Agenda item

7.1 30C225K/ECON – Treetops Country Club, Tynygongl

7.2 FPL/2018/57 – Parc Tyddyn Bach, Holyhead

7.3 FPL/2019/13 – Telephone Mast, Nebo

7.1       30C225K/ECON – Outline application for the siting of 25 holiday chalets together with leisure complex and associated access roads with some matters reserved at Treetops Country Club, Tyn y Gongl

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of two Local Members.

Councillors Margaret M. Roberts and Ieuan Williams both spoke as Local Members to re-emphasise the unacceptable impact of the proposed development on the area in terms of its effect upon the landscape, over provision of holiday accommodation, traffic and highways safety.

Councillor Ieuan Williams in describing how in his view the proposal is incompatible with Policy TWR 3 in leading to a significant intensification of the provision of this type of holiday accommodation in the area referred to the fact that from 600m to 1.5 km distance of the site there are 20 other such sites providing for 1,212 static caravans and 554 touring caravans. Planning permission has been granted for 9 chalets on an as yet undeveloped site at Lon y Glyn and at Storws Wen within 400m of the application site there is holiday village comprising of 30 holiday units. Farther out there are 6 static caravan sites around Pentraeth – Penrhyn Point, Traeth Bychan, Nant Bychan in Moelfre etc - making for in all, 5,000 static caravans. Benllech already suffers from an existing traffic problem with the square often gridlocked; there is concern about the square’s capacity to deal with additional traffic. Speeding though Bwlch is also a problem.  Moreover, housing developments that are either approved or in the pipeline will also add to the volume of traffic and on top of this are CLs (Certified Location) sites which are for a maximum 5 caravans which are also springing up in many areas. The new Planning Policy Wales places emphasis on sustainability and on taking a strategic view of planning in looking to the future. Councillor Williams said that he did not believe that a sufficiently holistic appraisal of the proposal had been made including its impact on the area and amenities beyond Benllech. Taking all provision into account including spaces at the GP Surgery which are available in the evenings and at weekends, there are 126 parking spaces in Benllech which are meant to serve 5,000 additional population in the summer. Councillor Williams concluded by saying that the proposal is contrary to policy in leading to over capacity of holiday accommodation in the area and he added that the test for assessing over capacity needs to be more specific in having regard to the actual volume of such accommodation in an area as well as the sensitivity of the landscape.

The Committee sought clarification of the Local Member of the reasons for not showing the video evidence of traffic in Benllech referred to at the Committee’s previous meeting. The Committee also raised the issue of the economic benefit which tourists bring to Benllech and the surrounding area.

Councillor Ieuan Williams clarified that following an incident on Benllech Square involving a lorry the then Highways Technician made a film of traffic situation in Benllech Square. As the film evidence was taken on the Officer’s phone and the Officer no longer works for the Council, then it cannot be shown. However, due to ongoing concerns about the traffic in and around the square in Benllech, a further survey will take place in the next week. With regard to the economic benefit of tourism, Councillor Williams said that whilst he agreed that tourism and the extra revenue it brings is important to the local economy, it must be provided for in sites that are appropriate and tasteful and not as in the current proposal where 25 holiday units are to be squeezed into a site that is more suitable for 10 units because that is more viable. According to the supplementary planning guidance, sites such as this should also be screened by the natural landscape and should not have need for any additional landscaping scheme. Because the application site is not sufficiently screened from the B5108 by the natural landscape a new landscaping screen is proposed which is contrary to the SPG. There is therefore a policy basis for rejecting the application.

The Development Management Manager reported that there is both support and opposition to the proposal locally as reflected by the statutory consultation process which has been carried out. A screening opinion has been issued which confirms that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required. The Officer said that the applicant has now lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination by the Local Planning Authority and, because of the nature of the application, the applicant is seeking a hearing as part of the appeal process. Once the appeal process has been validated the Local Planning Authority i.e. the Committee as the body to which the application has been referred, has four weeks to determine the application after which it will enter into an appeal situation where an appeal against refusal on the basis of on non-determination within timescale will be heard. The application has been assessed against Policy TWR3 and the criteria therein as a result of which it is considered that the area is capable of accommodating the development. The key consideration is the Anglesey Sensitivity and Capacity Study. Paragraph 6.3.6.9 of the explanations to Policy TWR3 states that the study was commissioned to assess the capacity of an area to accommodate this type of development and is not about volume in terms of numbers but rather the capacity of the landscape to absorb developments such as this. This is the main consideration under the policy. A letter submitted by the applicant’s agent provides clarification of why the application is for 25 units and not 10 on a 1 hectare site (Table 2.1 of the Static Caravan/Chalet Park Development Typologies of the Anglesey, Gwynedd and Snowdonia National Park Landscape Sensitivity Study indicates that 10 units would be more acceptable on a 1 hectare site) and emphasises that this is an approximation. The study says “that it is important to note that the report represents a strategic study and is not prescriptive at an individual site level. It does not replace the need for the Councils and Park Authority to assess individual planning applications for local landscape and visual impact assessment as part of formal EIA on a case by case basis”. A strategic assessment has been made and the written report provides as assessment of the effects of the proposal on the landscape which are found to be acceptable. In economic terms the proposal provides for 20 jobs and in terms of sustainability the site is close to existing public transport links – two bus stops are located adjacent to the site and it is intended to create a new footpath and crossing as part of the application as well as a new access to the B5108 highway. Whilst Dwr Cymru is satisfied with the proposal the Council’s Drainage section requests more information about water surface drainage and subject to the receipt of this information, the recommendation is one of approval.

