Agenda item

12.1 VAR/2019/14 – Cae Eithin, Malltraeth

12.2 FPL/2019/98 – Warden House, Awel y Môr, Rhosneigr

12.3 HHP/2019/129 – Tŷ Arfon, Lôn Refail, Llanfairpwll

12.4 FPL/2019/146 – Parc Peibio, Morawelon, Holyhead

12.1    VAR/2019/14 – Application under Section 73A for the deletion of condition (08) (finished floor level) and the variation of condition (11) (plans approved under reserved matters application ref. 15C48J/FR/DA) of outline planning permission reference 15C48H (outline application for the erection of a dwelling together with the construction of a vehicular access) so as to allow for amendments to the siting and design of the previously approved dwelling and detached garage together with the erection of a new perimeter flood defence wall at Cae Eithin, Malltraeth 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of the Local Members due to concerns regarding access and land ownership issues.

Councillor Bryan Owen proposed that a site visit be undertaken because of the concerns regarding access and land ownership. Councillor Owen explained that he believed the application to be a case of putting the cart before the horse as the applicant does not at present have an access to the dwelling and that the Committee should first see the application site before determining the application.

The Development Management Manager clarified that the application is for amendments to the previous outline and reserved matters permission for a dwelling in which the access was shared with Pen Parc, the property next door. A separate private access and driveway to Cae Eithin has been approved as part of a later stand-alone application. However, the application as presented is to vary conditions of permission relating to the dwelling only and is not related to the private access. The reason given for proposing a site visit i.e. access issues is therefore not a valid planning reason for this application which is in connection with changes made to the dwelling.

Councillor Bryan Owen said that the separate access referred to has been created on land not owned by the applicant and that no agreement has been reached between the applicant and the next-door neighbour about purchasing the land. Councillor Owen said that he thought the matter of the access needed to be resolved before this application could be determined since without lawful access the property can’t be used.

The Development Management Manager provided the Committee with some background information and context to the application and, with reference to the site map highlighted the land on which the separate access was situated relative to the land on which the dwelling which is the subject of this application, is located. The separate access was approved as a stand-alone permission and has been the subject of an enforcement investigation for breach of conditions. The Officer further clarified that as part of this application which is to amend the original outline consent which included access, the applicant has served notice on the landowner which means the application can be dealt with otherwise land ownership is not a planning matter.

Public Speaker

Mr Dafydd Jones Russell Hughes (for the application) stated that the only issues relevant to the application are the finished floor level, minor variations in the size and the location of the house and garage on the site being different to that which was given permission, the land ownership issue being a civil matter. These are set out in detail in the Officer’s report. The finished floor level has been built 170mm lower than that agreed between the Planning Department and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) as a safeguard against flooding. As the property has been completed and furnished, raising the floor level from the inside would be extremely difficult and costly so consideration has been given to constructing a small perimeter wall around the property to a height equal to the required level; this has been agreed as adequate by NRW. The other variations relating to the size of the property, and where the property and the garage are sited on the plot are relatively minor in relation to that permitted. The ridge height of the property conforms to the level specified in the planning permission. The applicant is therefore asking for permission to construct a small flood defence wall around the property and for the Committee to consider that the minor alterations to the scheme will not have any negative effects on the natural or built environment with the Officer’s report confirming that neither will there any impact from it on surface water drainage. Mr Russell-Hughes said that as agents for the applicant they had consulted extensively with the Planning Department, NRW and the Flood Management Advisor to submit a planning application which deals satisfactorily with these small changes. The changes have not been made for any personal gain the applicant not being a builder and having to trust others to construct the dwelling in line with the planning permission. From the site’s planning history, it is clear that the applicant has submitted numerous applications to try to ensure that every part of the development is legal. Not having been able to use the property which he has had the right to construct has caused the applicant and his family much mental anguish. It is hoped the Committee will agree with the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

Councillor Peter Rogers, a Local Member stated that this was an application that had been causing conflict over a long period of time; he referred to the discrepancies between the height, finished floor level and siting of the dwelling and those prescribed by the conditions of the original planning consent. These were the subject of an enforcement investigation regarding which information is still awaited. Councillor Rogers also highlighted than many questions in relation to the development and the breaches of planning conditions remain unanswered. The changes in the scale of the dwelling which have added to its height, length and width have resulted in an oversized development the visual impact of which is greater than that indicated on the approved plans permitted under planning conditions. Councillor Rogers highlighted that a major concern is the proposed method of resolving the fact that the proposal has not been constructed in accordance with the finished floor level specified by the planning condition which is by the construction of a perimeter flood defence wall which will serve to exacerbate the development’s visual impact still further as well as its impact on the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property. Councillor Rogers said that the reasons for seeking this approval is in the interest of selecting the most effective solution to a self-made problem. He said he was disappointed that there would be no site visit for he thought the Committee should see for itself what has been the situation on this site for a few years now.

