Agenda item

12.1 14C257 – Cefn Trefor, Trefor

 

12.2 18C117C – Swtan, Church Bay

 

12.3 19C1111B – Bodowen, Pentre Fferam Gorniog, Holyhead

 

12.4 39C601 – Cartrefle, Menai Bridge

 

12.5 40LPA356/CC – Ffordd Lligwy, Moelfre

12.1    14C257 – Outline application for the erection of an affordable dwelling together with full details of the vehicular access and drainage with all matters reserved on land adjacent to Cefn Trefor, Trefor.

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as has been called in by a Local Member on the grounds of proximity to the cluster and a local need.

 

Public Speaker

 

Mr Gavin Evans spoke in support of the application and emphasised the family’s local credentials with both he and his wife having been brought up in Llangefni – in Rhostrehwfa and Corn Hir respectively which is only about 7 miles from Trefor. Mr Evans said that both he and his wife work in Llangefni and are a Welsh speaking family. The land in question was bought from the Council last year with the intention of building a 4-bedroom affordable home for the family – the family’s home in RAF Valley was too small with no chance of extending it. The house was put on the market and sold very quickly meaning that the family is now living on a temporary basis with his brother in Llynfaes which is not ideal. Mr Evans said that he wished to give his children the same freedom and countryside upbringing that he had. Buying a house in such a setting in the open market is out of reach so the only option is to build on their own land. The point is that the family is as close to Trefor as possible and are in need of an affordable dwelling.

 

Councillor R.G. Parry, OBE, FRAgS, a Local Member said that the family’s intention was to apply for planning permission on the plot of land that was sold to them by the Council. He said that he did not consider the proposal to be intrusive as there are 10 two storey houses in Trefor, about 7 cottages and a chapel. With regard to being local, Councillor Parry said that for him personally, Anglesey is “local” although that is not the policy definition of local. The applicants currently reside in Llynfaes which like Trefor is in the Canolbarth Môn ward. Additionally, the Housing Service has confirmed that the applicants are in affordable need. Councillor Parry asked the Committee to give the applicants a chance.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that under Policy TAI 6 of the JLDP, Trefor is identified as a cluster. The policy supports proposals for affordable dwellings for local need providing all the criteria are met. The policy defines local need as” people in need of an affordable dwelling who have resided within the cluster or in the surrounding rural area for a continuous period of 5 years or more, either immediately before submitting the application or in the past”. The home in RAF Valley which the applicant sold is in the Llifon ward area. The policy does not permit individuals to move out of other villages to clusters in order to obtain an affordable dwelling. Neither does the proposal meet the policy criteria in relation to scale being for a 9m high dwelling on a site where the property immediately next door and adjacent are single storey cottages and, as the proposal is also located on the edge of the village, it is considered that it will create an intrusive feature in this location. Although there are two storey dwellings in the area they are predominantly small scale with windows reaching the eaves. Notwithstanding the proposal satisfies some of the criteria as described in the written report, because it does not meet all the criteria it is considered to be contrary to Policy TAI 6 and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused.

 

In considering the application which it was minded to approve, the Committee made the    following points –

 

•           That from the Inset map the application site is adjacent to a coloured building and is within the curtilage of the property in front of it and forms a neat completion to the village.

•           Whether there is an acceptable design for an affordable dwelling in terms of scale and size that makes it compliant as an affordable dwelling.

•           That the applicant is originally from Lôn Gefn Rhostrehwfa which is a rural area within the Canolbarth Môn ward area with Trefor also being in the Canolbarth Môn ward area. The applicant has had to live outside the area for a temporary period because of prohibitively high house prices in Llangefni.

•           That the application represents a confirmed housing need for an affordable dwelling for a local family and that the policy’s rigidity prevents this local need from being met. The policy should be applied with common sense being mindful also that the land was sold with a view to obtaining planning consent.

 

The Planning Development Manager responded to the matters raised as follows –

 

•           She confirmed that the proposal complies with policy in being part of the cluster. However, it is the Officer’s opinion that the proposed development will due to its scale and size, create an intrusive feature in its location and is thereby contrary to the policy in this respect.