The Committee in considering the application raised the following points –

•           Whether it would be feasible for approval to be conditional upon no new chalets being built on the as yet undeveloped part of the site (the scheme providing for the concentration of the units on one part of the site).

The Development Management Manager said that details of the site layout are as submitted as part of the application. No amendments to the layout by way of additional chalets can be made without a statutory process being undertaken i.e. separate formal planning approval would have to be obtained for any additional units over and above those specified as part of this application.

•           That in light of the case for over-capacity made by the Local Members whether it is premature to be determining the application ahead of the traffic survey which the Local Member indicated would be carried out next week.

The Development Management Manager said that the application has been assessed by the Highways Authority on the basis of what if any, increase in traffic the proposal and resulting use of the of the site might generate. A transport assessment has also been submitted as part of the application. The Officer advised that in light of a prospective appeal, it might be unwise for the Committee to defer determining the application pending the outcome of a traffic survey of the square at Benllech when the origins of the traffic on the square cannot be proven and where it could not derive from the proposed development as that does not exist currently. It would not therefore be possible to draw any conclusions from the survey about the proposal’s effects on traffic; if there are traffic problems in the area as a whole it would have to be demonstrated that the proposed development adds materially to those problems in order for the proposal to be considered unacceptable and evidence of the same would have to be presented at appeal in order to justify refusal on those grounds.

•           Whether the Highways Authority is satisfied that the capacity of the highways in and around the Benllech area is adequate to be able to deal with this kind of proposal.

The Development Control Engineer said a detailed transport survey has been presented as part of the application which finds that the proposed development will not lead to a material increase in traffic use over and above that which exists currently. Whilst the Highways Authority does have concerns about the capacity of the square in Benllech hence the traffic survey that will be undertaken this is a separate issue to the proposed development; the applicant should not be penalised for problems that already exist.

•           That as the proposal is for 25 chalets in an area where the  Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study recommends 10 units per 1 hectare and as the proposal also provides for a leisure complex making it a sizable development and thereby increasing its visual impact and its impact on amenities, whether it contravenes Policy TWR 3 which states that such proposals will only be granted if they are sited in an unobtrusive location which is well screened by existing landscape features and where the units can readily be assimilated into the landscape in a way which does not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape, and can be refused on that basis.

The Development Management Manager clarified that Policy TWR3 states that such proposals will only be granted if they are sited in an unobtrusive location which is well screened by existing landscape features and/or where the units can readily be assimilated into the landscape in a way which does not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape. The Officer said that a landscaping scheme is proposed as part of the proposal which will mitigate any visual impact making it unobtrusive within its location and leading to no significant harm to the visual quality of the landscape.

Although some members of the Committee objected to the proposal because they considered it to be visually intrusive within its landscape and because they believed it would lead to an unacceptable intensification of such holiday provision within the area, the majority of the Committee’s members were minded to approve the application because they concurred with the Officer’s view that it meets policy requirements and because they deemed it to be economically advantageous to the area.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Bryan Owen. Councillor John Griffith proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of overcapacity and visual impact; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes. In the ensuing vote, the proposal to approve the application was carried.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report subject to the planning conditions contained therein and subject also to the receipt of details regarding surface water drainage.

7.2       FPL/2018/57 – Full application for the erection of 46 dwellings together with the creation of a new vehicular access on land adjacent to Parc Tyddyn Bach, Holyhead

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because it has been called in to committee by a Local Member.

The Development Management Manager reported that information in respect of drainage details is still awaited with regard to the proposal above and in addition, a policy issue has arisen this week in relation to the mix of units as part of the proposed development. The applicant has consequently requested that consideration of the application be deferred to allow time to respond to these matters.

Councillor Robin Williams proposed that the application be deferred as requested; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones.

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application for the reasons given.

