 12 months. 37. Mitigation measures for badgers, breeding birds, reptiles. 38. Restriction on removal of vegetation during bird nesting season. 39. Reasonable avoidance measures to protect reptiles during demolition of walls and field boundaries. 40. Pollution prevention measures. 41. Collection and disposal of water to restrict what is released to water environment. 42. Compliance with surface water management plan. 43. A condition to identify the site by its Welsh name.
Application for an extension to sand and gravel pit at Cae Efa Lwyd The Senior Planning Manager – Minerals, highlighted that this was an application to extend the extraction area of the Cae Efa Lwyd operational sand and gravel pit. It was expected for the work to release 793,000 tonnes of sand and gravel in addition to the 298,000 tonnes that had already been released. The application was not applying for a processing permission on the site - the arrangement of transporting the minerals to Graianog Quarry would continue. It was highlighted that an Environmental Statement had been submitted with the application as the scale of the application was the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with the requirements. In the context of the principle of the development, it was noted that the proposed extension site had been identified as a preferred area for supplying the need for sand and gravel within policy MWYN 2 of the Local Development Plan (LDP), namely a policy that facilitates the additional provision of minerals, sand and gravel to meet the identified need noted in the North Wales Regional Technical Statement. The Statement had been approved by Cyngor Gwynedd. The proposal would provide additional minerals and reduce the shortfall (at least 2.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel) in the land bank in accordance with the requirements of policies MWYN 2, MWYN 3 and Strategic Policy PS 22. When discussing visual amenities and landscape, it was reported that the site did not fall within any landscape designations and that it was located within an area of enclosed agricultural land to the west of Penygroes. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment had been submitted which verified the impact of the development on landscape assets around the site. It was considered that the primary effects would include gradual reduction in land level when excavating the mineral, mobile activity in the quarry, the screening bund along the boundary of the site and the ground level below original land level following the restoration work - these impacts would be more detrimental / prominent during the operational period an in areas directly adjacent to the site. Concerns had been raised by the Welsh Government's Soil Policy and Agricultural Land Use Planning Unit about the practicality of restoring the site to provide the best standard of agricultural land throughout the site due to the topography and hydrogeology. In response, it was explained that paragraph 3.59 Planning Policy Wales stated that development should be undertaken on the best agricultural land if there was an overriding need for the development - the need for this development to meet the demand for minerals had been supported by local and national policies. It was reiterated that the Soil Policy and Agricultural Land Use Planning Unit had proposed further conditions to ensure agricultural restoration and after-care after the use ends and that any visual impacts of the proposal would be temporary. In the context of general and residential amenities, it was noted that the guidance of national policy MTAN 1 recommended a distance of 100m between a sand and gravel development and residential dwellings. It was recognised that current work on the site, which had been agreed via a Review of Old Mineral Permissions in 2017, had been located within 100m of residential dwellings but the principle of the excavation work had already been established in a previous planning permission The proposal intended to extend the site in a northerly direction, away from the residential dwellings and the village, which meant that the excavation work would take place over 100m away from the residential dwellings. Given the distance, and the evidence that the site already operated without detriment to general and residential amenities, by imposing planning conditions or environmental permits, it was considered that the application would comply with Policies PCYFF 2 and MWYN 3 of the LDP and MTAN 1. It was highlighted that a noise assessment had been submitted with the application discussing the noise that would derive from the excavation activity, assessing how this could affect nearby properties. The Public Protection Unit was consulted for observations on the contents of the assessment and proposals. The conclusion of the assessment was accepted subject to imposing conditions for mitigation measures, use of white noise reversing alarms and retention of the acoustic barrier and bund along the south-eastern boundary of the site. An air quality impact assessment was submitted with the application which verified the impact of dust and particle levels. It was concluded that there was little potential for the operations to cause a breach in air quality standards, and the Public Protection Unit agreed that any impact would be negligible, but conditions would have to be imposed to ensure that the ‘Dust Monitoring and Control Scheme’ was updated and that specific levels of air quality, limits on dust nuisance, air quality monitoring/dust survey in the event of complaints, wheel wash facility and sheeting of vehicles (laden with mineral less than 100mm dimension) were followed. In the context of traffic and rights of way matters, it was reported that it was proposed to increase the maximum rate of HGV loads from 20 to 25 per day. The site would continue to use the same access to Ffordd Clynnog that had been developed under a 2017 permission. The Transportation Unit did not have any objection to the increase in the number of daily traffic movements. It was reiterated that the closest public right of way skirted around the north-eastern corner of the site but it would not be affected at all. During the initial consultation period, it was reported that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had raised concerns regarding compliance with working above the water table and surface water run-off. Further information had been received by the agent confirming that groundwater was being monitored by a network of boreholes and that ground level pegs and level boards were set in the ground to ensure that work remained at the approved levels. NRW confirmed that the additional information was acceptable and proposed hydrological pollution prevention measures. In addition, a Hydrological Impact Assessment had been submitted with the application suggesting mitigation measures for accidental spillages to watercourses, as well as conditions from the previous permission that would be reinstated on the new development. The site did not fall within any ecological related designations and was primarily comprised of