•           That an assessment of what is affordable for the applicants has been made based on their situation and needs as a family (rather than there being a prescribed pattern for an affordable dwelling). The proposed dwelling reflects the needs of the family in relation to the size and number of bedrooms required.  However, it is the Officer’s view that the scale and size of the overall dwelling in its location is not in keeping with the dwellings around it and the proposal does not therefore comply with policy.

•           That with regard to affordable housing for local need the policy definition is as stated above i.e. “people in need of an affordable dwelling who have resided within the cluster or in the surrounding rural area for a continuous period of 5 years or more, either immediately before submitting the application or in the past”. Whether the applicant’s connection with a rural area through his childhood upbringing satisfies the criteria is a matter of opinion. It is the Officer’s view that the applicants have not provided any evidence that they meet this criterion and therefore the proposal does not comply with policy.

•           That how the land was sold to the applicant is not a material consideration.

 

Councillor Eric Jones proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that he believed the proposal to be compliant with Policy TAI 6 in terms of meeting the test with regard to local need and in terms of fitting into the general development pattern of the settlement without being intrusive. Councillor Kenneth Hughes seconded the proposal.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised it is a matter for the Committee to set out its definition of “local need” in the policy if it does not accept the definition provided by the Officer. The policy has been drafted to respond to the historical problem of finding a balance between local housing need and allowing housing development within settlements. If the Committee is minded to approve the application contrary to policy on this point it is likely to reopen the issue and it will make it difficult for it to keep the line in a number of similar applications where the Committee does not accept the policy’s definition of local. Consequently, there is a risk of the Committee’s being arbitrary in how it interprets the policy and what it deems to be local in the context of the policy.

 

In the ensuing vote, Councillors Eric Jones, Kenneth Hughes and Bryan Owen voted to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor John Griffith abstained because although he sympathised with the applicants’ situation, he recognised the need to accept the policy as it is. Councillors Vaughan Hughes, Richard Owain Jones, Dafydd Roberts and Robin Williams also abstained on the grounds that despite having a great deal of sympathy for the applicants, they accepted the legal advice given.

 

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because the Committee deemed the proposal to be compliant with Policy TAI 6. (Councillors John Griffith, Vaughan Hughes, Richard Owain Jones, Dafydd Roberts and Robin Williams abstained from voting)

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow Officers the opportunity to prepare a report on the reason given for refusing the application.

 

12.2    18C117 – Full application for the change of use of land to form a car park together with amendments to the existing vehicular access on land at Swtan, Church Bay

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the application is made by the National Trust on County Council owned land.

 

As Councillor Kenneth Hughes had declared a prejudicial interest in the application, he withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and determination thereof.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is for the creation of a 6-bay car park for use by visitors to the nearby Swtan barns which will also involve re-arranging the existing access. The proposal is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but due to the small scale of the development it is not considered the scheme will have any negative effects on the wider area. A letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of the nearby residential property on the grounds of the intrusive location of the car park directly overlooking the rear garden of the property. Consequently, it was to be conditioned that a fence be erected on the boundary between the proposal and the property. The applicant has however proposed that instead of a fence he undertakes a hedge planting scheme as being more in keeping with the location which is within the AONB. A condition that a management plan for the car park be provided to further mitigate against the issues raised by the objector is also proposed. With those conditions, the recommendation is to approve the application.

 

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

 

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 additional conditions in relation to the provision of a management plan for the car park and the undertaking of a hedge planting scheme.

 

12.3    19C1111B – Full application for the construction of a vehicular access on land at Bodowen, Pentre Fferam Gorniog, Holyhead

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the proposed new access is within the land that is owned by the Council.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is to construct a new vehicular access in front of the existing front garden of the Bodowen dwelling along with two new parking bays. The development lies within the Holyhead Mountain Conservation Area which is itself within the AONB. The applicant has provided further information indicating that due to the proposal’s sensitive location, a new stone wall will be erected between the parking bays and the current garden wall and that gravel, not tarmac will be used for the parking bays and drive. Neither the Council’s Heritage Advisor nor the Highways Authority raise any objections to the development. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

 

Councillor Robin Williams 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.

12.4    39C601 – Full application for the siting of 4 chalets (holiday use) together with the construction of a track and associated works on land opposite Cartrefle, Menai Bridge

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it has been called in for the Committee’s determination by a Local Member.

