Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: To approve with conditions 1. Five years to commence the work 2. In accordance with plans 3. In accordance with the green infrastructure statement Information Note: Welsh Water
RESOLVED: To Refuse Reasons 1. The site of the cabins and associated works, due to their number, location, design, setting and appearance in the landscape, and increase in the hard surface plots, would result in a prominent and intrusive feature in open countryside and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and visual amenities of the rural area as well as leading to an excess of permanent sites in the local area. The proposal is therefore contrary to criteria 1.i and ii. of policy TWR 3 and policy PCYFF 3, of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation. 2. The scale of the proposal would create excessive movement along the county road together with an increase in activities, causing noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of local residents. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017). 3. There is insufficient information in the form of details of the location and size of the drainage area as well as the results of percolation tests in connection with the proposed Sewerage Treatment System. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the policy requirements of ISA 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) which ensures adequate infrastructure provision. 4. Insufficient information including a geophysical survey has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore no conclusion can be drawn about the proposal's compliance with policy AT4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) which safeguards undesignated archaeological sites and their setting.
Apologies were received from Councillor Huw Rowlands
a) The following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted: · Councillor Richard Glyn, (who was not a member of this Planning Committee), in item 5.1 (C25/0361/30/LL) on the agenda.
As a point of order, it was reported that since the Chair was joining the meeting virtually, the Monitoring Officer would be announcing the results of the voting on the applications.
The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 8 September 2025, 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 approve with conditions 1. Five years to commence the work 2. In accordance with plans 3. In accordance with the green infrastructure statement Information Note: Welsh Water
Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of new extension to the rear. a) The Planning Officer highlighted that this was a householder application to demolish an existing conservatory and erect a new extension to the rear. It was explained that it was proposed to finish the extension with timber cladding, with high windows installed on the side elevations of the extension and bifold doors and large windows on the rear elevation of the property. It was noted that the property was a detached house in an estate of other detached houses and within the Caernarfon development boundary. The property is not located within any special land designations and the application was submitted to the Committee as the applicant was an Elected Member of the Council. It was reported that no objection had been received during the public consultation and that Welsh Water proposed advice and guidance to the applicant by letter. In terms of design and residential amenity matters, it was not considered that the proposal would harm the existing appearance of the site, neither would it excessively impact the area's visual amenities in general. The building was considered standard in appearance, in terms of visual amenities therefore, it was believed that the proposal complied with the requirements of criteria 1 and 2 of policy PCYFF 3. In design terms, it was considered that there would be no impact on neighbouring amenities as this was a single-storey extension, and the rear windows and doors would not have a worse impact on private amenities compared with the existing conservatory. Attention was drawn to the proposed biodiversity improvements such as installing bird and bat boxes. It was noted that should the application be granted, it would be possible to set a condition to ensure that they were completed before the use of the proposed extension would commence. It was considered that the proposal complied with planning guidelines and policies. The officers' recommendation was to approve the application with conditions. b) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application - the application was brought before the Committee as the applicant was an Elected Member. In response to a question on Householders’ Permitted Development Rights and that those rights permitted extending by up to 4m and why then was the application submitted to the committee, it was noted that the extension measured 4.8 metres and therefore needed to be submitted to the committee for a decision. RESOLVED: To approve with conditions 1. Five years to commence the work 2. In accordance with plans 3. In accordance with the green infrastructure statement Information Note: Welsh Water
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: To Refuse Reasons 1. The site of the cabins and associated works, due to their number, location, design, setting and appearance in the landscape, and increase in the hard surface plots, would result in a prominent and intrusive feature in open countryside and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and visual amenities of the rural area as well as leading to an excess of permanent sites in the local area. The proposal is therefore contrary to criteria 1.i and ii. of policy TWR 3 and policy PCYFF 3, of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation. 2. The scale of the proposal would create excessive movement along the county road together with an increase in activities, causing noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of local residents. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017). 3. There is insufficient information in the form of details of the location and size of the drainage area as well as the results of percolation tests in connection with the proposed Sewerage Treatment System. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the policy requirements of ISA 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) which ensures adequate infrastructure provision. 4. Insufficient information including a geophysical survey has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore no conclusion can be drawn about the proposal's compliance with policy AT4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) which safeguards undesignated archaeological sites and their setting.