agriculturally and semi-improved lowland grassland. It was noted that several technical documents had been submitted with the Environmental Statement proposing suggestions to protect reptiles, nesting birds and cloddiau used by foraging bats. It was reiterated that the Council's Ecologist had a concern regarding a badger sett which had been the subject of a condition on the previous application, but work to ensure the condition of the sett had now been completed in July 2023, along with a specification of proposed planting and monitoring work. Although a brief restoration scheme had been submitted highlighting an intention to ensure rough grazing and biodiversity enhancement areas, there was a need to submit a detailed scheme of after-care for the approval of the mineral planning authority prior to the commencement of development on site. In addition, it was reported that it was intended to impose conditions regarding vegetation, shrubs and tree clearance to avoid nesting periods - that hedges and cloddiau was to be removed under the supervision of a qualified ecologist and that wetland hydrology, extraction depths and ground water levels on a wildlife site would be monitored. A Heritage Impact Assessment, Geophysical Survey and Trial Trenching had been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposal on archaeology and heritage. The information was reviewed by the Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service - they did not object to the proposal but noted the need to impose planning conditions to ensure further archaeological work as archaeological remains were partly within the excavation area. The conditions related to submitting a written scheme of investigation prior to commencing the work and submitting a report analysing the archaeological work 12 months after completing the work. It was reported that one objection had been received during the public consultation on the grounds that the quarry signs on the site were in English only. It was explained that criterion 5 of policy PS 1 stated that the Council would "... Set an expectation that Welsh names are used for new developments, house and street names". With the name of the application (Cae Efa Lwyd) associated with the Cae Efa Lwyd historical farmhouse, it was considered that it would be reasonable to ask the applicant to consider showing this as the name of the site, or that a condition was imposed on the permission asking for a Welsh name to be displayed for the site. It was considered that the proposed development was consistent with all relevant planning policies and considerations and it was recommended that the application be approved subject to including relevant conditions. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application. In response to a question regarding planning policies corresponding with the Council's zero net policy and the fact the restoring land did not bring historical, fertile lands back into use after ripping minerals from the land (contrary to the Council's zero net principles), the Assistant Head noted that the Council had adopted the policies of the Local Development Plan and that these were consistent with and corresponded with the mineral policies. He added that this land had been designated for gravel and that no objections had been received. RESOLVED: To delegate powers to the Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to conditions relating to the following: 1. 5 years 2. Duration of works - 10 years at a rate of 125,000 tonnes per annum 3. In accordance with plans 4. Restriction of GPDO rights for buildings, structures, private roads, floodlighting, fencing etc. 5. A copy of the determination and approved plans to be shown at the site office. 6. Restriction of 125,000 tonnes per annum on material removed from site, at a maximum rate of twenty-five (25) HGV loads per day. 7. Surface of site access to county highway to be kept clean and no mud/debris to be deposited on highway. 8. No materials (refuse or waste materials) shall be imported to the site. 9. Mark the boundary of site and mineral extraction zones. 10. Working hours. No operations on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays or Public Holidays other than emergency, servicing and maintenance work. 11. All loaded vehicles must be sheeted or treated to avoid emission of dust. 12. Record of traffic. 13. No processing on site. 14. Noise limits and noise limits in relation to temporary operations. 15. Noise mitigation measures. 16. Acoustic fencing retained and bunding retained. 17. Vegetation, topsoil, subsoils to be stored in acoustic screening bund. 18. Noise monitoring. 19. Air quality limits and air quality monitoring. 20. Dust suppression measures and updated dust monitoring and control scheme. 21. Boundary of mineral extraction area to be temporarily fenced. 22. Groundwater monitoring. 23. Submission of detailed written scheme of investigation for archaeological work. 24. Submission of detailed analytical report of the archaeological work in accordance with the written scheme of investigation. 25. Restoration plan. 26. Storage/management of soils. 27. No soils to be removed from site, and the soil to be used in site restoration. 28. Soil storage mounds to be kept free from weeds. 29. Submission of restoration and 5-year aftercare plan. 30. Restoration in accordance with the 5-year aftercare and monitoring plan. 31. Ripping of ground to avoid compaction. 32. Correct sequence and spread of soils in restoration. 33. Conduct chemical analysis of soils during restoration. 34. No livestock to be kept until land is of an acceptable condition. 35. Annual review of operations and aftercare. 36. Revised scheme of restoration to be submitted to the LPA in the event of premature cessation of mineral extraction for a period of 12 months. 37. Mitigation measures for badgers, breeding birds, reptiles. 38. Restriction on removal of vegetation during bird nesting season. 39. Reasonable avoidance measures to protect reptiles during demolition of walls and field boundaries. 40. Pollution prevention measures. 41. Collection and disposal of water to restrict what is released to water environment. 42. Compliance with surface water management plan. 43. A condition to identify the site by its Welsh name.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: To delegate the right to the Assistant Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the application. 3. Submit details of external elevations. 4. Compliance with Part 5 (Interpretation and Advice) of the Ecology Impact Assessment document as well as the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and observations of the Biodiversity Unit. 5. Complete the landscaping scheme within a specific period. 6. Compliance with the contents of the Arboriculture Assessments. 7. The standard conditions of Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service regarding submission of details of an archaeological recording programme initially, and following this, the submission of a detailed report of the archaeological work within 6 months of completing the archaeological work at the site.