7.3       FPL/2019/13 – Full application for the erection of an agricultural shed for the housing of livestock and the storage of machinery and fodder together with the construction of a hard-standing access track on land adjacent to Telephone Mast, Nebo

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

As he had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Richard Owain Jones stood down as Vice-Chair but remained at the meeting in order to make representations as Local Member.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones said that the application is for a relatively small agricultural shed not dissimilar to a garage in a standard house and is located in a dip on Mynydd Eilian. From the shed’s proposed location there is very little to see through to Porth Llechog on the coastline and the shed is certainly not visible from Porth Llechog. If the hedgerow near to road grows any higher it will be nearly invisible from the road. The applicant has also said that he would be willing to relocate the shed lower down in the field. In a discussion with the principal planning officer the latter suggested that the applicant site the shed near the sheds that are already on site. The applicant did not do so in order to better integrate the development within the site as is required by the JLDP. The planting scheme which it is intended will be carried out will mean gains in terms of biodiversity, ecology and environment and is to be welcomed as complying with Policy PCYFF 4. The general principle of development for agricultural purposes is accepted in local and national planning policies on condition that the development can be justified. Due to its location it is possible to justify the proposal because it is necessary to have a shed to keep farm machinery and fodder etc. safe and to provide shelter for the animals in bad weather. The site forms part of the old Anglesey radio station site with concrete block foundations – a network of cables still exists on the site. It is possible to argue that this is a commercial brownfield site with the applicant proposing to return the land to agricultural use in a way that is integrated with the landscape making it compliant with Policy AMG 2, 6.5.1 namely “the aim of the SLA protection is to ensure that development proposals consider maintaining, enhancing or restoring the recognised character and quality of the area.” Councillor Jones clarified that 16 SLAs have been identified for Gwynedd and Anglesey which include Mynydd Parys but not Mynydd Eilian which is the location of the proposed development. In conclusion, the site is near to but not located within the SSA and is not visible from the SSA; the shed is not in an obvious place, is not visible from the road and is therefore not a prominent feature on the landscape. The proposal is reasonable as regards size, location and use which is acceptable in relation to the JLDP and complies with Policy PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 6.5.1.

Councillor Aled Morris Jones referred to other features on the landscape in this area such as the windmill, radio mast, the former radio station and also six houses which are within a stone’s throw of the proposed development.  It was his opinion that these are far more prominent in terms of their “standing out” than the shed which is the subject of the application.  Mynydd Parys which is within the SSA is a mile away from the development site. The development is intended to enable an individual from the locality to return to farming and to provide shelter for livestock and storage for farm vehicles. He asked the Committee to support the application.

The Committee sought clarification of how much livestock the applicant owns currently, and how much did he hope to acquire given that the shed is referred to a being akin to a garage in size.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones confirmed that the applicant did not have any livestock at present having avoided acquiring stock until the application for the shed had been determined; neither was the applicant in possession of any land elsewhere. Councillor Jones said that he did not know how many animals the applicant was intending to acquire.

The Development Management Manager reported that the applicant has 2.3 hectares of land and intends that the shed should house livestock, and provide storage for machinery and fodder. The applicant does not currently own any livestock and it is questionable how much machinery would be needed to maintain this amount of land. The application site lies within the Special Landscape Area of Mynydd Parys and adjoins the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is considered that the site is within a prominent location and although adjacent masts are detracting features, it remains a sensitive location. The proposed shed measures 6 metres x 9.6 metres or just under 60m2 in floor area; DEFRA guidelines stipulate 5 sheep per acre meaning that the shed would be sufficient for 30 sheep. However, no evidence or justification has been presented as part of the proposal to show that the building as proposed is necessary in terms of size, location and purpose in connection with an agricultural use, and because it would be intrusive within the landscape it is considered unacceptable with the recommendation therefore being one of refusal.

Councillor Eric Jones speaking from his experience as a farmer said that the Agriculture Ministry requires farmers to provide a place with appropriate facilities to treat animals e.g. when they undergo testing for various diseases. A shed is necessary for agricultural purposes to store fodder/produce and to provide shelter for the animals. The applicant’s intention may be to keep animals over the winter which without a shed is not currently possible. In order to realise the full potential of the animals that are purchased, they must be kept for an additional year - a shed could potentially help the applicant achieve his expectations in terms of the price for his animals.

The Committee in considering the proposal and having heard the representations made by the Local Members indicated that it was minded to approve the application and that it accepted the need for the building for agricultural purposes as intended. The majority of the Committee further considered that in the context of other visibly prominent features on the landscape in the area of the application site, the proposed development would not cause any additional harm especially as landscaping is proposed as screening on the access and surrounding the building which would mitigate any visual effects. For these reasons, the Committee considered the proposal to be compliant with Policy CYFF4 and AMG2 of the Joint Local Development Plan.

Councillor Eric Jones proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Kenneth Hughes seconded the proposal.

Councillor Robin Williams proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor John Griffith.

In the ensuing vote, the proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation was carried.

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because it is deemed to comply with Policies CYFF4 and AMG2 of the JLDP.

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 approving the application.