Change of use application for the letting of 12 Holiday Cabins on land at Y Ffôr, Pwllheli Attention was drawn to the late observations form. a) The Planning Manager highlighted that it was an application to develop a new holiday accommodation in the form of 12 permanent holiday cabins and associated parking, drainage and landscaping. The wooden cabins would be timber clad and stained in a conservation colour and each would include bedrooms, a bathroom, living room and kitchen-diner. It was reported that the units would be placed in the corner of an agricultural field in open countryside. Although there is no special landscape designation to the application area, it does have the appearance and character of an undeveloped rural landscape with several residential properties, not in the applicant's ownership, located near the site. It was noted that it was intended to provide a private clean and foul water drainage system for the proposal however the developer had not submitted the results of any porosity/ percolation tests in relation to the private sewerage system. A landscaping plan was submitted with the application showing a proposal to plant a vast number of trees along the south-western and south-eastern boundary of the site, as well as reinforce the current hedge along the county road; however, details of that plan were not received with the application. It was highlighted that Policy TWR 3 was the relevant policy in this application as the cabins would be there permanently. It was noted that the first part of the policy referred directly to an intensification of new developments. It was reiterated, in order to define 'intensification', attention was drawn to the explanation in 6.3.69 of policy TWR 3 which referred to the 'Anglesey, Gwynedd and Eryri National Park Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study' 2014. Within each Landscape Character Area the landscape's character is assessed to ascertain the capacity of the local landscape for further developments of holiday chalets or caravans. It was reiterated that this specific development fell under the Landscape Character Area G10 (Canol Llŷn) and the study noted, "Outside the AONBs there may be very limited capacity for developments typically comprising of small scale to very small scale, sensitively sited and well planned developments that should relate well to the existing built environment / urban ground cover". It was noted that the Study defined very small developments as those of up to 10 units and small developments as those between 10 and 25 units." Although the site in question fell within the definition of a small development, it was not considered that this site was one that related well to the built environment or urban ground cover, and on this basis, it was not considered that there was capacity for the proposal on this rural site. Attention was drawn to the second criterion which referred to the design, layout and appearance of the proposed development stating that is was of high quality, and that new developments should be located in unobtrusive locations. An unobtrusive location was described as being a location which was well screened by existing landscape features or where the units could be readily assimilated into the landscape in a way which did not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape. It is considered that this proposal is located in the lower corner of the field in a location that is visible to the public from the highway. It was acknowledged that a Visual Landscape Impact Assessment had been submitted, however the officers noted that the proposal was not acceptable in terms of visual effect and was therefore contrary to the second criterion, in addition to policy PCYFF 3 of the LDP in terms of visual amenity. It was reported that the site was located within a rural area, and an area that had no commercial activity with the exception of occasional agricultural machinery on the fields and light traffic on the road. It was noted there was a historical static caravan site over 500 metres to the south-west and residential properties scattered here and there, with two of them approximately 150 metres to the south-east and south of the site. A house named Bodlas (nearest house) was located near the road, with an access to the road. It was considered that the site's activities, with an increase in traffic going to the site along the quiet road, would disrupt the tranquillity of the area and the character and attractive appearance of the local rural area. The activities that were characteristic of people on their holidays were different to the activities of residential properties and could include periods of high noise at times during the night, as well as regular vehicular movements. It was considered that this could cause a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents and the proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 of the Local Development Plan. Observations were received from Heneb on the application which stated that an archaeological survey should be conducted before determining the application. Reference was made to the initial information that had been received but Heneb confirmed that the information was not sufficient to determine how the proposal was likely to affect any archaeology on the site. On this basis, the proposal was contrary to the requirements of policy AT4 of the LDP. It was also noted that the proposal included providing a new Sewage Treatment System for dealing with the development's foul water waste. Reference was made to observations from Natural Resources Wales and the Public Protection Unit which confirmed that insufficient information had been submitted to guarantee that this approach to dealing with foul water waste was acceptable and was contrary to the requirements of policy ISA 1 which ensured adequate infrastructure provision. It was expressed that a Linguistic Statement had been submitted since the report was published, and it was confirmed that it was possible to set