Demolition of existing sheds and erection of two livestock sheds together with ancillary facilities and milking parlour, creation of landscaping bund and associated works. Attention was drawn to the late observations form that highlighted a revised location plan indicating that the boundary of the application site had been extended to include land for Biodiversity mitigation measures. a) The Development Control Officer highlighted that this was a full application to demolish existing sub-standard agricultural sheds and replace them with two livestock (sheep) sheds together with associated facilities, milking parlour, landscaping bund and associated works on one hard-standing area of the agricultural holding of Glynllifon College. He added that there were many elements to the proposal: · Demolish the existing sub-standard structure which included two agricultural sheds. · Erect a building for a sheep milking parlour and area to keep 300 sheep. · Erect a building for lambing. · Erect a new feed silo. · Create a new parking space for lorries. · Create a new service and turning area. · Provide a fold to treat sheep. · Provision of car parking spaces. · Create a 1m high clawdd/bund and plant an indigenous hedgerow. · Fell some trees and propose Biodiversity improvements. In the context of the principle of the development, it was explained that Policy PCYFF 1 of the LDP stated that proposals (outside development boundaries) would be refused unless they were in accordance with specific policies in the LDP or national planning policies, or that the proposal demonstrated that its location in the countryside was essential. It was noted that this application related to improving existing sheep farming facilities in Glynllifon College and, therefore, it was considered that its location in the countryside was essential. It was reported that the project would seek to develop a model to promote knowledge within the agricultural sector to show the advantages of promoting a sustainable sheep milk market in Wales. The proposal would offer potential additional income for agricultural enterprises and Glynllifon College would play an important part in developing the dairy sector by developing a better understanding of the commercial opportunities. The current application had been submitted to extend and meet the needs of the Agricultural College for an education purpose and its important contribution to the local economy. In the context of the visual amenities, it was noted that the new sheds would replace sub-standard buildings and, although larger in size, the external elevations of the new sheds would be of traditional materials that were in-keeping with this type of agricultural buildings in the countryside. It was reiterated that the site was located within undulating landscape, with no environmental designation. Considering the variety of vegetation, undertaking a landscaping plan as well as the material and elevations of the structure, it was not considered that the proposal would have a significant substantial impact within the local landscape. In terms of general and residential amenities, with the current proposal replacing existing agricultural structures on the site, it was not considered that the application would undermine the general or residential amenities of local tenants. In the context of biodiversity matters, the site was located adjacent to several grade II* Fort Williamsburg listed buildings/structures and was within the grade I Registered Historic Park and Gardens of Glynllifon by CADW; it was close to the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Glynllifon Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Afon Llifon Wildlife Site (WS), which was located approximately 600m to the west of the site. Several ecological reports and assessments had been presented with the application. In accordance with the requirements of the Habitats and Species Conservation Regulations 2017, to show that this particular proposal, along with the cumulative impact if other developments were approved in Glynllifon, would not undermine the Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest designations, the Biodiversity Unit carried out an assessment, which noted that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). NRW was re-consulted on the feedback of the Biodiversity Unit and it was of the same opinion, provided that the development was completed in accordance with the conditions it had recommended in its ecological reports. It was noted that NRW had also submitted observations regarding protected species along with a concern about the potential impact of pollution risks to the water environment. In response to those concerns, the applicant submitted further details regarding light mitigation measures, a plan including additional planting of cloddiau, incorporation of purposeful bat roost that is suitable for Lesser Horseshoe Bats, planting of suitable wetland tree species, further details regarding a private drainage system and Construction Environment Management Plan; with a further request from NRW for a long-term management plan and Ecological compliance audit plan. These conditions would manage and safeguard any protected species on the site. In the context of heritage assets and the proximity of nearby listed buildings, the Heritage Assessment concluded that this was the most suitable site for the new structure - with the minimum impact on the historic environment, which included the listed fort as well as the grade 1 registered landscape of Glynllifon. It was added that CADW had no objection to the development and that conditions would need to be imposed and comply with the site's archaeological needs. It was not considered that the proposal was contrary to local or national policies and there was no material planning matter that outweighed these policy considerations. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable and it was recommended to approve the application subject to relevant conditions. b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points: · That the application was for the development of two sheds - 1 to milk sheep and the other to breed feeding lambs · That the proposal complied with local and national policies · That there were economic and education benefits here · It was a project that provided a new, invaluable facility for the sheep milking trade · It transferred knowledge to promote a dairy market · It proposed an additional income stream for the College · The College invested substantially to provide a range of new resources that would ensure facilities to establish a 'Welsh Sheep Centre' · Although sensitive in terms of location, there had been good collaboration between officers, NRW and the College to commit to protect the area c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application and this innovative initiative was welcomed. RESOLVED: To delegate the right to the Assistant Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the application. 3. Submit details of external elevations. 4. Compliance with Part 5 (Interpretation and Advice) of the Ecology Impact Assessment document as well as the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and observations of the Biodiversity Unit. 5. Complete the landscaping scheme within a specific period. 6. Compliance with the contents of the Arboriculture Assessments. 7. The standard conditions of Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service regarding submission of details of an archaeological recording programme initially, and following this, the submission of a detailed report of the archaeological work within 6 months of completing the archaeological work at the site.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: To approve the application subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the application. 3. Submit details of external elevations. 4. Submission of asbestos details prior to demolition. 5. Compliance with Part 5 (Interpretation and Advice) of the Ecology Impact Assessment document as well as the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and observations of the Biodiversity Unit. 6. Complete the landscaping scheme within a specific period. 7. Compliance with the contents of the Arboriculture Assessments. 8. The standard conditions of Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service regarding submission of details of an archaeological recording programme initially, and following this, the submission of a detailed report of the archaeological work within 6 months of completing the archaeological work at the site.
DECISION: To approve the application subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. Demolition of existing dairy farm building and cow shed, removal of two existing slurry tanks, erection of a new livestock shed and milking parlour, construction of a silage clamp and dry manure store, internal access road together with associated works. Attention was drawn to the late observations form that highlighted a revised location plan indicating that the boundary of the application site had been extended to include land for Biodiversity mitigation measures. a) The Development Control Officer highlighted that there were several elements to the application: · Demolition of the existing substandard construction which comprised the milking parlour, livestock shed, and two slurry towers. · Erection of a building for a rotating cow milking parlour. · Erection of a livestock building to house 224 dairy cows. · Erection of an indoor dry manure storage area alongside the existing storage area. · Erection of a new feed silo. · Location of a new water tank to capture water from the milking parlour and the water waste from the silage heaps. · Creation of a hard surface yard. · Creation of two foul water pits. · Creation of an internal road network. · Creation of a 1m high bank/bund planted with a native hedge. · Together with biodiversity improvements. In the context of the principle of the development, it was reported that the principle of erecting agricultural structures in the countryside was acceptable subject to compliance with other planning matters. It was reiterated that this innovative project would promote effectiveness, sustainability and excellent standards in terms of animal welfare, and showing good practice in terms of sustainable water and waste management (which included farm slurry) within the dairy industry in Wales. The current application had been submitted to extend and meet the needs of the Agricultural College for an education purpose and its important contribution to the local economy. It was considered that its location in the countryside was essential and that the proposal complied with the aims and objectives of national policies, Technical Advice Note 6 and the requirements of Policy ISA 3 of the LDP. In the context of visual amenities, it was noted that the exterior elevations of the new sheds would be of traditional materials for this type of construction and, considering the location of the construction within and adjacent to existing farm buildings, along with an undertaking to carry out a landscaping plan along the western boundary of the site, it was not believed that the proposal would have a significant material impact within the local landscape and it was believed that the proposal was acceptable based on the requirements of Policies from the LDP. Given that the proposal would replace existing agricultural structures, and the fact that farm workers lived near the dairy farm, it was not considered that the application would undermine the general or residential amenities of local tenants. In the context of biodiversity matters, it was explained that the site had been surrounded by the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Glynllifon Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Afon Llifon Wildlife Site (WS), which was located approximately 400m to the south-west of the site. Several ecological reports and assessments had been submitted as part of the application. In accordance with the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Council was