The Development Management Manager reported that with respect to this application the principal concern is the impact of the flood defence wall on visual amenities of the Pen Parc property. She recapped on the planning history of the development and said that an enforcement investigation of breaches of conditions in relation to the separate and stand-alone planning permission for the private access, identified anomalies in respect of the dwelling itself. These relate to the finished floor level, the siting of the dwelling within the plot, increased length and width of the finished dwelling and amended orientation of the garage. Consequently, the application seeks to regularise the matters identified, and should it be approved, the applicant’s agent has indicated that a separate application would be submitted to deal with issues arising in relation to the private access.

The proposal was originally located with an area classified as a C1 flood zone in which development is permitted providing it meets the criteria set out in TAN 15. The finished floor level was therefore set at a minimum of 4.42m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) to safeguard the development and future occupants from flooding for the lifetime of the development. The actual finished floor level of the dwelling is 4.25 AOD, 170 mm lower than the level specified in the condition. In order to address the identified flood risk as a result of the reduced finished floor level, it is proposed that a flood defence wall will be constructed close to and around the entire dwelling. The height of the flood defence will also take account of the reclassification of the area from a C1 to a C2 zone (which would have meant the proposal being recommended for refusal had that been the case originally) meaning that the dwelling will be better protected from flooding events than would have been the case had it been constructed in accordance with the original details. Natural Resources Wales have been consulted as part of the application and raise no objection.

The dwelling is also 250mm longer and 250mm wider than that approved and the garage is now sited such that its front gable faces the new driveway approved as part of the permission for a private access. The Officer said that there is strong opposition locally to the height of the dwelling which the outline planning permission stated should not exceed 6m. The height of the dwelling from the finished floor level as built to ridge is 5.85m which is less than the 6m stipulated in the condition. However, the height of the dwelling from the original ground level to ridge is 7.15m. Whilst condition (10) sets the maximum ridge height at 6m it does not specify whether the measurement should be taken from the finished floor level or from the original ground level and due to the lack of clarity would likely be unenforceable. In light of this and due to the fact that the height from finished floor level does not exceed 6m it is not considered that the condition has been breached. Notwithstanding the concerns locally about the accuracy of the measurements, the principal issue is the effect of the changes along with the proposed flood defence wall in terms of the visual impact of the whole and the impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties. It is the Officer’s opinion as set out in the report, that the variation to the siting and scale of the dwelling and the amendment to the orientation of the garage do not lead to a development that is materially different to that which was originally granted The amendments are considered acceptable and do not give rise to any detrimental impacts upon the character of the area or the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Neither is it considered that the proposed flood defence wall will give rise to any unacceptable visual impact. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes said that having considered all the information presented, he believed a site visit to be necessary in order for Members to assess for themselves the possible effects of the proposal on the amenities of the area and those of neighbouring properties. He therefore proposed, seconded by Councillor Bryan Owen, that the Committee visit the application site.

It was resolved that the Committee undertake a site visit for the reason given.  

12.2    FPL/2019/98 – Full application for the change of use of the existing community room into an affordable residential property at Warden House, Awel y Môr, Rhosneigr

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is submitted by the Council.

The Development Management Manager reported that the proposal entails the change of use of the existing community room at Warden House into a one-bedroom local market dwelling. The proposal is located on a housing estate and provides an opportunity to create a small additional dwelling for the local housing market and is compliant with Policy TAI 5 of the JLDP.

Councillor Bryan Owen proposed the Officer recommendation to approve the application seconded by Councillor Robin Williams.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s report and recommendation subject to the conditions listed therein.

12.3    HHP/2019/129 – Full application for the erection of a detached garage at Tŷ Arfon, Lôn Refail, Llanfairpwll 

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

The Chair said that she understood it was the Local Members’ wish that the application site be visited.

Councillor Bryan Owen proposed, seconded by Councillor Robin Williams that the Committee undertake a site visit in order to better assess the potential effects of the proposal on residential amenity.

It was resolved that the application site be visited in accordance with the Local Members’ request for the reason given.

12.4    FPL/2019/146 – Full application for the change of use of vacant land to play area which includes the installation of play equipment at Parc Peibio, Morawelon, Holyhead 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at it is submitted by the Council.

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

The Development Management Manager reported that the proposal entails re-locating a play area from nearby private land to land owned by the Council. The current play equipment is nearing the end of its useful life but instead of renewing the existing park it is proposed to create a new park approximately 23 metres to the North with the existing park being subsequently removed. One letter of representation has been received which raises concerns on account of privacy, amenity and anti-social behaviour. The Officer said that the proposed play area is 27 metres from the nearest property which is farther than the existing play area and taking this into consideration as well as the fact that the play area will be used by children, it is not considered that the proposal will have any impact on privacy. The area is a large open area available for play and leisure use and it is not considered that the creation of a play area in this location would have any more impact on neighbouring properties than that which already exists. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

Councillor Robin Williams proposed the Officer recommendation to approve the application seconded by Councillor John Griffith.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s report and recommendation subject to the condition noted therein.