 

Public Speaker

 

Mr Jamie Bradshaw spoke in support of the application and responded to points of concern raised by local residents in relation to the effects of the proposal on privacy and amenity, suitability of the access and its location outside the development boundary. He said that the scheme has been subject to extensive discussions with Planning Officers with the aim throughout being to create a high-quality development that will complement its setting and respect visual and residential amenities which will provide high quality accommodation with resulting economic benefits for the area. He pointed out that Policy TWR 3 of the Local Joint Development Plan does not seek to restrict developments of this type to sites within development boundaries.

In response to a point of clarification raised by the Committee with regard to what the speaker meant by referring in his presentation to low-key use, Mr Bradshaw explained that the development comprising of only 4 chalets is modest in nature and is primarily for residential, rather than active commercial use there being no leisure element involved. The proposal is for holiday chalets in a quiet wooded setting which is the market the applicant is aiming for and for which the development has been designed.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application was originally for 5 holiday chalets rather than the 4 now proposed. The chalets have also been re-sited in response to comments made by consultees. The Officer said that Policy TWR 3 supports developments such as this as long as it does not lead to over provision in an area. The proposed development is considered acceptable when assessed against the provisions of the Anglesey Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study. The proposal also meets policy requirements in being located in an unobtrusive location which is screened by land and trees around the site and which is close to the main highway network. Developments such as that proposed do not have to be situated within the development boundary and the fact that the majority of the site is adequately screened and lies at a lower level than nearby residential properties serves to mitigate any effects on neighbours. The proposed development is not dissimilar to a low-density residential estate where the use would not be expected to give rise to any unacceptable noise disturbance apart from the fact that a residential development would not be permissible outside the boundary. Conditions to regulate external lighting and to prevent the removal of trees in order to safeguard the existing natural screening are also proposed. There are no technical objections to the proposal and the recommendation is one of approval.

 

In response to questions raised by the Committee, the Officer clarified that the application site lies opposite the AONB but is sufficiently screened so that any visual impacts are reduced. Whilst none of the trees surrounding the site are subject to a TPO, the proposal provides an opportunity to impose conditions to manage the trees and ensure the natural screening remains. Additionally, the Anglesey Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study has assessed the capacity of each landscape character area on Anglesey to accommodate static caravan, chalets or permanent camping accommodation.  It is not considered that the proposal in question in being very small (defined as up to 10 units) would lead to an intensification in such provision in the area and is therefore acceptable.

 

Councillor Robin Williams, also a Local Member said that he believed that it is an anomaly in the policy that a chalet development is permissible outside the development boundary but not a residential development. The proposal is unlike anything else currently on Holyhead Road and is close to a cemetery which is important to many people in the locality. Councillor Williams added that had he known or been informed that Policy TWR 3 does allow developments of this type outside the development boundary, he would not have called in the application. However, he still believed the proposal to be inappropriate in its setting and would therefore abstain from voting on the application.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Bryan Owen.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report subject to the conditions contained therein. (Councillor Robin Williams abstained from voting)

 

12.5    40LPA356/CC – Full application for the erection of 3 affordable dwellings, landscaping and other associated development on land at Ffordd Lligwy, Moelfre

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee because the County Council is the applicant and landowner.

 

Councillor Margaret Murley Roberts speaking as a Local Member confirmed her and the Community Council’s support for the proposal but emphasised that it was hoped the affordable dwellings proposed would be for local people. If so, it could release much needed council housing for families in the area given that it very difficult for families to buy or rent in the locality because of market prices and the number of second homes   with the knock-on effect this has for services e.g. recruiting to the lifeboat.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that Moelfre is classified as a Local Village under the provisions of Policy TAI 5 of the JLDP which permits local market housing proposals on suitable sites within the settlement boundary subject to the maximum unit size specified – therefore the proposed dwellings will be for local people in accordance with the policy. As well as being for people within the community the 3 proposed units will also be affordable dwellings but, as the Council is the applicant this would be administered through a condition rather than through a legal agreement as it would not be possible for the Council to complete a legal agreement with itself. Although Policy TAI 15 (Affordable Housing Threshold and Distribution) only requires 30% of the units to be affordable the application will be developed for 100% affordable housing. In terms of all other considerations, the proposal is considered acceptable there being no highways objections nor undue design or amenity impacts arising therefrom.

 

Councillor Eric Jones proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report subject to the conditions contained therein and to the receipt of comments from the Council’s drainage section.