required to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Appropriate Assessment. After completing the assessment, the Biodiversity Unit noted that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). In accordance with the needs of the habitats regulations, the Biodiversity Unit's assessment was submitted to NRW and it was of the same opinion, provided that the development was completed in accordance with the conditions it had recommended in its ecological reports. It was also noted that NRW had submitted observations regarding protected species along with a concern about the potential impact of pollution risks to the water environment. In response to those concerns, the applicant submitted further details regarding light mitigation measures, a cloddiau planting scheme, a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan and Construction Environment Management Plan; with a further request from NRW for a long-term management plan and Ecological compliance audit plan. These conditions would manage and safeguard any protected species on the site. In the context of heritage assets, the Heritage Assessment concluded that this was the most suitable site for the new structure. It was reiterated that the proposals would have some impact on the character, appearance and layout of the overall registered historic park and garden but given the agricultural landscape and presence of existing farm buildings and structures, it was not considered that it would have an impact on this area or the general registered area in terms of the character of the parkland or the pleasure grounds. It was highlighted that CADW had no objection to the development and there would be a need to undertake an archaeological watching brief considering the proximity of the proposal to a scheduled monument - this work to be managed by means of a planning condition. It was not considered that the proposal was contrary to local or national policies and there was no material planning matter that outweighed these policy considerations. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable and it was recommended to approve the application subject to relevant conditions. b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the agent noted the following observations: · That the proposal developed facilities for the Glynllifon herd · It was a new project with significant investment to promote the dairy industry · Innovative plans to manage water (collect and reuse rainwater) and store slurry · The facility would encourage a high level of welfare for animals · Although the location was sensitive, there had been good collaboration between the officers, NRW and the College to commit to protect the area's history and sensitivity c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application - the initiative was to be welcomed and it was a boost for students RESOLVED: To approve the application subject to the following conditions: - 1. Five years. 2. In accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the application. 3. Submit details of external elevations. 4. Submission of asbestos details prior to demolition. 5. Compliance with Part 5 (Interpretation and Advice) of the Ecology Impact Assessment document as well as the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and observations of the Biodiversity Unit. 6. Complete the landscaping scheme within a specific period. 7. Compliance with the contents of the Arboriculture Assessments. 8. The standard conditions of Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service regarding submission of details of an archaeological recording programme initially, and following this, the submission of a detailed report of the archaeological work within 6 months of completing the archaeological work at the site.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED To approve with conditions 1. Five years to commence the work. 2. In accordance with plans. 3. Slates to match. 4. Opaque glass to be installed along the side of the balcony that borders with number 6 Marine Terrace 5. In accordance with the ecology report 6. Welsh Water condition Information note: Welsh Water/Natural Resources Wales and Biodiversity
Full renovation of existing house, proposed new garage, proposed photovoltaic system, landscaping and flood alleviation measures as well as demolition of existing outbuilding. Attention was drawn to the late observations form which noted: a) that the proposal did not reach the thresholds to submit a Welsh Language Statement or a Welsh Language Impact Assessment; b) that it was intended to impose a planning condition to ensure that the proposed garage was only used as ancillary to the main property. a) The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application for alterations and modifications to a property by extending the eaves of a section of the existing roof, extending the existing balcony at the rear of the property, adding slate diamond pattern finish on the side of the property and providing two open porches; demolition of existing outbuilding and erecting a double garage, installation of four lines of solar panels, landscaping work and installing floodgates along the boundary of the property with the Menai Straits. It was added that the site was located outside the development boundary of the town and within the boundary of flood zone C2/Zone 2 and 3 of the flood maps. It was noted that the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee due to a family connection with one of the planning officers. It was considered that the modifications and alterations to the property were minimal, and suitable in terms of size, design and layout. It was added that the proposal to extend the existing balcony at the rear of the property would lead to it being closer to the property next door. Although other houses in the terrace with balconies offered an element of overlooking into the rear gardens of the houses, the appropriateness of imposing a condition was considered to ensure that a privacy screen was installed on the side of the balcony that faced