Agenda item

7.1 19LPA1043A/CC – Vulcan Street, Holyhead

7.2 42C188E/ENF – 4 Tai Hirion, Rhoscefnhir

7.1       19LPA1043A/CC – Full application for the erection of 6 affordable dwellings, construction of a pedestrian access, creation of 8 parking spaces together with the demolition and relocation of gate posts on land adjacent to Vulcan Street, Holyhead.

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because the Isle of Anglesey County Council is the applicant and the landowner. At its meeting held on 3 October the Committee resolved to convene a site visit; the application site was subsequently visited on 17 October, 2018.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application was originally called in by Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes - a Local Member due to concerns over parking congestion in the vicinity of the newly built Cybi School which are also reflected in objections submitted by one local resident. In the Officer’s opinion, the proposal in seeking to demolish the former snooker hall building and an attached residential property on site and replacing them with contemporary flats and houses in a highly sustainable brownfield location within easy access of schools and the town’s amenities will improve the appearance of the area as well as the character of the nearby Grade II Listed Cybi building. The access to the school is to be retained and the gate pillars on the service road to Ysgol Cybi are to be re-aligned. Although part of the application site is currently used on an informal basis for car parking by residents and others, the area in question is owned by the Council and there is no lawful right to park thereon or requirement that the area be retained as a parking area.

The Officer said that Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes in tendering his apologies for absence for this meeting, had submitted his observations on the application which she read out. Those reiterated his concerns about parking and traffic problems particularly given that 900 pupils from the two schools use the area. The addition of six dwellings with potentially 2 vehicles in each dwelling brings the problem of parking to the forefront not just in Vulcan Street but Holyhead as a whole. Councillor Hughes suggests that parking needs to be looked at in terms of general policy and should be part of the decision-making process which at present it is not. Any costs in relation to highways with the application should be borne by the applicant. It would also be appreciated if the applicant could provide a footpath alongside the proposed new houses to join up with the current footpath at the back.

The Officer confirmed that the Highways Authority has no objections to the proposal there being provision for 8 off-street parking spaces as part of the development. With regard to the Local Member’s request that a new footway be provided, there is at present a footway at the rear of the properties on the north west side of Vulcan Street and whilst the proposed development will restrict access to the northern side of the footway at the rear of 47 Vulcan Street, access will still be available from the southern side of the footway. The creation of an additional footway at the front of the proposed new units does not form part of the applicant’s intention. This is in any case considered a civil matter rather than a matter for the Committee. As the proposal has been designed to comply with Secured by Design standards, the creation of footways to the rear of properties is not considered ideal in terms of promoting security and they can become a focal point for individuals to congregate. For the reasons given above, the recommendation is to approve the application.

The Legal Services Manager advised that the issue of who has rights over the footway is a civil legal matter where it would fall to the residents of Vulcan Street to prove their rights against the landowner, in this case the County Council. This applies if the footpath has not been registered as a public footpath in which circumstances the public in general would have statutory rights over the footway.

The Development Control Engineer in confirming that the proposed development complies with parking standards said that the applicant should not be penalised because of the wider parking problems on Vulcan Street nor expected to provide a solution to them.

Although the Committee acknowledged that there are parking and traffic issues on Vulcan Street which were apparent during the site visit it noted that the objections submitted on those grounds have been assessed by the Highways Authority which finds the proposal acceptable. The Committee also noted that there is a high demand in Holyhead for the type of affordable units which the application proposes to deliver as confirmed by the Housing Service which it deemed a material consideration.

Councillor Dafydd Roberts proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report subject to the conditions contained therein and subject also to the receipt of any comments by the Council’s Lifelong Learning Service.

7.2       42C188E/ENF – Retrospective application for the erection of a new build holiday letting unit at 4 Tai Hirion, Rhoscefnhir

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting held on 5 September, 2018 the Planning and Orders Committee resolved to visit the application site. The site visit took place on 19 September, 2018. At its meeting held on 3 October, 2018, the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the grounds that the proposal was deemed to comply with Policy TWR 2.

Councillor Margaret Murley Roberts speaking as a Local Member said the applicants had received full planning permission in 2006 to convert outbuildings into 5 residential units with permission being given in 2014 to convert an outbuilding into a dwelling which was larger than the original scheme by extending it at the rear with the plan being to convert it into accommodation for visitors. When the walls of the outbuilding collapsed and it was re-built the Building Regulations Section did not foresee any problems and neither did Officers when a second application was made as it was for accommodation for visitors.  Since the Committee’s last meeting the Planning Service has made further investigations stating that there is no record of planning permission for the cheesemaking operation run from the neighbouring farm. In 2007 permission to make cheese on an agricultural farm was not needed as it was farm produce. However, the family wish it to be known that they are willing to comply with the Officers’ wishes. The family has also provided business plan information confirming that the business is run as one business. In the current difficult financial climate farmers are encouraged to diversify – the family works hard running a bed and breakfast, taking in visitors and producing cheese on the farm, and have co-operated with the Officers. They have not concealed anything. Councillor Roberts said that the proposed development is in keeping with its location and it is hoped the Committee will support it.

