Planning Committee

Mr Robin Gilliver spoke against the application and Mr Jamie Bradshaw (Agent) spoke in favour. Further to a site inspection, an addendum to the report was presented, highlighting the following: · A correction to paragraph 2 of the Committee report. The private drive adjacent to the western boundary provided access to eight additional properties, which included one care home and 7 dwellings. · Observations from Natural Resources Wales and the Highways Authority. · No comments had been received from the applicant regarding the concerns raised by neighbouring dwellings regarding the gradient of the access. In considering the application, discussion ensued regarding the following: · Whilst Members were supportive of the application in principle and welcomed the proposal for affordable housing, concern was expressed that the speed survey had been carried out in May 2020 and could have been influenced by the Covid restrictions. In response, the Head of Neighbourhood Services advised that during the lockdown period, traffic speeds were reported to be higher than normal and the Local Highway Authority therefore, considered that the speed survey represented a worst case scenario. However, Members were of the view that a further speed survey should be carried out during normal traffic conditions. · Access improvements were encouraged right along the western boarder/lane. · Reference was made to Active Travel Provision and the fact the site was in close proximity to 3 local schools, therefore the safety of children was highlighted. · Disability access and/or a lift was considered beneficial. In response, Members were advised that whilst there was no specific requirement, accessibility of the development would have been considered at funding stage. · The need for further discussion with the applicant and the Local Highways Authority in order to secure an appropriate gradient for the driveway. As a consequence of the concerns raised, it was; RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be deferred until the October, 2022 meeting pending further assessment of traffic speeds and the driveway gradient. Note: Councillor Anthony Bertola declared a prejudicial interest in the above application and as a consequence, withdrew from the meeting whilst the matter was being considered.

Mrs Alison Sewell spoke against the application and Mr Jamie Bradshaw (Agent) spoke in favour. Further to a site inspection, an addendum to the report was presented, highlighting the following: · A correction to the Committee report – the section drawing shows the height of the outbuilding reduced to 2.5m above the terrace level at the front and 1.5m above the land level at the rear (not 2.6m and 1.6m respectively as originally stated). · The receipt of 12 additional representations objecting to the application. · The receipt of one representation stating that the proposed development had been constructed on land within the ownership of the neighbouring dwelling (14 Tan y Maes). However, no further details showing the land owned by the neighbouring dwelling had been provided to date. In considering the application, Members made reference to the following: · The retrospective nature of the application. · The location of the building, height and mass were considered excessive and inappropriate. · The construction had an adverse impact on the character, appearance and amenity of the area due to its size and location. · The proposal exceeded permitted development rights. · A Member of the Committee noted that the applicant had chosen not to erect a 2m high fence, within permitted development rights, as previously proposed. · The height of the building exceeding permitted development rights by 4 inches. The Head of Law and Governance advised accordingly regarding permitted development rights and stated that Members had to consider the proposal before them. · The development suggested extensive alterations to the ground levels to create terraced areas. In response, Members were informed that due to the retrospective nature of the application, Planning Officers were unable to verify how correct the existing plans and ground levels were. In conclusion, and contrary to the Officers’ recommendation, Members were minded to refuse planning permission as they considered the development had an adverse impact on the amenity. As a consequence of Members being minded to refuse planning permission, which was contrary to the Officers’ recommendation, and in accordance with approved procedure, the application would be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee for further consideration. RESOLVED: (a) That the Planning Committee be minded to refuse planning permission. (b) That the Development and Building Control Manager be authorised to determine the application under delegation. (c) That the application be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee for further consideration, as the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