the property next door to alleviate the direct impact of the balcony extension. It was noted that the proposal involved converting an existing garage that was ancillary to the property into a kitchen and dining room, but it was not proposed to increase the number of bedrooms. It was added that it was intended to demolish the existing outbuilding and erect a double garage in its place near the access to the property - the garage of usual design for a garage and the proposal was acceptable. In terms of the landscaping work, the footpaths and vehicular road and the flood prevention measures, it was considered that these elements were acceptable. NRW nor the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, and the Biodiversity Unit was satisfied with the ecological report provided, along with the biodiversity improvements proposed in the form of bird and bat boxes. Confirmation was also received that the proposal would not have an impact on the nearby Special Area of Conservation. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable, subject to the inclusion of a condition to ensure ancillary use for the proposed garage. It would not have a significant visual impact on the landscape, the amenities of nearby residents, road safety, biodiversity or the Welsh language. The Local Planning Authority recommended approving the application. b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations: · That the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee due to a family connection with a staff member. · There were a few modifications and alterations here. · Two additional photographs of the property site on the banks of the Menai Straits had been submitted highlighting that flooding would occur under extraordinary circumstances of high tide and strong winds. · There were 7 houses in the terrace and 5 of them had a balcony. · Imposing a condition for opaque glass would be reasonable. · Recommend approving c) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application An observation was made that it would be possible for the new double garage adjacent to the property to be converted into another dwelling - not enough enforcement officers in the Council to check future modifications. RESOLVED To approve with conditions 1. Five years to commence the work. 2. In accordance with plans. 3. Slates to match. 4. Opaque glass to be installed along the side of the balcony that borders with number 6 Marine Terrace 5. In accordance with the ecology report 6. Welsh Water condition Information note: Welsh Water/Natural Resources Wales and Biodiversity
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to confirm the order with changes.
Mixed woodland with mature trees Attention was drawn to the late observations form. a) Unlike the usual applications, the Planning Manager highlighted that it was not for a planning application. It was explained that Members needed to consider whether or not a Tree Preservation Order should be confirmed on land in College Park, Ffordd Deiniol, Bangor. The application was submitted to the Committee after receiving objections to the proposal. Attention was drawn to the fact that the wording in the English version of the order had been revised - that tree T1 was 'Yew’ and tree T2 was ‘Lime’. A Temporary Tree Preservation Order had been placed on two individual trees, five groups of trees and one woodland in the location. An assessment of the trees was completed using the TEMPO system (Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders) and the trees scored 23 points - the system noted that any trees that scored 16 points or more merited being protected. Although the site was within a conservation area, and therefore the trees already had an element of protection, it had been decided to issue a temporary tree preservation order in this case as it was considered that the trees and the woodland were of high amenity value and were very visible within the townscape, and also formed an important feature within the town centre. It was reiterated that the area also merited specific protection as there was a direct threat to the trees due to proposed development work within the park area, along with work that had already been carried out on trees within the site without the prior necessary consent. Since the time of writing the report, it was highlighted that a planning application (which included improvement work to College Park - new footpaths, street furniture, lighting and associated landscaping that was partly located within the area of the Temporary Tree Preservation Order) had been approved. In considering that planning application, the impact on trees had been fully assessed, and the proposed work was acceptable; however, the planning permission did not change the situation in terms of the tree order and it was considered that the need for protection for the remaining trees, by confirming the order, was necessary. It was explained that the decision on the planning application showed that imposing an order on a tree or trees did not prevent the ability to carry out any work on those trees. Rather, imposing an order was an effective way of ensuring that no unnecessary or destructive work was carried out directly to, or close to, trees that made an important contribution to our local environment. Four options were presented to the Committee to consider 1. Confirm the order as it stands, without amendments 2. Confirm with amendments 3. Not confirm 4. Conduct a public inquiry. b) It was proposed and seconded to confirm the order without changes. Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations: · It was a shame that the University had not applied for a reserve before proposing improvements to the Park - it did not listen to the observations of local people · Supported the need to protect the trees RESOLVED to confirm the order with changes.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: To refuse the application, which was contrary to policy TWR 2 and TWR 3 based on excess and scale; excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel.