planning conditions to ensure that the business incorporated a Welsh name and that Welsh/bilingual signage was used, had the proposal been acceptable in principle. Having received the Language Statement, the proposal was no longer contrary to the requirement of Policy PS1 of the LDP and the reason for refusal relating to a Linguistic Statement would be removed from the report. It was considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of criteria 1.i and ii of policy TWR 3 and Policy PCYFF 3 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation on grounds of visual impact, policy PCYFF 2 on grounds of impact on the amenities of local residents, policy ISA 1 on grounds of insufficient information to ensure adequate infrastructure provision to deal with foul water waste and policy AT4 on grounds of insufficient archaeological information. The officers recommended that the application be refused. b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points: · That the applicant and his family were a local farming family from Wales. · That the application was for diversification and was needed to sustain the enterprise, to avoid division in a local farming family, to provide employment for the applicant's children and to prevent workers from moving away from farming and from the area. · That Percolation Tests and a Geophysical Survey had been carried out - due to the availability of contractors, these had been carried out during the last fortnight. The findings highlighted that no prehistoric, settlement, cultural or burial-related remains were found. · A Welsh Language Statement had been submitted and it was confirmed that Welsh signage would be used throughout the site. · This was a small scale application for 12 Timber Holiday Cabins in a 'conservation' colour which blended with the environment in a location that had been extensively landscaped. · There were no objections from the Highways Department or in terms of Ecology. · In relation to the observations made, that there would be no Reception or supervision on the site, it was noted that visitors would book ahead and access would be managed by ANPR and CCTV. Should a reception be required, one of the cabins could be used for this purpose - this could be included as a condition. · That the Planning Officers reached a conclusion that the application could not be supported due to its impact on the landscape and on nearby residents. However, the Assessment of Visual Impact on the Landscape had concluded there would be "no material intrusion into its distinctive patterns of lowland coastal farmland and cultural character. The magnitude of change is negligible, and the overall effect is neutral at both Year 1 and Year 10”. · That all trees and hedges on the existing boundary would be retained and that additional areas of trees would be planted. · In relation to this application, that another proposal for 35 units from a local resident had been approved last November at Allt Fawr, Pwllheli. This proposal in Ffôr was for 12 units only and complied with policy. · This was a unique case by a Welsh farming family seeking to diversify and create employment for the next generation avoiding having to separate families and the local workforce. · It would contribute to the local economy, support other local attractions, pubs, restaurants and shops. · Asked the Committee to consider the advantages this proposal would offer and that any standout elements could be dealt with by imposing conditions. · They would appreciate the Committee's support of the application. c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations · That he agreed with the officers' reasons for refusal. · That there was considerable objection locally to the application. · The Community Council had unanimously objected to the application on grounds of overdeveloping the area. · The proposal would have an impact on similar business operations in this field - several holiday lets in the area were unable to reach the letting threshold and were required to pay the Council’s tax premium. d) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application. An amendment was proposed and seconded to visit the site. In response to the proposal of a site visit, the officer noted that the reasons for refusal related to the lack of information, not just visual matters. A vote was taken on the proposal to carry out a site visit. The proposal fell. RESOLVED: To Refuse Reasons 1. The site of the cabins and associated works, due to their number, location, design, setting and appearance in the landscape, and increase in the hard surface plots, would result in a prominent and intrusive feature in open countryside and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and visual amenities of the rural area as well as leading to an excess of permanent sites in the local area. The proposal is therefore contrary to criteria 1.i and ii. of policy TWR 3 and policy PCYFF 3, of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation. 2. The scale of the proposal would create excessive movement along the county road together with an increase in activities, causing noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of local residents. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017). 3. There is insufficient information in the form of details of the location and size of the drainage area as well as the results of percolation tests in connection with the proposed Sewerage Treatment System. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the policy requirements of ISA 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) which ensures adequate infrastructure provision. 4. Insufficient information including a geophysical survey has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore no conclusion can be drawn about the proposal's compliance with policy AT4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017) which safeguards undesignated archaeological sites and their setting.
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.