Mr Paul Stone (Agent) spoke in support of the application. An addendum to the report was presented, highlighting the following: · Paragraph 3 of the Committee report appendix summarised the consultation response from Environment, Roads and Facilities (Flood Risk and Infrastructure) as stating ‘The development is unlikely to lead to an increase in flood risk’. Members were advised that the summary referred to the risk from surface water as opposed to tidal flooding. · An update was provided in relation to the assessment of the proposal against criterion e) and g) of Policy HOU/9. In considering the application, Members made reference to the following: · There was a need for further traveller accommodation. · The proposal would help sustain the community and employment in the area. · The current site was very well maintained. · Flood risk was considered minimal. Reference was made to the Flood Consequences Assessment. · A request for the caravans to be the same size, style and colour was suggested. · Provision of a footway via a commuted sum. In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that any commuted sum payment required for the provision of the footway would need to be secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, the majority of Members were supportive of the application for the following reasons: i) The Gypsy and Traveller Assessment identified a need for further traveller accommodation. ii) The pitches were elevated above surrounding ground levels. iii) The Flood Consequences Assessment considered that the site was protected from coastal flooding in a 0.5% Annual Event Probability scenario during the lifetime of the development. In conclusion, and contrary to the Officers’ recommendation, Members were minded to grant conditional planning permission, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement in respect of commuted sum payments for the provision of the footway. As a consequence of Members being minded to grant conditional planning permission, which was contrary to the Officers’ recommendation, and in accordance with approved procedure, the application would be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee for further consideration. In addition, in order for Members to visually comprehend the site, as part of the re-evaluation of the application, a site visit was proposed, prior to the next Committee meeting. RESOLVED: (a) That the Planning Committee be minded to grant conditional planning permission, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement in respect of commuted sum payments for the provision of the footway. (b) That the Development and Building Control Manager be authorised to determine the application under delegation. (c) That the application be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee for further consideration, as the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. (d) That a site visit be arranged, prior to the next meeting of the Planning Committee. Note: Councillor Nigel Smith declared a non-prejudicial interest in the above application.

Mr Berin Jones, Chairman of the Llandudno Hospitality Association, spoke against the application and Mr Richard Lukjaniec (Applicant) spoke in favour. An addendum to the report was presented, indicating a revised Officer recommendation to that within the Committee report. In considering the application, Members made reference to the following: · The property and facilities were considered inadequate and not fit for a house of multiple occupation (HMO) purpose. · The need to safeguard tourism and tourism accommodation in the area. · The application was contrary to Policies TOU/3 and HOU/10 of the Local Development Plan. · The need and demand for such accommodation in the area was acknowledged. · The temporary nature of the application was considered inappropriate for the people in need of accommodation. Contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, Members were minded to refuse planning permission as the application was contrary to Policies TOU/3 and HOU/10 of the Local Development Plan and the overriding need to safeguard serviced holiday accommodation. As a consequence of Members being minded to refuse temporary planning permission and in accordance with approved procedure, the application would be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee for further consideration. RESOLVED: (a) That the Planning Committee be minded to refuse temporary planning permission. (b) That the Development and Building Control Manager be authorised to determine the application under delegation. (c) That the application be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee, as the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

Mr Stephen Hughes spoke against the application and Mr Peter Lloyd (Agent) spoke in favour. Further to a site visit, an addendum to the report was presented, highlighting that following a further site inspection, Officers considered that, notwithstanding the side privacy screen, the application as submitted would cause an unacceptable degree of overlooking between the rear balcony and the existing dwellings to the north. As a consequence, Planning Officers had requested the applicant submit amended plans to increase the distance between that balcony and the northern boundary of the site. The recommendation had therefore been amended to that within the Committee report. In considering the application, Members were supportive of the amended recommendation, subject to the provision of a specific condition in respect of landscaping along the northern site boundary. RESOLVED: (a) That the Planning Committee be minded to grant conditional planning permission, subject to the applicant amending the rear balcony to the satisfaction of the Development and Building Control Manager and the inclusion of a condition in respect of landscaping. (b) That, in the event that the applicant does not amend the application to the satisfaction of the Development and Building Control Manager within three months from the date of the Committee resolution (or such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Development and Building Control Manager), planning permission be refused. (c) That the Development and Building Control Manager be authorised to determine the application under delegation.

An addendum to the report was presented, advising Members that the Council’s Ecologist had confirmed the location of Bryn Gwian Heath Wildlife Site. A copy of which could be found in the Committee report. Officers considered that the conditions requested by the Council’s Ecologist could be included in any decision should Members be supportive of the scheme. In addition, Members were informed that no adverse comments were received from Eglwysbach Community Council. The Local Electoral Division Member spoke in support of the application. RESOLVED: (a) That the Planning Committee be minded to grant conditional planning permission. (b) That the Development and Building Control Manager be authorised to determine the application under delegation.

Members were supportive of the application. RESOLVED: (a) That the Planning Committee be minded to grant conditional planning permission. (b) That the Development and Building Control Manager be authorised to determine the application under delegation. NOTE: Councillor Jo Nuttall declared a prejudicial interest in the above item and as a consequence, withdrew from the meeting whilst the matter was being discussed.