Application for the remodelling and extension of the existing hotel and spa together with the siting of 39 holiday lodges, formation of outdoor activity zone, reception, biomass plant unit together with temporary construction traffic road, car parking and landscaping. Attention was drawn to the late observations form that highlighted that the plan now did not include erecting a building for staff accommodation. Some Members had visited the site on 26/02/24 to familiarise themselves with the site and its surrounding landscape. a) The Planning Manager highlighted that it was a full application for the redevelopment of the Llwyn y Brain site, namely the disused Seiont Manor Hotel. The proposal would include, · extensions and remodelling of existing hotel to include a bar and restaurant with accompanying terrace; provision of 61 additional bedrooms, on top of the existing 33 bedrooms, and provision of spa facilities. · provision of 39 holiday lodges on land to the north-west of the hotel; the plan had been reduced since the original presentation to remove some units due to the visual impact on the wider landscape. Plans to erect a building for staff accommodation had also been removed as there was no justification for such a development in the countryside. · 2 laybys/passing places along the driveway that currently served the hotel. Provision of 43 additional parking spaces parallel to the hotel. Landscaping work, creation of amenity spaces, mitigation and biodiversity enhancement work. It was reported that several technical reports had been submitted with the application with a number of documents and observations reflecting the applicant's willingness to collaborate with the Local Planning Authority to ensure that harmful impacts would not derive from the development and that it would be possible to control them. Considering the principle of the development, it was explained that the legal use of the site in planning terms was a hotel and Policies PS 14 and TWR 2 were supportive of proposals which involved extending visitor attractions and improving and protecting the provision for existing serviced and self-catering accommodation. It was also noted that holiday units were a development that could be supported in the countryside under Policy TWR 3 and, therefore, it could be concluded that the principle was acceptable. In the context of extending the current hotel, it was noted that the hotel structure was a mix of single-storey and two-storey structure and, although accepting that the alterations were modern and major, it was considered that it was a quality development. In support of the application, a Landscape and Visual Assessment had been submitted which noted that the hotel was located within an undulating landscape running down towards the river in the vicinity of the site, which had also been surrounded by banks, shrubs and trees/woodlands. Whilst it was inevitable that the development would have an element of impact on the local landscape, such an impact would not be considered substantial and significant considering the design, nature and scale of extensions and alterations to the existing hotel; that part of the hotel was a backdrop to the new extensions together with the fact that the work would be located within a site that already contained an established structure. To ensure that the site was developed in an orderly rather than piecemeal fashion, a suggestion was made to impose a condition so that the development work could be carried out in stages so that the holiday accommodation element could not be developed separately from the development of the existing hotel and vice versa. It was noted that the applicant's agent had confirmed that the development was an integral part of the hotel site in its entirety and this would also ensure that the holiday unit element would form part of a wider tourism development that provided services beyond a holiday park alone, and better supported the local economy. In the context of residential amenities, it was reported that other residential properties were dispersed in the vicinity, all in open countryside. Whilst it was inevitable that the development would have an element of additional impact on the tranquillity of the area, such impact would not be considered substantial or significant given the layout of the cabins within the landscape and that the site had been partially screened by existing vegetation as well as a proposal to strengthen the landscaping. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable based on the requirements of Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP that sought to protect the residential and general amenities of occupants of nearby properties. In the context of transport matters, it was noted that the existing junction to the county road was suitable for increased traffic in and out of the site, and there was adequate provision of parking within the site for the needs of the development. Improvements outside the site to make it acceptable based on road safety would not be required and following the statutory consultation process, the Transport Unit had stated that the existing entrance was appropriate as the proposal included passing places, but it raised questions as to whether the parking provision for 43 cars was adequate for a 61-bedroom hotel. In response, it was noted that the site was considered an accessible site and it would be possible to extend and increase the number of parking spaces within the site if required - taking into account the area of land owned by the applicant, this could be ensured by imposing a relevant condition. It was reported that biodiversity matters had been addressed at great length and, although the site had not been designated for any biodiversity importance, that landscape features, including trees and shrubs connected the site to the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). It was explained that Glynllifon had been protected because of its bat population and the surrounding landscape was crucial for the SAC's bat population. As a result, the agent had submitted a shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment as part of the application. In accordance with the Habitats Regulations, NRW was consulted on the conclusions of the assessment and a response was received noting that it agreed with the assessment's conclusions and that it was satisfied that the development could be managed with conditions. Despite this, the Council’s Biodiversity Unit continued to object to the proposal due to the proximity of the holiday units to the river and the potential impacts on trees along the access road. The concern about the river corridor was acknowledged but there was no evidence of any negative impact arising from the current setting and it would be unlikely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of Glynllifon. It was reiterated that measures were in place to prevent light pollution with a 2.1m high wooden fence to the rear of the units, together with planting and then an agricultural fence to prevent access to the river - it was not considered justified to refuse the application on these grounds. In response to the concern relating to trees along the existing