The Planning Development Manager reported that Policy TWR 2 does support the development of new permanent serviced or self-serviced holiday accommodation providing they meet all the criteria. The proposal is not within the development boundary and neither is it located on previously developed/brownfield land as defined by Planning Policy Wales which defines such land as that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure but excluding agricultural or forestry buildings. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for Tourist Accommodation and Facilities which has been the subject of a recent public consultation confirms that it is Planning Policy Wales’s definition that is used for the purpose of the policy. Neither has an assessment of whether the proposal would lead to an intensification of such accommodation in the area been presented – notwithstanding the accountants have submitted comments these do not equate to an assessment of the accommodation provision in the area in accordance with the requirements of the policy. At the Committee’s previous meeting the applicant suggested that the visitor accommodation was important in relation to the cheese making business given that cheese making courses including residential courses, are provided. Those attending the courses are able to stay on the caravan site when it is open but would stay in the visitor accommodation during the winter making this development important to the year round prosperity of the cheese making business. The Officer said that enforcement investigations have shown that the cheese making operation does not have planning permission which it is required to do as it does not fall within the Planning Act’s definition of agricultural business being categorised as D2 use; neither does the caravan site comply with the consent given.  The Officer said that the proposed development does not comply with Planning Policy Wales and Policy TWR 2 as it is not on brownfield land as defined by those policies. The Committee in approving the application has chosen a different definition of brownfield which potentially might lead to the submission of retrospective applications for all the operations on site so that there is consent for the cheese making operation, the caravan site and visitor accommodation under the Committee’s definition of brownfield. However, based on the policy definition and on that in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, the proposal is contrary to policy and the recommendation remains to refuse the application.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were made by the Committee –

•           That the proposal is on land and forms part of a development that has had planning consent and it would complete the complex as a tourist facility.

•           That the proposal does meet criteria ii, iii, iv and v of Policy TWR 2 which were read out by Councillor Eric Jones

•           Whether the proposal would be acceptable had not the walls of the original subject building collapsed and had to be re-built.

The Planning Development Manager responded as follows –

•           That the proposal does not satisfy criteria i of Policy TWR 2 i.e. “in the case of new build accommodation that the development is located within a development boundary or makes use of a suitable previously developed site.” The policy definition of a previously developed site excludes agricultural buildings. As the subject building was a former agricultural building it does not accord with the definition of a previously developed site meaning the proposal is contrary to policy.

•           That the original consent was granted under the previous Development Plan policies which allowed the conversion of outbuildings. Had the original application involved substantial re-building it would have been rejected because the policy at the time would not have allowed it. As it is, the subject building has been re-built in its entirety and has therefore to be considered under current policies as new build holiday accommodation.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones said that at the Committee’s previous meeting he had proposed that the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement to incorporate the operation at Tai Hirion and that at Rhyd y Delyn as one business unit. He sought clarification of whether this option was feasible.

The Planning Development Manager said that it is open for the Committee to take this course as the policy allows new build holiday accommodation if it is an extension of an existing holiday accommodation business. The applicant made this link between the two operations at the previous meeting suggesting that the business is a single-family business entity. However, imposing a section 106 agreement does not overcome the issue of how a previously developed/brownfield site is defined, with the Committee’s definition being contrary to what the Planning policy states is the correct definition.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 106 agreement incorporating the operation at Tai Hirion and the cheese making operation at Rhyd y Delyn into one business. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes.

Councillor Eric Jones proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation without a Section 106 agreement. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes.

Councillor John Griffith proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

The resulting vote was as follows –

For approving the application with a Section 106 agreement – Councillors Richard Owain Jones, Vaughan Hughes, Dafydd Roberts, Robin Williams.

For approving the application without a Section 106 agreement – Councillors Kenneth Hughes, Eric Jones, Bryan Owen

For refusing the application – Councillors John Griffith, Nicola Roberts

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation subject to a section 106 agreement to incorporate the operation at 4 Tai Hirion and the operation at Rhyd y Delyn into one business unit and subject also to planning conditions to be determined by the Officers.