Agenda item

7.1  OP/2019/5 – Huws Grey,Bridge Street, Llangefni

7.2  FPL/2019/226 – Fronwen, Newborough

7.1       OP/2019/5 – Outline planning application for the demolition of the existing buildings together with the erection of 52 affordable dwellings with associated developments together with full associated developments together with full details of the vehicular access on land adjacent Huws Grey, Bridge Street, Llangefni

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the application site is located on Council owned land. At the Committee’s meeting held on 2 October, 2019, it was resolved that a site visit was required; the site was subsequently visited on  16th October, 2019.

As she had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Nicola Roberts (Chair) withdrew from the meeting when it was presented. Councillor Richard Owain Jones (Vice-Chair) chaired the item.

The Development Management Manager reported that due to technical issues that have arisen the Officer’s recommendation is now to defer consideration of the application.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed seconded by Councillor Bryan Owen, that consideration of the application be deferred in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reason given.

7.2       FPL/2019/226 – Full application for the siting of three holiday chalets, formation of a new access track, amendments to an existing access together with the installation of a new treatment plant on land at Fronwen, Newborough

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it had been called in to committee by a Local Member. At its meeting on 2nd October, 2019 the Committee resolved to visit the site, and the site visit subsequently took place on 16 October, 2019. 

The Development Management Manager reported that a previous application to site three holiday chalets and to form a new access track in this location was refused in June, 2019 on the grounds that the development did not comply with Policy TWR3 (Static Caravan and Chalet sites and Permanent Alternative Camping) and Policy PS4 (Sustainable Transport, Development and Accessibility) because its location was considered unsustainable being in an isolated position in open countryside and also because it was not considered to be well-sited or high quality development. The original proposal was further considered to have insufficient visibility splay for the proposed access contrary to the requirements of policy. The current application comprises a scheme to improve the visibility splay which the Highways Section has confirmed is acceptable. The key planning issues in considering the application above therefore remain the sustainability of the development under the provisions of Policy PS4 and whether it can be considered to be a high quality development under the provisions of Policy TWR3.

The Officer said that Policy PS4 states that development will be located so as to minimise the need to travel especially by motor vehicles. Policy TWR 3 supports tourist developments as long as they are of high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance. The proposal as presented does not include any associated facilities apart from the chalets themselves. The draft SPG on Tourism Facilities and Accommodation is clear that  proposals for caravans or single standalone chalets in an agricultural field or within the curtilage of a private residence without any associated facilities are not considered high quality development and do not therefore align with Policy TWR 3. Such developments do not enrich the quality of the tourism offering in the area of the plan and the cumulative effects of such developments could have a negative impact on the landscape. The Officer highlighted that although the scale of the holiday chalet buildings has been reduced, the layout and siting remain substantially the same as those under the previous application constituting a linear form in an isolated position in the countryside without any associated facilities. This being so they are not considered to represent high quality development in accordance with the policy and supplementary guidance. Notwithstanding the proposed development is close to the main highway network that is the B4421, the nearest settlement is around 1km to the south west at Newborough accessed via the B4421 which is a 60mph road with no pavements or lighting making this an unsustainable location under the provisions of both local and national policies. The Officer’s recommendation is therefore to refuse the application

Councillor Bryan Owen speaking as a Local Member said that the acceptability of the development under the provisions of policy depends on how those policies are read and interpreted. The site visit had shown that the application site is not far from a cluster of houses, and that in Newborough which is approximately 1.5 miles away there are a number of businesses and amenities that depend on tourism. Councillor Owen highlighted that Policy TWR 3 does not exclude this type of development, and that the proposed development in his opinion could be considered high quality in line with the requirements of the SPG. Additionally, in the development’s favour is its location on the main bus route, that it lies outside any Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that it does not adversely affect the surrounding landscape in the same way as the obtrusive telephone mast located to the rear of the proposed development site.  In light of these considerations he could not see how the proposal could be rejected and he asked the Committee to support the application.

Councillors Eric Jones and Kenneth Hughes expressed their support for the application citing the importance of tourism to the economy and prosperity of Anglesey and referring also to the proposal’s potential to contribute to the local job market.  Councillor Hughes highlighted that Policy TWR 3 does permit holiday chalets in this type of location and that the arguments for and against the proposal is a matter of opinion; this being so it was his opinion that the case for the proposal outweighs the case against. The proposal’s location in the countryside is what makes such developments attractive to tourists wishing to escape the noise of towns and cities. Given the centrality of tourism to the Island he felt it  behoved the Committee to take advantage of every opportunity within policy such as the proposed development, to support the people of Anglesey and not to undermine their commitment to contribute to a prosperous Island. He felt that approving the application was reasonable under the provisions of Policy TWR 3 and on that basis he proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Eric Jones seconded the proposal.

Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes in indicating his support for the application, expressed some reservations about the potential for further development within the field to the front of the application site. He sought clarification of whether it would be possible to impose a condition prohibiting further development.

The Development Management Manager advised that it was not possible to impose such a restriction on the land in question; if the Committee was to accept the principle of the application site being suitable for this type of development under Policy TWR3, then she could not provide any assurance that there would be no intent to extend in future. The Officer  clarified also that the reference in the report to the sustainability of the proposal’s location is made in relation to transport and the need to minimise travel. She further confirmed that there had been no objections to the application locally.

Councillor John Griffith agreed with the Officer’s perspective saying that the site visit had shown that the proposed development would be sited deep in the open countryside separate from any facilities or dwellings. He referred to the Officer’s report and to the reasons given for refusing the previous application which related to the proposal’s isolated location, its not being considered high quality and because it was believed that because of its location it undermined the Welsh Government’s commitment to sustainability. Councillor John Griffith was concerned that approving the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation could set a precedent thereby opening the door to other similar applications on the Island. He therefore proposed, seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones, that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

In the ensuing vote on the matter, the proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that it was deemed acceptable under Policy TWR 3, was carried.

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because it is deemed acceptable under the provisions of Policy TWR3. (Councillor Bryan Owen did not vote on the matter)

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.