access track, and the potential for construction traffic to harm the trees, it was noted that impact on trees was a material consideration when assessing an application, although they were not protected. Members were reminded that, until recently, the hotel had been in use and a variety of traffic was going to the hotel and this would have included lorry deliveries. Although it was likely that there was potential for the construction traffic to be greater than normal service vehicles, it was noted that it was possible to impose a condition to manage transport to protect the trees along the access road. These conditions would alleviate the concern of the Biodiversity Unit and, as a result, the development would meet the requirements of environmental policies. Having assessed the proposal, all observations received from residents and consultants, no substantial harmful impact contrary to local planning policies and relevant national guidance was identified. The proposal was considered acceptable subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions. b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points: · Discussions with officers had been held over the past two years to ensure that the plan was acceptable. · Good collaboration had ensured that that several elements had been resolved, including the demolition of one building and the relocation of cabins. · Although the observations of local residents had not highlighted proximity concerns, there was concern regarding the scale of the development - welcomed a hotel, but not cabins. · A hotel would not be profitable based on the hotel and facilities alone. · It was proposed to create an events centre that would be of benefit to the local economy. · It was intended to employ at least 30 full-time posts. c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member, Councillor Beca Brown made the following observations; · That Llanrug was a large, popular, Welsh, self-maintained village, it was popular with visitors and that the success of local businesses and enterprises was evidence of those local people who understand their area. · That the developer had a jobs creation plan that raised concern of challenging jobs that already existed - this would undermine other businesses. · That local businesses were the backbone of the community - ensured that the benefit remained local. · There was no local commitment from a developer outside the local community. · Welcomed a hotel business - a boutique style would be acceptable · Should a hotel return, local businesses would be left alone to flourish. ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member, Councillor Berwyn Parry Jones made the following observations: · That he agreed with the observations of Councillor Beca Brown. · That the proposal was contrary to Policy TWR - there was a need to comply with three criteria that included the need to prove that the development did not lead to an excess. Reference was made to the Planning Policy definition which noted that small / very small scale assimilated well with the environment, namely up to 10-25 cabins. This application was for 39 which was contrary to the policy's recommendation. · A Gilesby study had been carried out across Gwynedd, Anglesey and the National Park noting that there was guidance to consider and prove 'small or very small' - should 39 cabins be deemed as 'small', there would be a risk of setting a precedent. · That a one-man company was here (Caernarfon Properties Ltd) - a developer from Manchester who had been listed as the company Director, who also owned the Dragon Investments limited company, which was also managed by the same person. · That the application noted that income was needed from the cabins to develop the hotel - was there a business plan for this? Was there a condition to ensure the development of the hotel? · That extending the hotel was contrary to policy TWR - there was a need to comply with five criteria that included 'appropriate scale when considering location'. The former hotel had closed as it did not fill half the bedrooms, therefore, how could an extension and 61 bedrooms be filled considering that the economy had worsened? The scale of the development was inappropriate. · There was a local desire to see the hotel being developed but not with this plan. · Asked the committee to refuse the application on the grounds that installing 39 cabins was contrary to Policy TWR 3 - paragraph 1.1 - excess, and that developing the hotel was contrary to Policy TWR 2 - paragraph 2 - scale of the hotel was inappropriate. d) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons: · That the scale of the plan was unreasonable - an over-development that would create a negative impact on the community infrastructure. · Contrary to the principles of the Council's Tourism Strategy of sustaining renewable, sustainable tourism. · There was a lack of housing locally for the employees. · A short-term increase in population would have an impact on the Welsh language. · The jobs would not be of good quality. dd) In response to the reasons, although accepting the concerns, the Assistant Head noted that it would be difficult to evidence some of the refusal reasons and, as a result, the Council would be open to substantial costs should the application go to appeal. He highlighted that it would be possible to consider 'excess' as a reason to refuse the application - impact of the cabins and the scale of adaptations to the hotel on the landscape. e) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members: · 39 cabins would have a significant visual impact on the area. · The access road was narrow and not fit for purpose. · The number of parking spaces was insufficient for the size of the development. · There was a number of other holiday locations in the area. · Good agricultural land would be lost as a result of the development. · Locally, the labour market was very tight in this field - doubted the number of jobs proposed and whether they would be quality jobs. · Policy TWR 3 supported small / very small developments - this number was much more - the report did not explain this deflection. · An unnecessary over-development - size and scale was inappropriate. · What was the history of the Caernarfon Properties Ltd and Dragon Investments companies? Was there a record of the successes of these companies or were they only big ideas? It would be fair to know whether the company was suitable. f) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application based on excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel. RESOLVED: To refuse the application, which was contrary to policy TWR 2 and TWR 3 based on excess and scale; excess and the effect of this on the rural area, the number of cabins and the scale of the extensions to the hotel.
Outline application with some matters reserved to demolish an existing residential dwelling and commercial garage with associated buildings and to re-develop the brownfield land to create a new hotel, community pub and parking site to share with the village hall (re-submission of application C23/0089/39/AM which had been withdrawn). Application withdrawn
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.